• 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
No it didn't

sovereign immunity is a method by those who run a corporate entity and municipal and state governments are corporations. using your "logic" the mayor of LA should be personally liable for the cops beating up Rodney King

This sentence is full of mistakes and misunderstandings of law.

First, sovereign immunity is not the same as the corporate veil. Sovereign immunity is not the method by which a "corporate entity" escapes tort liability, it is the way the government escapes liability. As the case I provided earlier makes clear, sovereign immunity is derived from the principle that lawsuits are not the proper redress against government officials acting in their official capacity, that is for the ballot box. They are similar in effect but based on two different principles.

As a lawyer, I am sure you understand all this, you are just feigning ignorance to drag out a red herring issue, because you argument on the main issue is so weak.
 
No doubt you've taken one of these into your own home, right?


As a matter of fact I did. How about you? Now, what does that have to do with our causing more of the middle class to fall under poverty, except trying to change the subject?
 
that has to be about as dishonest an interpretation of what reality is I have seen on this board

we will put you down as wanting to punish every shareholder even if they invest a few bucks-they should be liable for millions

luckily for the sane this sort of madness won't happen

Like I said earlier, your pinko nonsense gets no quarter with me. You might want the government to give handouts in the form of tort-liability protection for certain favored businesses, but I find this sort of parasitic behavior anathema to my libertarian values.

I find personal responsibility to be the highest good, and things will always work out well if one accepts one's personal responsibility, pays one's debts, and compensates those which one has wrongfully injured. That is where I stand. And it is duly noted that you stand against personal responsibility.
 
Last edited:
This sentence is full of mistakes and misunderstandings of law.

First, sovereign immunity is not the same as the corporate veil. Sovereign immunity is not the method by which a "corporate entity" escapes tort liability, it is the way the government escapes liability. As the case I provided earlier makes clear, sovereign immunity is derived from the principle that lawsuits are not the proper redress against government officials acting in their official capacity, that is for the ballot box. They are similar in effect but based on two different principles.

As a lawyer, I am sure you understand all this, you are just feigning ignorance to drag out a red herring issue, because you argument on the main issue is so weak.


both concepts shield offices of a corporate entity from being sued personally.

You are again trying to engage in a contrarian argument and I won't play that game.

And your argument is just that
 
I gotta wonder what good does it do for one guy to have 9 billion dollars?


While nearly one in five US children live in poverty. Its disgraceful and immoral!
 
both concepts shield offices of a corporate entity from being sued personally.

And that is where the similarities end.

You are again trying to engage in a contrarian argument and I won't play that game.

But you already played, and lost.

And your argument is just that

My argument is the argument for total personal responsibility. Parasites like yourself have no problem paying lip service to personal responsibility, until you actually have to face the consequences, and then it's all "what about the babies with complicated deliveries" and other bleeding heart nonsense.

Left wingers like you make me ill.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
.

Like I said, I have spent the majority of my life in what one would call the "poor house". Thus I grew up with and was raised around other kids and their families who were in much the same boat as my family. I'm still friends with many of them. Now many of them live in the same situation they grew up in, that I grew up in. When my wife and I were first married, we lived below the poverty line. We still had a one bedroom apartment, basic cable and internet access. We didn't have the luxury of cell phones, video games, flat panel TVs, nor could we afford to go out to a nice dinner. Our treat was spending $8 once a week on the Wendy's dollar menu. But we were smart enough to not have kids during this time, for exercise we went running outside(free) instead thinking of going to a gym, and for $5 I fashioned a homemade pullup bar. Throw in push ups and crunches and we kept ourselves healthy for cheap. We had one credit card, and we did not max it out. Saved it for emergencies, for which we thankfully had very little. Neither of us smoked, did drugs, nor did we buy alcohol during this time.

We planned for the future and took steps to direct us towards that. She got her nursing degree and I took a job in insurance. For a couple of years we made good money (from my perspective) that landed us in middle class status. But I was unhappy with working in insurance, so we decided to tough it out on her job alone while I went back to school to find a career I would enjoy. We then moved back into a lower middle-class income, considering we now had 1 kid and one on the way. This is where we are now, except I have just started my new career so within the next year we will be back to a more regular middle class amount of money. So from my low-middle class spot in life, I type this post on a laptop computer with high speed internet access, while I watch ESPN through my direcTV satelitte provider on my 42" flat panel TV. no, its not 1080p, I don't have HD programming, and I don't have all the movie channels. I have had to live with not ordering UFC PPVs, and I have missed out on the first 4 iphone releases, and their competitive counterparts. But life isn't bad. In fact, I can't think of anything that I "need" as a lower middle class person. My needs have been met 10 fold. Yes there I things I want, but I have the patience and the forethought to pursue them only when I can afford it. My wife and I have never had a honeymoon, but we know that one day the timing and the money will be right and we can choose to pursue it at that time.

Some of my friends that I grew up with, in the same situation, with the same public education I had, have been kicked out of their trailer homes because they wanted to spend their rent money on Packers tickets, drink and smoke heavily, get fired from a multitude of jobs because they drank too much the night before and missed too many days, had cars repossessed because they wanted to smoke weed instead of pay their car payments, etc... But they have a social safety net they can fall back on. So they never change their priorities, because the state will allow them to continue to fail and then prop them up. We can't say I came from greater means and thus had greater opportunities. They all had the same choices in life to make as I did, and the same lack of resources to start with. The difference is priorities. Yes, it is rare for the poor man to rise up to become a powerful business mogul. That is why I don't point to those examples. However, it is not impossible nor even that difficult for a poor man/woman to be able to navigate successfully in our country, provided they have their priorities right.

No, my life hasn't been the most exciting and colorful. Many would call it boring. I like to think of it as my life being a train, and the lives of my friends as a rollercoaster. Their lives are centered on entertainment and pleasure. They have many twists and turns, ups and downs. But theirs is a circular life that keeps repeating itself.
 
Exactly. So there you go. That's a big part of our nation's tax scheme that is regressive.

Well yes, but the nation's tax scheme is still progressive with those included, albeit weakly progressive, as I will show below.

Second of all...states have a choice as to how they tax. You can't blame the federal government for regressive state taxation. That's federalism :shrug:

No, that's not true. Yes, the rate goes up in some states, but even in those states that would make it progressive relative to the value of the property, not relative to the income of the owner. Regressive means relative to the income of the owner, and it still is. The percentage of somebody's income that goes to housing drops off rapidly as income goes up.

...Huh?

Why would you index a property tax to income? Then it stops being a property tax. The general logic of the property tax still holds -- richer people live in more expensive houses. Hence property taxes are, on the whole, progressive.

As for the homestead exemption, that actually makes it more regressive. It means that rental properties pay higher property taxes than homes the owner lives in. They pass that on to the renter and renters tend to be poorer than owners.

Giving a homestead exemption to renters defeats the point of a homestead exemption. You'd essentially be giving a 2x exemption to the landlord. Besides, the logic could just as easily be that a homeowner with less taxes on his homestead would not have the need to dramatically raise rent.

Renters have an entirely separate system of tax exemptions. You can claim a credit for paying rent on a property subject to taxes.

We don't need to guess about these things. The numbers are well known. The average American pays 27% in taxes total. The top 1% pays 18%. The upper middle class pays as high as 43%.

Progressive sources beg to differ.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf

550%20total%20effective%20tax%20rates.jpg


Here is the graph of your dreams. State taxes and all. And it's progressive, (if only slightly.)

It also asserts that 60% of the population has higher federal government tax burdens (as a percent of income) than they do at the state/local level.
 
Last edited:
Well yes, but the nation's tax scheme is still progressive with those included, albeit weakly progressive, as I will show below.

Second of all...states have a choice as to how they tax. You can't blame the federal government for regressive state taxation. That's federalism :shrug:



...Huh?

Why would you index a property tax to income? Then it stops being a property tax. The general logic of the property tax still holds -- richer people live in more expensive houses. Hence property taxes are, on the whole, progressive.



Giving a homestead exemption to renters defeats the point of a homestead exemption. You'd essentially be giving a 2x exemption to the landlord. Besides, the logic could just as easily be that a homeowner with less taxes on his homestead would not have the need to dramatically raise rent.

Renters have an entirely separate system of tax exemptions. You can claim a credit for paying rent on a property subject to taxes.



Progressive sources beg to differ.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf

550%20total%20effective%20tax%20rates.jpg


Here is the graph of your dreams. State taxes and all. And it's progressive, (if only slightly.)

doesnt that graph count taxes the bottom quintile pay out of money GIVEN them from the government

if the government (Federal) gives you 10K and you pay 700 of that in sales tax do you really have a 7% tax rate when it was money given to you in the first place? its merely one government's money going to another one
 
Its hard to say since everyone is different, as most regulars here know that I hate alot of things and alot of people. However I view hating someone who has money, completely retarded, it makes no sense to hate people who create the jobs. Call me crazy, granted some already do.
 
doesnt that graph count taxes the bottom quintile pay out of money GIVEN them from the government

if the government (Federal) gives you 10K and you pay 700 of that in sales tax do you really have a 7% tax rate when it was money given to you in the first place? its merely one government's money going to another one


Notice also that the report protests that the top 1% pays "only 5%" more than the middle fifth when that middle fifth is only five percent more than the preceding quintile...
 
Notice also that the report protests that the top 1% pays "only 5%" more than the middle fifth when that middle fifth is only five percent more than the preceding quintile...

Oldreliable67 posted a citation on the economics board demonstrating that the lowest quintile rate of effective federal taxes was MINUS 6.8% meaning they were given income from the federal government

saying the taxes they pay with THAT MONEY should be counted in their tax rate is rather bogus
 
Oldreliable67 posted a citation on the economics board demonstrating that the lowest quintile rate of effective federal taxes was MINUS 6.8% meaning they were given income from the federal government

saying the taxes they pay with THAT MONEY should be counted in their tax rate is rather bogus

link

123456
 
link

123456

I couldn't find OR's original but another poster repeated the figures in one of the threads

Lies and perversion of truth.

49% of all so-called taxpayers pay no income tax at all.
I promise you that most people have absolutely no idea what their effective tax rate is, and that includes Warren Buffett's secretary and the administrative staff in the author's workplace. Ask and you'll get a guess. And the guess will be wrong.

Stats from 2001, CBO:

  • The lowest quintile's effective tax rate is a negative 5.6% -- meaning they get back 5.6% more than they paid in.
  • Second quintile .3%.
  • Third quintile 3.8%
  • Fourth quintile 7.2%
  • Highest quintile 16.3%.
  • Everyone's average is 10.4%
  • Top 10% of payers 18.7%
  • Top 5% of payers 20.8%
  • Top 1% of payers 24.1
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/53xx/doc5324/04-02-TaxRates.htm#table1A

The author MBig quotes is an idiot. Makes for inciting copy. Nothing more.
 
Oldreliable67 posted a citation on the economics board demonstrating that the lowest quintile rate of effective federal taxes was MINUS 6.8% meaning they were given income from the federal government

saying the taxes they pay with THAT MONEY should be counted in their tax rate is rather bogus

link

123456

Honestly that doesn't surprise me one bit. Parts of our tax code have already become a net, negative tax, and that's before you count the welfare spending side of the equation.
 
I was wrong on recalling the number it was 5.6 in this one though OR's might have been a more recent year

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

I'm jealous and I have enough ambition to go out and get mine. I don't want the government to get it for me, because their cut is going to be way bigger than mine and I want most of that money to stay in my pocket.
 
Second of all...states have a choice as to how they tax. You can't blame the federal government for regressive state taxation. That's federalism :shrug:

Blame the federal government? I don't care who to blame or whatever, I care how much of the tax burden is on who.

...Huh?

Why would you index a property tax to income? Then it stops being a property tax.. The general logic of the property tax still holds -- richer people live in more expensive houses. Hence property taxes are, on the whole, progressive.

No... That's what "progressive" or "regressive" means- whether it increases or decreases relative to the person's income. That is what matters about a tax- who gets hit up for how much. Whether there is some internal logic to the tax or not doesn't matter.

Giving a homestead exemption to renters defeats the point of a homestead exemption. You'd essentially be giving a 2x exemption to the landlord. Besides, the logic could just as easily be that a homeowner with less taxes on his homestead would not have the need to dramatically raise rent.

Yeah, that doesn't mean that giving a homestead exception to landlords, but not renters, is not regressive. Yes, it is regressive- it benefits wealthier people and not less wealthy people.

Renters have an entirely separate system of tax exemptions. You can claim a credit for paying rent on a property subject to taxes.

That's true in a few states, not most though, and not for federal taxes as far as I know.

Here is the graph of your dreams. State taxes and all. And it's progressive, (if only slightly.)

First off, your chart shows that it is REGRESSIVE for the top 1%, which is where it should be most steeply progressive since the average person in the top 1% makes five times as much as the average person in the next 4%. That's what I'm saying- it is progressive up through the upper middle class, then regressive because the top 1% pays less than the middle class.

But, as for why it isn't showing the 18% my source quotes, perhaps it isn't counting all sources of income that my source did. Inheritance income maybe.
 
Last edited:
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:

Isn't this you second thread on this topic? Hmmmmm. I wonder why there is an "ongoing theme."
 
Notice also that the report protests that the top 1% pays "only 5%" more than the middle fifth when that middle fifth is only five percent more than the preceding quintile...

Note that it ignores (or includes in the Top 1%) the top .01%, which is who I've been harping on as paying a rate of 16.6% - and I've provided you the link to the study that proves it.
 
No... That's what "progressive" or "regressive" means- whether it increases or decreases relative to the person's income. That is what matters about a tax- who gets hit up for how much. Whether there is some internal logic to the tax or not doesn't matter.

So you don't think the nature of a tax can be regressive or progressive unless it is directly pegged to income? Uhh...okay. :roll: Let's just forget that wealthy people live in expensive homes. Clearly, it's impossible for tax exemptions to be progressive unless they are directly linked to income.

Yeah, that doesn't mean that giving a homestead exception to landlords, but not renters, is not regressive. Yes, it is regressive- it benefits wealthier people and not less wealthy people.

It's progressive in the sense that it makes property taxes more progressive.The largest tax cuts as a share of income go to lower- and middle income homeowners.

Renters do not pay property taxes, and I seriously doubt that punitive cost is "passed on" to renters because of the exemption. Homestead exemptions don't suddenly spike the absolute value of rental property. It remains the same. Landlords have no incentive to charge higher rent because of homestead exemptions, especially if they pay less on their own home.

That's true in a few states, not most though, and not for federal taxes as far as I know.

At the federal level, a renter can take deductions for property taxes (if the lease actually requires you to pay them) and casualty losses, (if you use the premises as your home, as opposed to business uses).

I know that California, Maryland, and Minnesota have renter credit. Maybe more.

First off, your chart shows that it is REGRESSIVE for the top 1%, which is where it should be most steeply progressive since the average person in the top 1% makes five times as much as the average person in the next 4%. That's what I'm saying- it is progressive up through the upper middle class, then regressive because the top 1% pays less than the middle class.

I've already said the top 1% need to pay more. I've also already said that they pay a federal income tax contribution proportionate to their income.

Since you've moved the goal posts to state/local taxes, are you admitting then, that the chart is progressive for up to 99% of income earners in this country?

Are you admitting then that most statistically rich people are being taxed progressively?

But, as for why it isn't showing the 18% my source quotes, perhaps it isn't counting all sources of income that my source did. Inheritance income maybe.

The source you never actually showed? :roll:
 
Last edited:
Note that it ignores (or includes in the Top 1%) the top .01%, which is who I've been harping on as paying a rate of 16.6% - and I've provided you the link to the study that proves it.

...so I take it you are also admitting that the vast majority of statistically rich people are being taxed progressively?
 
So you don't think the nature of a tax can be regressive or progressive unless it is directly pegged to income? Uhh...okay. :roll:

That is what the phrase "progressive tax" or "regressive tax" means- relative to income. The definition of a progressive tax system- "Progressive taxation characterizes a convex tax schedule that results in a higher effective tax rate on higher income levels. Increases for some increases in income, but never decreases with an increase in income."
Progressive Taxation financial definition of Progressive Taxation. Progressive Taxation finance term by the Free Online Dictionary.

Let's just forget that wealthy people live in expensive homes.

Again, the percentage of somebody's income that they spend on housing drops as their income grows. The absolute amount certainly increases, but the percentage of their income drops.

It's progressive in the sense that it makes property taxes more progressive.The largest tax cuts as a share of income go to lower- and middle income homeowners.

Are you claiming that an individual middle income homeowner gets a bigger tax break from the homeown exemption than a high income homeowner?

Renters do not pay property taxes, and I seriously doubt that punitive cost is "passed on" to renters because of the exemption. Homestead exemptions don't suddenly spike the absolute value of rental property. It remains the same. Landlords have no incentive to charge higher rent because of homestead exemptions, especially if they pay less on their own home.

Something makes the system more regressive either if it reduces the burden on those with higher incomes or increases the burden on those with lower incomes. It doesn't need to do both to make it more regressive...

Are you admitting then, that the chart is progressive for up to 99% of income earners in this country?

I'm not sure that it is up to the 99th percentive. If we go by your chart, it says that up to somewhere between the 96th and 99th percentile it is progressive.

Are you admitting then that most statistically rich people are being taxed progressively?

What? No, the somewhat wealthy- say top 1%- are being taxed REGRESSIVELY. Within that bracket the truely wealthy- say the top 0.1% or so- are being taxed extremely regressively, and the uberwealthy- say the top 0.01% or so- are being taxed absurdly regressively. So, no, I definitely would not agree with the statement that most rich people are being taxed progressively... That is absolutely, completely, false. All the evidence, including the sources you have posted, disprove that premise.
 
That is what the phrase "progressive tax" or "regressive tax" means- relative to income. The definition of a progressive tax system- "Progressive taxation characterizes a convex tax schedule that results in a higher effective tax rate on higher income levels. Increases for some increases in income, but never decreases with an increase in income."
Progressive Taxation financial definition of Progressive Taxation. Progressive Taxation finance term by the Free Online Dictionary.

I would define it thus:

any tax in which the rate increases as the amount subject to taxation increases
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Again, the percentage of somebody's income that they spend on housing drops as their income grows. The absolute amount certainly increases, but the percentage of their income drops.

...but it goes up relative to the assessed value of the house. That, by definition, is a property tax. If any tax in which the rate increases as the amount subject to taxation increases is a progressive tax, then a simple property tax is progressive and homestead exemptions make it more so.

Are you claiming that an individual middle income homeowner gets a bigger tax break from the homeown exemption than a high income homeowner?

In my post, I said "as a share of income." So yes.

Something makes the system more regressive either if it reduces the burden on those with higher incomes or increases the burden on those with lower incomes. It doesn't need to do both to make it more regressive...

Oh, so now we're only talking relative regressiveness for the whole system? And we should avoid any increase in relative regressiveness to the system?

This argument doesn't make sense. 67% of people in this country own homes. A homestead exemption helps the people toward the bottom of that distribution pay their property tax. Renters pay rent and rent insurance...so they don't pay that tax at all, and there's no evidence that homestead exemptions translate into significant rent increases for them, since landlords have no incentive to do so. Yes, it might make the system "more" regressive...but it doesn't mean the system IS regressive for the vast majority...by that token ANYTHING that cuts taxes for the top 50%, even if it doesn't raise it for the bottom 50%, is worth fighting against. That's absurd.

And hey, since now we're only talking about relative regressiveness, do you agree that homestead exemptions make property taxes more progressive?

I'm not sure that it is up to the 99th percentive. If we go by your chart, it says that up to somewhere between the 96th and 99th percentile it is progressive.

What? No, the somewhat wealthy- say top 1%- are being taxed REGRESSIVELY. Within that bracket the truely wealthy- say the top 0.1% or so- are being taxed extremely regressively, and the uberwealthy- say the top 0.01% or so- are being taxed absurdly regressively. So, no, I definitely would not agree with the statement that most rich people are being taxed progressively... That is absolutely, completely, false. All the evidence, including the sources you have posted, disprove that premise.

The above quotes are contradictory.

I'll ask again.

Are you admitting then, that the chart is progressive for up to 96-99% of income earners in this country?

Are you admitting that most statistically rich people are being taxed progressively?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom