• 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
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

That would be fine and all - if it weren't for the fact that the rich own moat of the politicians and thanks to Citizens United, their influence will only grow larger.

****, let's just sell naming rights to the Capital Building. At least that would be honest.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
If you make $100,000 you pay approximately 6% of your income in FICA taxes.

If you make $87 million (which is the average earnings of the Top 400), you pay approximately .000007% of your income in FICA taxes.

See how 6% is significantly more than .000007%?

See how that can throw things off a bit.

Again: The Very Rich Are Different–They Pay A Lower Tax Rate - Janet Novack - Taxing Matters - Forbes
Click to expand...

Does the person with $87 million need to pay a tax for something that they will never need?
Like SS, SSD?
 
Last edited:
tessaesque said:
So the wealthy don't pay FICA, own property, own vehicles, or buy anything???
Click to expand...

No, they definitely do, but they pay those things on a much smaller portion of their income. That's why they're regressive. For example, FICA only applies to the first $100k worth of wages you earn in a year. So, a person who makes all their money investing wouldn't pay it at all, and a person who made $10M in wages would only pay FICA on 1% of their income. Likewise, sales taxes are regressive because the more money somebody has, the lower the percentage of their income they spend on taxable goods. For example, a person making $30k/year might need to spend almost all of it on food, clothes, transportation, etc, so they are paying sales tax on a large portion of their income. A person that makes $10m/year might only spend 10% of their income on taxable goods, so they would only be paying sales tax on a small portion of their income. That's what "regressive" means- that it takes a lower percentage of rich people's income than of regular people's income.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
See, here is where you are wrong and I think a LOT of Americans believe this.

If you make more than $373,651, your top tax rate is 35%.

Someone making $1 million doesn't pay $350,000 in taxes. They pay 10% on the first $8,000; 15% on their income up to $34,000; and so on.

Only the money over $373,651 is taxed at 35%.

Also, they stop paying payroll taxes on income above $106,800.

The top 400 families pay an effective tax rate of 16.6% - nearly the same as someone making $30,000. And they make, on average, $87 million a year.

Tax Rate for Richest 400 Taxpayers Plummeted in Recent Decades, Even as Their Pre-Tax Incomes Skyrocketed — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

It's not envy. It's about fairness. If we have a progressive tax system (and was ALWAYS have), then it should be progressive. Payroll taxes and loopholes result in the richest Americans paying a rate much lower than the middle class.

The people who pay the highest tax rates are those making around $100,000, an amount I firmly consider to be upper-middle class. From about $350,000 on, the effective tax rate declines and declines and declines.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
That would be fine and all - if it weren't for the fact that the rich own moat of the politicians and thanks to Citizens United, their influence will only grow larger.

****, let's just sell naming rights to the Capital Building. At least that would be honest.
Click to expand...

Yea yea, why do other lobby groups get left out of this, when their ends are just as bad, selfish, etc as these "rich" people?
 
People need to let go of this idea that possessions and money make you happy, or somehow make society better if everybody has equal share of resources. So long as you have what you need to get by(food, clothing, shelter), your attitude is what makes your own happiness. I've spent the better portion of my life in the lower parts of the income brackets. What the rich have had access to all those years made no difference to me. Wealth should be measured in life's experiences, not how much money you or someone else has.

I don't know that there is that much hatred for the rich, but there is envy because we have conditioned ourselves to believe that possession and access to any resource one wants is the measure of success. I disagree.
 
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...

I mean, life isn't magic. Sometimes times are better than others. When times are tougher, we all have to pitch in more and help out... That's just how the world works. If you're living on a farm with two other people you wouldn't demand that they specify exactly how many hours you are going to be expected to work each day and then get mad if they ask you to work more, right? If there is a flood, you work more. If the cows get loose, you work until you get them back. If there isn't much that needs doing, you work less. There isn't anything I can do to change that fundamental reality.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yea yea, why do other lobby groups get left out of this, when their ends are just as bad, selfish, etc as these "rich" people?
Click to expand...

It's foolish to get worked up about Citizens United, it just demonstrates an ignorance of law when somebody claims Citizens United is going to lead to some sort of dystopic corporatocracy. It merely extends the right to free speech to groups of people.

The problem with corporations having excessive influence, and an unfair distorting effect on the free market, is directly traceable to the coercive protection agreements that corporations have with government, in the form of corporate tort-liability shields. Absent this coercive protection arrangement, corporations would have no extraordinary influence whatsoever, and would be like any other honest business. As it stands, from a libertarian perspective, corporations are no better than any other protection racket.
 
Guy Incognito said:
It's foolish to get worked up about Citizens United, it just demonstrates an ignorance of law when somebody claims Citizens United is going to lead to some sort of dystopic corporatocracy. It merely extends the right to free speech to groups of people.

The problem with corporations having excessive influence, and an unfair distorting effect on the free market, is directly traceable to the coercive protection agreements that corporations have with government, in the form of corporate tort-liability shields. Absent this coercive protection arrangement, corporations would have no extraordinary influence whatsoever, and would be like any other honest business. As it stands, from a libertarian perspective, corporations are no better than any other protection racket.
Click to expand...

Completely agree.
 
Catawba said:
I was just accused of this very thing by a far-right poster because of my position regarding the growing wealth disparity in the US.
Click to expand...
Well that could have been anybody. :lol:

Catawba said:
The thing is I do not hate, or envy, the wealthy. I am very happy with my standard of living. Great wealth is not necessary to have a happy and comfortable life. But I see too many who are not so fortunate. As has been pointed out, this is the greatest disparity in wealth between the upper and lower classes since 1920 and before that in the 1880's in the days of the robber barons. In 2009, one in seven Americans lived in poverty. Unless we desire to become a third world nation, we need to rethink our regressive changes that have been made to our progressive tax system that have transferred too much much wealth to the top without job production.
Click to expand...
I see it differently. I see it with you as envy, not for yourself, but in some social justice type of way built upon your ideology. I know you truly believe that the wealthy should be forced to provide for those who have less than them in some sort of global fairness that supposed to cosmically occur. Life just isn't fair.
 
WI Crippler said:
People need to let go of this idea that possessions and money make you happy, or somehow make society better if everybody has equal share of resources. So long as you have what you need to get by(food, clothing, shelter), your attitude is what makes your own happiness. I've spent the better portion of my life in the lower parts of the income brackets. What the rich have had access to all those years made no difference to me. Wealth should be measured in life's experiences, not how much money you or someone else has.

I don't know that there is that much hatred for the rich, but there is envy because we have conditioned ourselves to believe that possession and access to any resource one wants is the measure of success. I disagree.
Click to expand...



QFT..... I could lose everything I have to day and be just as happy. :pimpdaddy:
 
FilmFestGuy said:
That would be fine and all - if it weren't for the fact that the rich own moat of the politicians and thanks to Citizens United, their influence will only grow larger.

****, let's just sell naming rights to the Capital Building. At least that would be honest.
Click to expand...

It's not like the politicians don't pander to the wealthy for donations or anything... right? The way you make it sound is as if the wealthy are breaking the law all the time. So who owns Obama? How about Joe Biden? Nancy Pelosi? Same people who own Boener? Is the illuminati involved?
 
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?
Click to expand...

No, that isn't true. You have an income tax rate based on your wages only. That goes up as high as 35% in the top bracket. Investment income is not taxed under those taxes. Then you have a capital gains tax. That only goes up to 15%. One could refer to the capital gains tax as a type of income tax, but that isn't how the federal government treats it. The federal government treats them as different taxes and the source of your graph is the CBO. But, if you have a source saying that in this case they did lump them together, by all means, let me know.

Also, note that your chart only talks about federal taxes, not total taxes.

But, probably most importantly, your chart isn't detailed enough to address what we're talking about. Many people in the top 20% do pay high taxes- that includes the upper middle class, who pay the highest taxes. It's really the top 1% that are enjoying all the tax breaks for the rich.
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
QFT..... I could lose everything I have to day and be just as happy. :pimpdaddy:
Click to expand...

Same here, but that isn't the point. And people trying to make it the point are misdirecting.

Oh, and I realized that the $87 million figure I was quoting was dated to 2005.

According to the Forbes article, in five years, the average income for the Top 400 earners has gone from $87 million to $345 million. And that's after the Great Recession.

What's happened in the meantime to the average working person between 2005 and 2010? Nothing. Either they've lost their job or their wages have remained stagnant. Meantime, the Top 400 are making three times what they made.

Those poor, poor victims of a massive government. Will God not think of these 400 and save them from this evil nation?

Why is there no sympathy for their plight? They are martyrs in the name of Capitalism and should be worshiped as such. Because a slight tax increase is tantamount to murder.
 
Ockham said:
It's not like the politicians don't pander to the wealthy for donations or anything... right? The way you make it sound is as if the wealthy are breaking the law all the time. So who owns Obama? How about Joe Biden? Nancy Pelosi? Same people who own Boener? Is the illuminati involved?
Click to expand...

I didn't specify a party.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Same here, but that isn't the point. And people trying to make it the point are misdirecting.

Oh, and I realized that the $87 million figure I was quoting was dated to 2005.

According to the Forbes article, in five years, the average income for the Top 400 earners has gone from $87 million to $345 million. And that's after the Great Recession.

What's happened in the meantime to the average working person between 2005 and 2010? Nothing. Either they've lost their job or their wages have remained stagnant. Meantime, the Top 400 are making three times what they made.

Those poor, poor victims of a massive government. Will God not think of these 400 and save them from this evil nation?

Why is there no sympathy for their plight? They are martyrs in the name of Capitalism and should be worshiped as such. Because a slight tax increase is tantamount to murder.
Click to expand...



The Good Reverend is not in the top 400...... I don't care what they make, I am doing fine... If you were talking only about the top 400, you would be more honest in your debate, fact is, when we talk of the "rich" we talk about those making over 150k according to left wing loon specifics... therefore, talking about "400" people is dishonest at best.
 
WI Crippler said:
People need to let go of this idea that possessions and money make you happy, or somehow make society better if everybody has equal share of resources. So long as you have what you need to get by(food, clothing, shelter), your attitude is what makes your own happiness. I've spent the better portion of my life in the lower parts of the income brackets. What the rich have had access to all those years made no difference to me. Wealth should be measured in life's experiences, not how much money you or someone else has.

I don't know that there is that much hatred for the rich, but there is envy because we have conditioned ourselves to believe that possession and access to any resource one wants is the measure of success. I disagree.
Click to expand...

Many people don't have what they need. That's sort of the point.
 
teamosil said:
No, that isn't true. You have an income tax rate based on your wages only. That goes up as high as 35% in the top bracket. Investment income is not taxed under those taxes. Then you have a capital gains tax. That only goes up to 15%. One could refer to the capital gains tax as a type of income tax, but that isn't how the federal government treats it. The federal government treats them as different taxes and the source of your graph is the CBO. But, if you have a source saying that in this case they did lump them together, by all means, let me know.
Click to expand...

Go back and look at my graph. It says "income taxes" not "income tax on wages." Capital gains taxes are defined as an income taxes. Individuals and corporations pay income tax on the net total of all their capital gains...the same tax that was slashed via the Bush Tax Cuts. Yes, the rate is different on capital gains as opposed to wages.. But it's still classified as income tax by the government. So I'm still right.

What you're thinking of is "ordinary income tax."

Also, note that your chart only talks about federal taxes, not total taxes.
Click to expand...

Note that your argument makes no sense, seeing as how each state has a different tax structure and we'd have to differentiate between all 50. Property taxes vary insanely. Sales taxes on goods are often levied by more than one state. It would be downright stupid to calculate an average state tax burden.

But, probably most importantly, your chart isn't detailed enough to address what we're talking about. Many people in the top 20% do pay high taxes- that includes the upper middle class, who pay the highest taxes. It's really the top 1% that are enjoying all the tax breaks for the rich.
Click to expand...

If you've been reading my posts for the past few pages, you'd know that it IS what I'm talking about. The top 1% in an economy of trillions, in a nation of hundreds of millions, is a ridiculous measure of what the middle class "should" have in relation. The sheer size and complexity of their wealth, along with their highly paid accountants, makes it easy to under-report and hide income. Besides, I never said that loopholes for the top 400 shouldn't be closed.

So again, you're talking about nothing.
 
Last edited:
Jeezy said:
Go back and look at my graph. It says "income taxes" not "income tax on wages." Capital gains taxes are defined as an income taxes. Individuals and corporations pay income tax on the net total of all their capital gains...the same tax that was slashed via the Bush Tax Cuts.

So I'm still right.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that when an individual sells stock that they have held, say for 2 years, they pay regular income taxes on the profits? Like, 30% or whatever? Because that is most definitely incorrect. They pay long term capital gains taxes only and those cap out at 15%.

Or are you just saying that you would call the capital gains tax an "income tax", so you assume that it is included in the chart? If that's what you're saying, you could be right, but I doubt it. Usually the government breaks down capital gains, corporate income taxes, estate taxes and income taxes as four separate categories of taxes. That's why, for example, when politicians talk about raising or cutting "income taxes" that has no effect on capital gains taxes.

But, who knows, maybe for the purposes of that chart they lumped some of that stuff together to make it more readable or something. If you think that is the case, by all means, lets see a source confirming that.

Jeezy said:
If you've been reading my posts for the past few pages, you'd know that it IS what I'm talking about. The top 1% in an economy of trillions, in a nation of hundreds of millions, is a ridiculous measure of what the middle class "should" have in relation. The sheer size and complexity of their wealth, along with their highly paid accountants, makes it easy to under-report and hide income. Besides, I never said that loopholes for the top 400 shouldn't be closed.

So again, you're talking about nothing.
Click to expand...

That top 1% owns 43% of all the wealth in the country. To argue that we shouldn't even bother figuring out if they are paying a reasonable share of the taxes strikes me as totally absurd. That is perhaps the most important political issue out there right now- they aren't paying anywhere near their fair share. They're getting MASSIVE tax breaks and cheating on their taxes and exploiting loopholes and it is costing us hundreds of billions of dollars a year. We can't afford to keep floating them that extra cheese.
 
teamosil said:
I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that when an individual sells stock that they have held, say for 2 years, they pay regular income taxes on the profits? Like, 30% or whatever? Because that is most definitely incorrect. They pay long term capital gains taxes only and those cap out at 15%.
Click to expand...

No, doofus.

Or are you just saying that you would call the capital gains tax an "income tax", so you assume that it is included in the chart? If that's what you're saying, you could be right, but I doubt it. Usually the government breaks down capital gains, corporate income taxes, estate taxes and income taxes as four separate categories of taxes. That's why, for example, when politicians talk about raising or cutting "income taxes" that has no effect on capital gains taxes.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

What politicians say is not what the tax code says. Capitals gains taxation is a federal income tax. The classification of the income being taxed is one thing, but it's still an income tax. The character of the income is different, and hence the rate is different...but it's an income tax. When any credible federal source says "this accounts for income, sales, and excise taxes" that's what they mean.

But, who knows, maybe for the purposes of that chart they lumped some of that stuff together to make it more readable or something. If you think that is the case, by all means, lets see a source confirming that.
Click to expand...

Publication 17 (2010), Your Federal Income Tax

See that part under "Your Federal Income Tax" that says CAPITAL GAINS?...

That top 1% owns 43% of all the wealth in the country. To argue that we shouldn't even bother figuring out if they are paying a reasonable share of the taxes strikes me as totally absurd. That is perhaps the most important political issue out there right now- they aren't paying anywhere near their fair share. They're getting MASSIVE tax breaks and cheating on their taxes and exploiting loopholes and it is costing us hundreds of billions of dollars a year. We can't afford to keep floating them that extra cheese.
Click to expand...

Who argued that we shouldn't figure out if THEY are paying a reasonable share? Did I argue that? Show me where.

My point was that THEIR taxes are not a sign of what "rich people" are paying. They are not even a sign of what the top 20% in this country are paying. Their tax rate is NOT a sign of what is happening to the middle and upper classes at large. The sheer volume of their money makes it very easy for them to hide their earnings. Should they pay more? Yes. But that's a matter of complicity, not "EVERYONE NEEDS TO GIVE YOUR FAIR SHARE." That's why the Bush Tax Cuts need to expire, and certain loopholes need to be closed.

And by the way...the top 1% that owns 43% of all the wealth in the country? They paid 40% of all income taxes in the nation in 2007, and that number has gotten higher in years since. Is it as much as a poorer man relative to their income? No. But they pay it.
 
Last edited:
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...

Excellent post Tea! As usual you get right to the heart of the matter! :sun
 
Jeezy said:
What politicians say is not what the tax code says. Capitals gains taxation is a federal income tax. The classification of the income being taxed is one thing, but it's still an income tax. The character of the income is different, and hence the rate is different...but it's an income tax. When any credible federal source says "income tax" that's what they mean.

Publication 17 (2010), Your Federal Income Tax

See that part under "Your Federal Income Tax" that says CAPITAL GAINS?...
Click to expand...

Ah, I think I get the confusion. Actual income taxes- the thing that caps out at 35%- DO include short term capital gains. If you buy stock and sell it in less than a year, your profits are treated as income. But, if you hold it longer than a year, then it is NOT reported as income. It falls under the long term capital gains tax instead, which caps out at 15%. Short term capital gains, being counted as regular income, is very possibly included in that chart, but long term capital gains would not be.

Jeezy said:
Who argued that we shouldn't figure out if THEY are paying a reasonable share? Did I argue that? Show me where.

My point was that THEIR taxes are not a sign of what "rich people" are paying. They are not even a sign of what the top 20% in this country are paying. My whole point was that their tax rate is NOT a sign of what is happening to the middle and upper classes at large. The sheer volume of their money makes it very easy for them to hide their earnings. Should they pay more? Yes. But that's a matter of complicity, not "EVERYONE NEEDS TO GIVE YOUR FAIR SHARE." That's why the Bush Tax Cuts need to expire, and certain loopholes need to be closed.
Click to expand...

As long as you agree we need to raise the taxes of the rich and close out loopholes, we're all good, but the way you're framing things is confusing to me. The middle class is like from the 20th percentile to the 98th or something like that. The upper middle class is lets say from the 85th percentile to the 98th or something like that. We are saying that the rich do not pay their fair share, which I would take to mean the people in the top 1%, or maybe the top 0.5%. So I don't think anybody was claiming that the middle class isn't paying their fair share. They're paying the most of anybody.

Jeezy said:
And by the way...the top 1% that owns 43% of all the wealth in the country? They paid 40% of all income taxes in the nation in 2007.
Click to expand...

Well, those aren't parallel numbers. They have 43% of the wealth, not 43% of the income. Their share of the income is a bit lower. But, that is the one progressive tax- income taxes. If you include all taxes- property, sales, etc- then they pay a much smaller portion.
 
what do you consider to be the fair share of a group that makes 22% of the income yet pays 40% of the income tax and all the death tax? Is there any other group that has such a high differential between their share of the income vs their share of the income tax burden? TO say the middle class is paying the most is not accurate unless you use a rather liquid definition of middle class and per capita the top one percent are paying far far more than any other group
 
BTW why is the only basis for tax based on "the from each according to their ability" rather than use? or value received? no other transaction in life is based on the system the left seems to think is the only factor that matters
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom