• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does the average citizen harbor envy/jealousy, hatred for the extremely wealthy?

Does the average citizen harbor envy/jealousy, hatred for the extremely wealthy?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 33.3%

  • No

    Votes: 24 66.7%
  • Total voters
    36
Jeezy said:
I'm aware of what median income is, and depending on whether you mean lower or upper middle class, it can range from 75 to 150 percent of the median -- right around what we need. It's a perfectly valid graph to all but hair-splitters, seeing as how there is no textbook definition of what the middle class even is.

Also, be aware that the "top 400 families" in a nation of this size and wealth is a ridiculous measure. The top 400 will always be disproportionate. A much more sensible measure is quintiles --- and as you can see, the rate for the top quintile is higher than 16. I think THIS graph is what tessaesque was referring to when she said that top earners pay 30%. And essentially, she's right.

19752005_3.gif
Click to expand...

As I do not know the source of your graph, nor the monetary representations of any of those quintile groups .. perhaps you could provide that info in a graph and cite your source? Additionally, its funny how you decided to avoid setting a definition for the middle class (other than the unreliable median measurement) in order to compare them to the top 5%.

Again, it's not that I disagree or agree with what you are saying, I am just asking for source cited data using appropriate statistical measurements. There's nothing wrong with including several statistics in one post, e.g. average, mode, median etc. ... just try to avoid using only one measurement, as that can often lead to misleading conclusions.
 
It's blurry but the bottom left corner says CBO.

I avoided setting a definition because there is none. No one agrees as to precisely what the middle class is. That being said, calling the median an "unreliable" measure is pushing it.
 
Last edited:
Jeezy said:
It's blurry but the bottom left corner says CBO.

I avoided setting a definition because there is none. No one agrees as to precisely what the middle class is. That being said, calling the median an "unreliable" measure is pushing it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, poor choice of words on my behalf ... I meant unrepresentative
 
Yeah, posters on the right make this accusation all the time. They often try to paint it as though liberals are poor people who hate the rich and want to take their money from them for themselves.

Obviously it is ridiculous. What policy people think is the most sensible isn't necessarily a function of their own self interest. I have worked as a dishwasher and bus boy in a small town and as the director of a department in a software company in silicon valley, but I've supported the same tax policy throughout.

As far as the notion that it is about hating rich people, that is just as silly. It isn't like paying fair taxes would hurt the wealthy. It wouldn't have much any impact on them at all. Certainly much less of an impact than taxes have on middle class people. Besides, the wealthy currently pay much LOWER tax rates than the rest of us, so even if it did hurt them, it would just be them taking on the same sort of pain the rest of us have to accept.

Instead of hate for the rich it is about love for the country as a whole. Our current tax scheme where the rich pay such absurdly low tax rates compared to everybody else is bad for the country. It hurts many, many, people. We have had to cut our safety back to smaller than what any other first world country has, but we're still running a huge deficits. We're getting screwed on both ends- we aren't getting as much back from government as people in other countries do, but we're taking on more debt than people on other countries have to to pay for it. Anybody who cares about the well being of the country as a whole should oppose that, right? Well, the solution is to fix the inexplicable special tax breaks the uberwealthy get.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
As I do not know the source of your graph, nor the monetary representations of any of those quintile groups .. perhaps you could provide that info in a graph and cite your source? Additionally, its funny how you decided to avoid setting a definition for the middle class (other than the unreliable median measurement) in order to compare them to the top 5%.

Again, it's not that I disagree or agree with what you are saying, I am just asking for source cited data using appropriate statistical measurements. There's nothing wrong with including several statistics in one post, e.g. average, mode, median etc. ... just try to avoid using only one measurement, as that can often lead to misleading conclusions.
Click to expand...

You're splitting hairs...why? Ask the IRS what the definition is for "middle class". For many politicians, it seems it's anybody below 250k and above the poverty line. That seems a little broad, doesn't it? What's YOUR definition? Also, the graph provides it's source, the CBO. Right down there at the bottom.
 
teamosil said:
Yeah, posters on the right make this accusation all the time. They often try to paint it as though liberals are poor people who hate the rich and want to take their money from them for themselves.

Obviously it is ridiculous. What policy people think is the most sensible isn't necessarily a function of their own self interest. I have worked as a dishwasher and bus boy in a small town and as the director of a department in a software company in silicon valley, but I've supported the same tax policy throughout.

As far as the notion that it is about hating rich people, that is just as silly. It isn't like paying fair taxes would hurt the wealthy. It wouldn't have much any impact on them at all. Certainly much less of an impact than taxes have on middle class people. Besides, the wealthy currently pay much LOWER tax rates than the rest of us, so even if it did hurt them, it would just be them taking on the same sort of pain the rest of us have to accept.

Instead of hate for the rich it is about love for the country as a whole. Our current tax scheme where the rich pay such absurdly low tax rates compared to everybody else is bad for the country. It hurts many, many, people. We have had to cut our safety back to smaller than what any other first world country has, but we're still running a huge deficits. We're getting screwed on both ends- we aren't getting as much back from government as people in other countries do, but we're taking on more debt than people on other countries have to to pay for it. Anybody who cares about the well being of the country as a whole should oppose that, right? Well, the solution is to fix the inexplicable special tax breaks the uberwealthy get.
Click to expand...

Well,

1. The graphs Jeezy posted refute your claim that the rich have a lower tax rate, and
2. What's "Fair"? I keep asking, and nobody will answer.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Sorry, poor choice of words on my behalf ... I meant unrepresentative
Click to expand...

It's been representative/mostly unchanged since the late 80s.

EDIT- 700TH POST.
 
Actually most don't just a few ****ing clowns who couldn't make it if they tried.... "ding fries are done".....
 
Jeezy said:
A much more sensible measure is quintiles --- and as you can see, the rate for the top quintile is higher than 16. I think THIS graph is what tessaesque was referring to when she said that top earners pay 30%. And essentially, she's right.

19752005_3.gif
Click to expand...

That is highly misleading. It is dividing the people into quintiles based on taxable income and comparing it to the income taxes. Income taxes- meaning taxes on wages- are indeed progressive. But, the wealthy mostly don't work or make a very small portion of their income in the form of wages. They make most their income off of investments or inheritance. On that chart, somebody who made $100 million last year off their investments would be in the lowest quintile.

Likewise, it only shows the income taxes paid, not sales or property taxes, FICA, vehicle taxes, unemployment insurance taxes, disability, etc. Where income taxes are progressive, those other taxes are regressive.

So, basically it is a graph engineered to make it look like the wealthy are paying more taxes than the rest of us- it doesn't include the biggest forms of income the wealthy have and it excludes the biggest taxes the rest of us pay. Whenever you hear a source talking about who pays how much taxes, watch for example what kind of income they're considering and what kind of taxes they're talking about.

If you include ALL types of income and ALL types of taxes, then you get a bell curve. The poor and the rich pay the lowest percentages, the middle class the most, with the upper middle class being the peak at about 43% and the poor and rich both coming in at around 17%. The overall national average is 27%.
 
teamosil said:
That is highly misleading. It is dividing the people into quintiles based on taxable income and comparing it to the income taxes. Income taxes- meaning taxes on wages- are indeed progressive. But, the wealthy mostly don't work or make a very small portion of their income in the form of wages. They make most their income off of investments or inheritance. On that chart, somebody who made $100 million last year off their investments would be in the lowest quintile.

Likewise, it only shows the income taxes paid, not sales or property taxes, FICA, vehicle taxes, unemployment insurance taxes, disability, etc. Where income taxes are progressive, those other taxes are regressive.

So, basically it is a graph engineered to make it look like the wealthy are paying more taxes than the rest of us- it doesn't include the biggest forms of income the wealthy have and it excludes the biggest taxes the rest of us pay. Whenever you hear a source talking about who pays how much taxes, watch for example what kind of income they're considering and what kind of taxes they're talking about.

If you include ALL types of income and ALL types of taxes, then you get a bell curve. The poor and the rich pay the lowest percentages, the middle class the most, with the upper middle class being the peak at about 43% and the poor and rich both coming in at around 17%. The overall national average is 27%.
Click to expand...

So the wealthy don't pay FICA, own property, own vehicles, or buy anything???
 
tessaesque said:
1. The graphs Jeezy posted refute your claim that the rich have a lower tax rate, and
Click to expand...

Answered above.

tessaesque said:
2. What's "Fair"? I keep asking, and nobody will answer.
Click to expand...

That's kind of like asking somebody to define the best football strategy or something. There isn't an answer. What is a fair rate one year might not be fair the next, like a particular passing play might be the best strategy against a particular opponent while a running strategy is better against another opponent on a windy day or whatever. In the middle of WWII, fair would obviously be a lot higher. If we are struggling to get enough investment in a particular year and our budget was looking ok, fair might be lower because we would rather they invest more of the money. When our national debt is high, fair would be higher. If we're in the middle of the great depression and we're struggling just to get everybody enough food to eat, fair is whatever the hell is needed, but when we're generally living pretty high on the hog and running a surplus, fair is probably just enough to keep us from sliding into deficit.

It isn't like there is one set percentage that is always going to be the right one. When times are tough, everybody has to chip in more. When times are good, everybody has to chip in less. When our nation faces problems caused by a lack of investment, we might want to shift the tax burdens down a bit. When we face problems with low consumer spending and dangerous rich/normal gaps, then we want to shift it up a bit. "Fair tax rates" are tax rates that spread the weight of whatever challenges we're facing as a country around in a reasonable manner. I can't simplify it any more than that really.
 
teamosil said:
That is highly misleading. It is dividing the people into quintiles based on taxable income and comparing it to the income taxes. Income taxes- meaning taxes on wages- are indeed progressive. But, the wealthy mostly don't work or make a very small portion of their income in the form of wages. They make most their income off of investments or inheritance. On that chart, somebody who made $100 million last year off their investments would be in the lowest quintile.

Likewise, it only shows the income taxes paid, not sales or property taxes, FICA, vehicle taxes, unemployment insurance taxes, disability, etc. Where income taxes are progressive, those other taxes are regressive.

So, basically it is a graph engineered to make it look like the wealthy are paying more taxes than the rest of us- it doesn't include the biggest forms of income the wealthy have and it excludes the biggest taxes the rest of us pay. Whenever you hear a source talking about who pays how much taxes, watch for example what kind of income they're considering and what kind of taxes they're talking about.

If you include ALL types of income and ALL types of taxes, then you get a bell curve. The poor and the rich pay the lowest percentages, the middle class the most, with the upper middle class being the peak at about 43% and the poor and rich both coming in at around 17%. The overall national average is 27%.
Click to expand...

....you do realize that the capital gains tax is an income tax, right? And that the term "income tax" does not mean "taxes on wage" right? And that estates and trusts are also subject to income taxes, right?

And that the graph accounts for that, right?

Of course you do, of course you do...

But on the offchance that you don't you should probably re-assess what my graph means. As should the people who liked your post.
 
Last edited:
teamosil said:
Answered above.



That's kind of like asking somebody to define the best football strategy or something. There isn't an answer. What is a fair rate one year might not be fair the next, like a particular passing play might be the best strategy against a particular opponent while a running strategy is better against another opponent on a windy day or whatever. In the middle of WWII, fair would obviously be a lot higher. If we are struggling to get enough investment in a particular year and our budget was looking ok, fair might be lower because we would rather they invest more of the money. When our national debt is high, fair would be higher. If we're in the middle of the great depression and we're struggling just to get everybody enough food to eat, fair is whatever the hell is needed, but when we're generally living pretty high on the hog and running a surplus, fair is probably just enough to keep us from sliding into deficit.

It isn't like there is one set percentage that is always going to be the right one. When times are tough, everybody has to chip in more. When times are good, everybody has to chip in less. When our nation faces problems caused by a lack of investment, we might want to shift the tax burdens down a bit. When we face problems with low consumer spending and dangerous rich/normal gaps, then we want to shift it up a bit. "Fair tax rates" are tax rates that spread the weight of whatever challenges we're facing as a country around in a reasonable manner. I can't simplify it any more than that really.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is...any time something the rich have no control over happens, we need to hike up their financial obligation to take care of it. And that's "fair" because....?
 
tessaesque said:
So what you're saying is...any time something the rich have no control over happens, we need to hike up their financial obligation to take care of it. And that's "fair" because....?
Click to expand...

Because all "rich" people are responsible for things, they had nothing to do with.
Just more scape goating.
 
tessaesque said:
So the wealthy don't pay FICA, own property, own vehicles, or buy anything???
Click to expand...

FICA taxes stop at $106,000. All income after that and all capital gains income is free of FICA taxes. That's what creates the disparity.
 
Jeezy said:
....you do realize that the capital gains tax is an income tax, right? And that the term "income tax" does not mean "taxes on wage" right? And that estates and trusts are also subject to income taxes, right?

And that the graph accounts for that, right?

Of course you do, of course you do...

But on the offchance that you don't you should probably re-assess what my graph means. As should the people who liked your post.
Click to expand...

The Very Rich Are Different–They Pay A Lower Tax Rate - Janet Novack - Taxing Matters - Forbes

And Forbes Magazine - obviously known for their anti-rich and bleeding heart liberal bias - disagrees with you.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
There seems to be an ongoing theme set by some that generally, those who care about the greater good of society and propose that a fair share of taxes be imposed on the extremely wealthy, are actually extremely envious/jealous and harbor hatred for the extremely wealthy. Supposedly, this is the reason these humanitarians propose a fair tax on the extremely wealthy. So let’s see what everyone thinks. :lol:
Click to expand...

Again?

Where's the "yes, if they're liberal" option? :2razz:
 
Last edited:
tessaesque said:
This is why I absolutely hate the progressive income tax.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong.
A mildly progressive income tax isn't horrible but the problem lies in blame.

The "rich" are easiest target, historically speaking.
Politicians use them to their own end.

I'd say this is the primary reason, I hate democracy.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The "rich" are easiest target, historically speaking.
Politicians use them to their own end.
Click to expand...

You seem to be ignoring all the other scapegoats politicians have used throughout history. The rich, historically, have had it pretty good. In terms of scapegoating, immigrants, Jews, Roma, "Barbarians" and other groups have had it much worse than the rich, historically speaking.

Indeed, historically speaking, the rich are hardly an "easy target" for scapegoating, considering their access to resources and protection. It is precisely why those without such resources have been much easier to scapegoat than rich people.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
You seem to be ignoring all the other scapegoats politicians have used throughout history. The rich, historically, have had it pretty good. In terms of scapegoating, immigrants, Jews, Roma, "Barbarians" and other groups have had it much worse than the rich, historically speaking.
Click to expand...

The rich will always have it better, historically speaking.
They're rich but people associate rich with old world monarchs, things like that.

P.S. the Jews were a wealthier group.

Guy Incognito said:
Indeed, historically speaking, the rich are hardly an "easy target" for scapegoating, considering their access to resources and protection. It is precisely why those without such resources have been much easier to scapegoat than rich people.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the rich now, are not the rich monarchs of the past.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
P.S. the Jews were a wealthier group.
Click to expand...

Hardly. You're just buying into a stereotype. Historically, the Jews have been disenfranchised and downtrodden for thousands of years.

You opened up a can of worms when you said "historically speaking," Harry. Your words, not mine. History only knows one truth, and it isn't open to BS. Just admit that you overshot the mark. The rich have, historically speaking, not been "easy targets for politicians."
 
FilmFestGuy said:
The Very Rich Are Different–They Pay A Lower Tax Rate - Janet Novack - Taxing Matters - Forbes

And Forbes Magazine - obviously known for their anti-rich and bleeding heart liberal bias - disagrees with you.
Click to expand...

Here's where it pays to actually KEEP TRACK of an argument before you interject:

He said my graph did not account for things at all. My graph. About income quintiles. I retorted that it doe.

You replied with an article about the 400 richest families, having nothing to do with what I posted. Again, the top 400 in a nation of hundreds of millions, and a GDP of trillions, are a very silly benchmark for where the middle class "should" be. Their ability to under-report their immense wealth alone will always keep them ahead. Never once did I dispute that capital gains taxes should be higher in the future, or that loopholes should be closed. My graph was meant to show where the middle class actually stands, not how much David Koch should obey the law.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom