• 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 would define it thus:

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

...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.
Click to expand...

Well, your definition would be a pretty useless way to analyze various tax options, no? Why would anybody care how it distributes the tax burden relative to some internal measure? For example, say we were considering replacing all other taxes with a tax on air. The more air you breathed, the higher the per-liter rate would be. By your definition that would be a "progressive tax", but obviously it would take a huge portion of the income of the poor and a microscopic portion of the income of the wealthy. So all the arguments against regressive taxes would apply to it. That's why people normally consider a tax "regressive" or "progressive" based on how it varies relative to income.

Jeezy said:
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?
Click to expand...

We shouldn't necessarily. There could well be a change in the tax code that had advantages that outweighed the increase in regresiveness. Who knows, maybe the homestead exemption is such a case, I have no strong opinion on it. But you brought it up as evidence supporting your claim that property taxes were progressive. That isn't true (at least not going by the conventional relative-to-income definition), they actually make it more regressive.

Jeezy said:
And hey, since now we're only talking about relative regressiveness, do you agree that homestead exemptions make property taxes more progressive?
Click to expand...

They make the system more regressive relative to income, more progressive relative to the total value of all properties held.

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

Yes. Not admitting really, that's what I've said from the beginning- the taxes are progressive up to the upper middle class, then regressive for the rich. Where the regressiveness kicks in in the range where people make their income from investment rather than by working. The tax system is progressive all the way to the top of the spectrum of people who make most their income by working. But that isn't how the truly rich make their money in general. Some do of course- CEOs, hedge fund managers, etc, but most don't.

Jeezy said:
Are you admitting that most statistically rich people are being taxed progressively?
Click to expand...

No, not even close. Like I said, the entire top 1% is on the regressive part of the spectrum. While there is no precise definition of who is "rich", certainly it would be within that 1% and probably more like the top 0.1%. They are all on the regressive part of the spectrum. The richer they are, the more regressive.
 
teamosil said:
Well, your definition would be a pretty useless way to analyze various tax options, no? Why would anybody care how it distributes the tax burden relative to some internal measure? For example, say we were considering replacing all other taxes with a tax on air. The more air you breathed, the higher the per-liter rate would be. By your definition that would be a "progressive tax", but obviously it would take a huge portion of the income of the poor and a microscopic portion of the income of the wealthy. So all the arguments against regressive taxes would apply to it. That's why people normally consider a tax "regressive" or "progressive" based on how it varies relative to income.
Click to expand...

A ridiculous metaphor. Air is not a financial asset. Housing is. And it is positively correlated with income.

Besides, higher earners in general submit a lower percentage of their income to taxes. That doesn't mean the rate does not progressively increase relative to their income.

It just means they earn enough to where taxes don't concern them.

teamosil said:
We shouldn't necessarily. There could well be a change in the tax code that had advantages that outweighed the increase in regresiveness. Who knows, maybe the homestead exemption is such a case, I have no strong opinion on it. But you brought it up as evidence supporting your claim that property taxes were progressive. That isn't true (at least not going by the conventional relative-to-income definition), they actually make it more regressive.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. As a general rule, people with higher incomes live in higher-valued homes, that are subject to higher property taxes. The fact that some people don't pay property taxes at all does not mean that property taxes are regressive. How can a property tax be regressive to people who don't pay it? I've already replied to your one argument regarding that point --- there is no motivation for landlords to raise rental fees as a result of homestead exemptions because it does not raise the absolute value of their properties. They would be more inclined to lower rates because they are paying less taxes on the home they actually live in. The only way your argument makes sense is if the property taxes rise relative to rent, not relative to each other. Thus far you've failed to reply to that, so I have no reason to believe that property taxes make the system more regressive relative to income.

teamosil said:
Yes. Not admitting really, that's what I've said from the beginning- the taxes are progressive up to the upper middle class, then regressive for the rich. Where the regressiveness kicks in in the range where people make their income from investment rather than by working. The tax system is progressive all the way to the top of the spectrum of people who make most their income by working. But that isn't how the truly rich make their money in general. Some do of course- CEOs, hedge fund managers, etc, but most don't.
Click to expand...

So being in the top 95-99% percent of this country doesn't make you statistically rich? Doesn't make you a statistically very high income earner?

If you're making $200-275k a year, you're still not top 1%.

teamosil said:
No, not even close. Like I said, the entire top 1% is on the regressive part of the spectrum. While there is no precise definition of who is "rich", certainly it would be within that 1% and probably more like the top 0.1%. They are all on the regressive part of the spectrum. The richer they are, the more regressive.
Click to expand...

You're still not answering my question. Being in the 95-99th percentile makes you statistically rich relative to the rest of the country, even if you don't feel that way in comparison to the top 1 or top .01 percent who are obviously very rich, and control the same share of wealth they did in 1922.

Are you admitting that most statistically rich people are being taxed progressively?
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
While nearly one in five US children live in poverty. Its disgraceful and immoral!
Click to expand...

what is disgraceful is so many people breeding when they have no ability nor desire to properly raise their children

using your logic no one should have any wealth when others are poor
 
Jeezy said:
Besides, higher earners in general submit a lower percentage of their income to taxes. That doesn't mean the rate does not progressively increase relative to their income.

It just means they earn enough to where taxes don't concern them.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense... You're missing something somewhere along the way. What we are talking about is what percentage of every dollar a person brings in ends up going to taxes. That percentage either increases or decreases the more money somebody makes. That is what determines whether the tax system is progressive or regressive.

Jeezy said:
Nonsense. As a general rule, people with higher incomes live in higher-valued homes, that are subject to higher property taxes. The fact that some people don't pay property taxes at all does not mean that property taxes are regressive. How can a property tax be regressive to people who don't pay it? I've already replied to your one argument regarding that point --- there is no motivation for landlords to raise rental fees as a result of homestead exemptions because it does not raise the absolute value of their properties. They would be more inclined to lower rates because they are paying less taxes on the home they actually live in. The only way your argument makes sense is if the property taxes rise relative to rent, not relative to each other. Thus far you've failed to reply to that, so I have no reason to believe that property taxes make the system more regressive relative to income.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you and I are parting on this... Lets try an example. Say that the property tax rate is 2%. Person A makes $100k/year. They have a $200k house. That means the person pays $4k/year in property taxes. That is 4% of their income.

Person B makes $10m/year. They have a $2m house, so they pay $40k/year in property taxes. That is 0.4% of their income.

4% is more than 0.4%.

Jeezy said:
So being in the top 95-99% percent of this country doesn't make you statistically rich? Doesn't make you a statistically very high income earner?

If you're making $200-275k a year, you're still not top 1%.
Click to expand...

I would consider a household with an income of $275K upper middle class. Two people working in a major city make that much if they both have decent middle management type jobs and say 10 years of experience. That isn't what I am talking about when I say "rich".
 
teamosil said:
That makes no sense... You're missing something somewhere along the way. What we are talking about is what percentage of every dollar a person brings in ends up going to taxes. That percentage either increases or decreases the more money somebody makes. That is what determines whether the tax system is progressive or regressive.
Click to expand...

If a rate increases relative to an increase in the asset being taxed, then that particular tax is progressive. We're not talking about where the systemic burden averages out. We're talking about what makes a tax progressive. If a person in the top 1% pays a higher income tax rate than someone in the 5% below him, then that tax is progressive, even if the person in the 1% has an income that makes makes his tax burden less of a factor in his net yearly budget.

teamosil said:
I'm not sure why you and I are parting on this... Lets try an example. Say that the property tax rate is 2%. Person A makes $100k/year. They have a $200k house. That means the person pays $4k/year in property taxes. That is 4% of their income.

Person B makes $10m/year. They have a $2m house, so they pay $40k/year in property taxes. That is 0.4% of their income.

4% is more than 0.4%.
Click to expand...

Way, WAY too simple. You're literally talking about two houses at the tax jurisdiction level, while ignoring:

1) That people of higher incomes are disproportionately likely to own more valuable property, and generally live within the same areas, creating disparity in millage within areas in the same county. People in LA county don't all pay the same property tax. Often, people in the same city don't pay the same millage.

2) The poorest third doesn't own a house (and you've still failed to prove that homestead exemptions move pari passu with rent).

And that's not even getting into what people pay for commercial/business buildings in property tax.

Yeah, it's possible for a McMansion to be in the same appraisal district as a regular home. But that's putting way too fine a point on property taxes.

teamosil said:
I would consider a household with an income of $275K upper middle class. Two people working in a major city make that much if they both have decent middle management type jobs and say 10 years of experience. That isn't what I am talking about when I say "rich".
Click to expand...

Well it's nice that you'd consider it that way.

But to regular folks, the term "upper middle class" becomes extremely deceptive when you're referring to someone richer than 95-99% of the total population, wouldn't you say?
 
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...

Conservatives tend to complain about being called racist without cause. This is the same sort of annoyance for liberals.
 
Jeezy said:
If a rate increases relative to an increase in the asset being taxed, then that particular tax is progressive. We're not talking about where the systemic burden averages out.
Click to expand...

Again, that definition makes the concept useless. When evaluating how good or bad a tax is, this business about how the rates relate to the quantity of the thing the tax is applied to doesn't help us at all. I prefer the definition I posted because it yields useful information- a tax that is progressive by my definition placed more weight on rich people and less on middle class people. By your definition there would be no consistent correlation at all to be drawn, so I don't see why we would use such a definition.

Jeezy said:
1) That people of higher incomes are disproportionately likely to own more valuable property, and generally live within the same areas, creating disparity in millage within areas in the same county. People in LA county don't all pay the same property tax. Often, people in the same city don't pay the same millage.
Click to expand...

So you are speculating that maybe property tax rates are higher in rich neighborhoods? I don't know whether that is true, but regardless, it would not be nearly enough to counteract the effect from the ratio of house value to annual income. For most middle class people the ratio of house value to annual income would probably be, what, like 6 to 1 or so average? For a billionaire, it would be what? Maybe 0.1 to 1 or something?

Jeezy said:
2) The poorest third doesn't own a house (and you've still failed to prove that homestead exemptions move pari passu with rent).
Click to expand...

I think the default assumption would be that it would be passed on. It is a condition that affects all sellers in the rental market. The market price would be cost (which would include property tax) + whatever profits they think they can get away with taking. If the cost go up $x for all of them, prices would generally follow. Could be the market would over or under correct a bit, but if you're contending that most of the cost ends up coming out of the landlord's profits, you would need a source for that because that is a pretty wild claim.

Failing that, then that means we actually charge renters MORE property taxes indirectly than we charge home owners.

Jeezy said:
Well it's nice that you'd consider it that way.

But to regular folks, the term "upper middle class" becomes extremely deceptive when you're referring to someone richer than 95-99% of the total population, wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...

No that certainly doesn't sound deceptive to me... Considering 1 in every 20 people "rich" sounds crazy to me. Even attaching that label to 1 in every 100 sounds like an awfully melodramatic way to talk about it.
 
evanescence said:
Investors paying taxes in capital gains should pay just as much as everyone else.
Click to expand...

that sounds good to people who don't understand investments or forget that anyone with a 401K or a pension is also an investor
 
TurtleDude said:
that sounds good to people who don't understand investments or forget that anyone with a 401K or a pension is also an investor
Click to expand...

As one of those pensioners, I enthusiastically endorse taxing capital gains at the same rate as regular income. It can not come soon enough.
 
TurtleDude said:
that sounds good to people who don't understand investments or forget that anyone with a 401K or a pension is also an investor
Click to expand...


So implement some sort of a trickle up taxation policy
 
winston53660 said:
So implement some sort of a trickle up taxation policy
Click to expand...

how about keeping the government out of things and let things settle as they may winners win, losers lose like it is in nature? In the course of human history, the unable and the untalented have never had it better
 
TurtleDude said:
how about keeping the government out of things and let things settle as they may winners win, losers lose like it is in nature? In the course of human history, the unable and the untalented have never had it better
Click to expand...


I don't think anarchy is all that great.
 
winston53660 said:
I don't think anarchy is all that great.
Click to expand...

hardly anarchy. what we had before welfare socialism. charities and families took care of those who couldn't. but they didn't have a means to vote away the wealth of those who were industrious and prosperous
 
TurtleDude said:
hardly anarchy. what we had before welfare socialism. charities and families took care of those who couldn't. but they didn't have a means to vote away the wealth of those who were industrious and prosperous
Click to expand...


Nah I'll pass on your romanticism:

prod_879.jpg
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Sure people do.
but i thinking raising their taxes still wont make the rich "suffer", and bring them down to the "terrible conditions" of us (the average citizen).
Click to expand...

Is the average citizen in terrible conditions?

Please define terrible conditions as you used it please.
 
Mason66 said:
Is the average citizen in terrible conditions?

Please define terrible conditions as you used it please.
Click to expand...

Only three color tv sets and the second car is used
 
teamosil said:
Again, that definition makes the concept useless. When evaluating how good or bad a tax is, this business about how the rates relate to the quantity of the thing the tax is applied to doesn't help us at all. I prefer the definition I posted because it yields useful information- a tax that is progressive by my definition placed more weight on rich people and less on middle class people. By your definition there would be no consistent correlation at all to be drawn, so I don't see why we would use such a definition.
Click to expand...

...but my definition does place more "weight." The rich are paying a higher rate because they have more of the taxable asset. That you want rich people to pay a higher PORTION of their total income follows from...nothing, besides you wanting the rich to pay more.

If they're already paying more cents per dollar than a poorer person on a certain tax, then why isn't that tax progressive enough for you? Why do they have to actually dedicate a higher portion of their TOTAL income to that tax?

teamosil said:
So you are speculating that maybe property tax rates are higher in rich neighborhoods? I don't know whether that is true, but regardless, it would not be nearly enough to counteract the effect from the ratio of house value to annual income. For most middle class people the ratio of house value to annual income would probably be, what, like 6 to 1 or so average? For a billionaire, it would be what? Maybe 0.1 to 1 or something?
Click to expand...

Huh? Why does it have to "counteract" that? Taxes already work hand in hand with that.

The P/E ratio of a house has nothing to do with millage disparity, and everything to do with the market price of housing. And I'm not speculating that property tax rates are higher in rich areas, because they definitely are. Check your county property appraiser. Also, I'd say the average middle class P/E ratio is more like 3 to 1, not 6 to 1.

pimco.jpg


See? Even at its height it wasn't six.

teamosil said:
I think the default assumption would be that it would be passed on. It is a condition that affects all sellers in the rental market. The market price would be cost (which would include property tax) + whatever profits they think they can get away with taking. If the cost go up $x for all of them, prices would generally follow. Could be the market would over or under correct a bit, but if you're contending that most of the cost ends up coming out of the landlord's profits, you would need a source for that because that is a pretty wild claim.
Click to expand...

Last post, I actually thought you were talking about homestead exemptions making rent more expensive for some reason. .

Regardless, your scenario would depend on a looooot of stuff, including state, municipality, the sale price of the home. I'm not saying that cost transfer doesn't exist, but that it isn't 1 for 1 or necessarily regressive. Also (again), there is a correlation between high income and expensive housing, which tends to be lumped in certain areas. An appraisal district with lower home values will generally pay less than one with higher home values and millage fees. Property tax as a whole isn't a pure flat rate, like you're expressing. Especially when the condo/residence disparity comes into the picture.

Ultimately, a cheaper home in a cheaper area will receive a lower property tax rate and vice versa. Inflating property value is another problem altogether.

teamosil said:
No that certainly doesn't sound deceptive to me... Considering 1 in every 20 people "rich" sounds crazy to me. Even attaching that label to 1 in every 100 sounds like an awfully melodramatic way to talk about it.
Click to expand...

So even the top 1% isn't rich?
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
Oh noes poor people might actually find out about things like severe weather headed their away via TV.
Click to expand...

yeah and having wide screen plasma makes the warning even more important to follow
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah and having wide screen plasma makes the warning even more important to follow
Click to expand...


Yeah of course they have of the line and drive new Cadillacs and golf at the country club:roll:
 
winston53660 said:
Yeah of course they have of the line and drive new Cadillacs and golf at the country club:roll:
Click to expand...

anyone who thinks the average poor person in this country has it bad has never traveled
 
TurtleDude said:
anyone who thinks the average poor person in this country has it bad has never traveled
Click to expand...


Oh I would love to see you take a walk through Bed Stuy back in like the 90s
 
winston53660 said:
Oh I would love to see you take a walk through Bed Stuy back in like the 90s
Click to expand...

If you're on here, you don't know what poor is. Stop being a pretender.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom