• 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!

Why does the middle class pay the most crippling amount of income tax?

Why is the middle class the most crippled by income tax? Select all that apply

  • Allowing many people to have a shot at being uber-wealthy is dangerous

    Votes: 1 3.1%

  • Making the uber-wealthy share the load would be bad for the economy

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • The middle class do not have as much of an influence on politics as the wealthy do

    Votes: 24 75.0%

  • The idea that the middle class pay the most crippling amount of income tax is a myth

    Votes: 9 28.1%

  • A few wealthy, a few more middle class and many lower class citizens is best

    Votes: 2 6.3%
  • Total voters
    32
If we also raised the percentage of taxes people pay in lower brackets, then that would mean rich people would pay more on the money earned in that bracket... again, TurtleDude cries.
 
SheWolf said:
And the standard deduction of course. We could lower the standard deduction to hit lower income earners with a tax, but that means rich people would also owe more... and that would make TurtleDude cry.
Click to expand...

??? most rich people do not use the standard deduction... moreover, as high income tax payers their itemized deductions reduced. Lowering the itemized deduction would actually please the "head in his shell dude"
 
upsideguy said:
??? most rich people do not use the standard deduction... moreover, as high income tax payers their itemized deductions reduced. Lowering the itemized deduction would actually please the "head in his shell dude"
Click to expand...

You're correct... but they still have the choice to take it. sometimes it might be more beneficial... :shrug:
 
Gipper said:
The middle class is shouldering the largest amount of tax burden?

Excuse me for a second.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!

Anyway, back on subject - you're wrong. You're just so entirely, utterly, unequivocally, astronomically wrong. This is a rant-about-the-rich post. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

and your response is what? to see how many adjectives you can fit in one sentence? (which would seem to be four) or maybe its to show how many words you can spell containing five or more letters? which wold be 12 if you count the five you borrowed from the original post or 13 if you consider ahahahahahahahahahaha a word!

to give a slightly less "third-grader" response it is my opinion that the middle class "need-not/want-not" what does the voted candidate have to offer a job? ooops wait already got one. health care? comes with most decent "middle-class" jobs, how bout welfare? sorry don't meet the criteria....its the job thing again, so there goes the selective-elected that caters to the needs of the people. So the middle class has "enough" but what can he offer the elected officials? is h gonna start new businesses? make huge contributions to campaign funds? They just want to go home, hug their spouse, laugh with their kids and probably watch some rerun of a reality show to make them feel better about their own lives.

Bottom line is there is no "middle-class" voting majority, no middle class agenda. Without there who is going to be their spokesman, candidate, or representative? Oh their out there, seldom elected, and always overpowered by the masses screaming for the unfortunate lower-class or coddling the all too lucrative upper-class. We can jump on forums whine gripe complain, but more than not we are to busy working to run for any offices, or even vote for that matter. Until we find a way to change that, America will always be carried on the backs of the working class.
 
Reveille said:
and your response is what? to see how many adjectives you can fit in one sentence? (which would seem to be four) or maybe its to show how many words you can spell containing five or more letters? which wold be 12 if you count the five you borrowed from the original post or 13 if you consider ahahahahahahahahahaha a word!

to give a slightly less "third-grader" response it is my opinion that the middle class "need-not/want-not" what does the voted candidate have to offer a job? ooops wait already got one. health care? comes with most decent "middle-class" jobs, how bout welfare? sorry don't meet the criteria....its the job thing again, so there goes the selective-elected that caters to the needs of the people. So the middle class has "enough" but what can he offer the elected officials? is h gonna start new businesses? make huge contributions to campaign funds? They just want to go home, hug their spouse, laugh with their kids and probably watch some rerun of a reality show to make them feel better about their own lives.

Bottom line is there is no "middle-class" voting majority, no middle class agenda. Without there who is going to be their spokesman, candidate, or representative? Oh their out there, seldom elected, and always overpowered by the masses screaming for the unfortunate lower-class or coddling the all too lucrative upper-class. We can jump on forums whine gripe complain, but more than not we are to busy working to run for any offices, or even vote for that matter. Until we find a way to change that, America will always be carried on the backs of the working class.
Click to expand...

Welcome to debate politics. :)
 
TurtleDude said:
that makes no sense-or I should say even less sense.

I don't want more government. You do. I don't need more government because I am neither dependent nor parasitic.
Click to expand...

ah, but one could argue otherwise, that in fact you are amongst the most dependent and parasitic. I have never heard of a revolution with the rich overturning a government that serves the poor.* The fundamental infrastructure of our government (the police, the military, even the court system) serves to protect property and economic interests.

* - exception being revolutions that are influenced by outsiders that are protecting outsider interests (see Pinochet and Chile).
 
Last edited:
reveille said:
and your response is what? to see how many adjectives you can fit in one sentence? (which would seem to be four) or maybe its to show how many words you can spell containing five or more letters? which wold be 12 if you count the five you borrowed from the original post or 13 if you consider ahahahahahahahahahaha a word!
Click to expand...

Before you pick a Grammar Nazi fight, you might want to learn the purpose of the shift keys on your computer. Sentences begin with capital letters. Also your sentence structure leads me to believe that English was not your first language, or that you skipped large chunks of grade school.

to give a slightly less "third-grader" response it is my opinion that the middle class "need-not/want-not" what does the voted candidate have to offer a job? ooops wait already got one. health care? comes with most decent "middle-class" jobs, how bout welfare? sorry don't meet the criteria....its the job thing again, so there goes the selective-elected that caters to the needs of the people. So the middle class has "enough" but what can he offer the elected officials? is h gonna start new businesses? make huge contributions to campaign funds? They just want to go home, hug their spouse, laugh with their kids and probably watch some rerun of a reality show to make them feel better about their own lives.
Click to expand...

And your argument is what exactly? That the average middle-class American is politically ignorant and socially unaware? Not sure how this fits into the premise of the thread.

Bottom line is there is no "middle-class" voting majority, no middle class agenda. Without there who is going to be their spokesman, candidate, or representative? Oh their out there, seldom elected, and always overpowered by the masses screaming for the unfortunate lower-class or coddling the all too lucrative upper-class. We can jump on forums whine gripe complain, but more than not we are to busy working to run for any offices, or even vote for that matter. Until we find a way to change that, America will always be carried on the backs of the working class.
Click to expand...

Typical syndicalism bullcrap. Spare me the "workers of the world" junk about how the unskilled laborer builds anything more than whatever is placed in front of him. When labor becomes more scarce than capital, then you can argue your middle class revolution.

Oh, and if you're going to stay here, you best bring more to the table than what you have so far. Needless to say, I'm unimpressed.
 
Its a matter of representation.
The middle class has neither the time nor the money to buy their congressmen.
The conservatives are owned by the wealthy; the liberals - the poor and the minorities.
Guess who is in power ....
This is my take...not necessarily the truth...
 
upsideguy said:
ah, but one could argue otherwise, that in fact you are amongst the most dependent and parasitic. I have never heard of a revolution with the rich overturning a government that serves the poor.* The fundamental infrastructure of our government (the police, the military, even the court system) serves to protect property and economic interests.

* - exception being revolutions that are influenced by outsiders that are protecting outsider interests (see Pinochet and Chile).
Click to expand...

massive lie on your part. I am not imposing costs on other people. I pay more in taxes than I use in government services. Most people do not
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Because it is not progressive taxation please read the following which I already posted (and have others)
Click to expand...

My proposal is not fair because it's not "progressive taxation"? I'm sorry, but that is not an argument. Neither is a random quotation. Neither is your supposition that I must look at "tax paid in as it compares to living expenses."

I asked you why my proposal wasn't fair. You dodged. 20% tax on all income above $20,000. No loopholes, no tax credits, no mortgage interest deduction. What's unfair about that? Except for the very poor, everyone is paying $20 out of every $100 to the federal government.

Tithing works very well for churches. I don't see why double tithing (20%) wouldn't work for the federal government.
 
Honestly, I have no idea. I don't know why the middle class has to pay between 25-28% while the upper class has to pay 33-35% even if they make 10-20-1000x the amount of the middle class.

I think you should have to pay something like one-third of the percentile you fall under. So if you are making 3 billion dollars a year and are in the 100th percentile, you should have to pay 1 billion dollars in income taxes (fifteen percent more than currently). If you are making $125,000 a year and are in the 85th percentile, you should pay 28%, or $35,000 in taxes (about equal). If you are making $45,000 a year and are in the 50th percentile, you should pay 15%, or $6,750 in taxes (ten percent less). Etc.
 
Last edited:
Krhazy said:
Honestly, I have no idea. I don't know why the middle class has to pay between 25-28% while the upper class has to pay 33-35% even if they make 10-20-1000x the amount of the middle class.

I think you should have to pay something like one-third of the percentile you fall under. So if you are making 30 billion dollars a year and are in the 100th percentile, you should have to pay 10 billion dollars in income taxes (fifteen percent more than currently). If you are making $125,000 a year and are in the 85th percentile, you should pay 28%, or $35,000 in taxes (about equal). If you are making $45,000 a year and are in the 50th percentile, you should pay 15%, or $6,750 in taxes (ten percent less). Etc.
Click to expand...

do you understand effective tax rates? the middle class pays no where near 25-28%. many in the middle class pay an effective tax rate of ZERO to 5%
 
Sensibility said:
My proposal is not fair because it's not "progressive taxation"? I'm sorry, but that is not an argument. Neither is a random quotation. Neither is your supposition that I must look at "tax paid in as it compares to living expenses."

I asked you why my proposal wasn't fair. You dodged. 20% tax on all income above $20,000. No loopholes, no tax credits, no mortgage interest deduction. What's unfair about that? Except for the very poor, everyone is paying $20 out of every $100 to the federal government.

Tithing works very well for churches. I don't see why double tithing (20%) wouldn't work for the federal government.
Click to expand...

Everyone who values themselves remotely leftist will argue that flat tax is a massive favor to the rich. I love the concept, but you're preaching to the wrong choir on that one.
 
TurtleDude said:
do you understand effective tax rates? the middle class pays no where near 25-28%. many in the middle class pay an effective tax rate of ZERO to 5%
Click to expand...
I do, and there are lots of loopholes and deductions and other taxes that disproportionately affect the middle class that only further complicate the problem when you take the effective tax rate into consideration.

Also, I'm not sure where you are getting your data, unless I am reading sources like this and this incorrectly.
 
Last edited:
The middle class is being systematically eliminated. This should be clear by now. There are many methods that the ultra rich use to shift wealth upwards.
 
TurtleDude said:
massive lie on your part. I am not imposing costs on other people. I pay more in taxes than I use in government services. Most people do not
Click to expand...

That's the same whiney ass BS with which you've been littering the forum for months without anything whatsoever to back up your claim.

The only thing you have proven is this:

you-cant-handle-the-truth.jpg
 
retirein10years said:
The middle class is being systematically eliminated. This should be clear by now. There are many methods that the ultra rich use to shift wealth upwards.
Click to expand...
It's as Marx predicted: "The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population."
 
U.S. Socialist. said:
It's as Marx predicted: "The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population."
Click to expand...

I think the only thing that is eventually going to level us out will be labor laws that protect the workers. China is creating unions and labor laws, and now businesses are moving out of China and into other countries. Free trade isn't going to level us all out, as in theory, it free trading and supply side is simply searching for the poorest and most readily exploitable workers.
 
Catawba said:
That's the same whiney ass BS with which you've been littering the forum for months without anything whatsoever to back up your claim.

The only thing you have proven is this:

you-cant-handle-the-truth.jpg
Click to expand...

cute but incredibly stupid and dishonest. what can you objectively prove I have lied about
 
TurtleDude said:
cute but incredibly stupid and dishonest. what can you objectively prove I have lied about
Click to expand...

The problem is that you cannot objectively prove your claim that the wealthy benefit less from the government than the working class.
 
Catawba said:
The problem is that you cannot objectively prove your claim that the wealthy benefit less from the government than the working class.
Click to expand...

what we can prove is the top one percent pays 40% of the federal income taxes and almost all the death taxes and the bottom 40% pays NONE of the FIT

we can also argue without contradiction that the bottom 40% use more federal services than the top one percent yet pay none of the federal income taxes.
 
TurtleDude said:
what we can prove is the top one percent pays 40% of the federal income taxes and almost all the death taxes and the bottom 40% pays NONE of the FIT

we can also argue without contradiction that the bottom 40% use more federal services than the top one percent yet pay none of the federal income taxes.
Click to expand...

As Foghorn Leghorn would say, "I see your lips a flappin', but you ain't sayin' nothin'"

Let's see your documentation of your claim that the rich get less benefit from the government than the working class. Your opinion means less than nothing to me.
 
Catawba said:
As Foghorn Leghorn would say, "I see your lips a flappin', but you ain't sayin' nothin'"

Let's see your documentation of your claim that the rich get less benefit from the government than the working class. Your opinion means less than nothing to me.
Click to expand...

so it is your learned argument that the top one percent

1) use more government services than the 47% who pay no income taxes

2) than the 90% of so who pay less of the Income taxes than the top one percent?

that is the issue

taxes paid versus services used

for your silly rants about the rich to have merit, you have to prove that all of those combined-who pay as much of the income tax as the rich use less services.

the top 5% pay 58% of the federal income taxes. that means the bottom 95% pay 42% of the income taxes. The top one percent pays 39% of the income taxes

that means the top one percent pays as much income tax as the bottom 92 or 93% of the population.

now that both groups pay the same federal income taxes for the rich to use more you would have to show that 1% uses more government services than 92%

I suggest common sense suggests that would be an idiotic assertion
 
Second, there is no persuasive support in the literature for the claim that higher-income people derive a disproportionately greater value from government protection of property than lower-income people. Some progression advocates have argued that government exists in large part to protect rich people from poor people, while poor people need no such protection. Thus, the value of the rich person’s protection is disproportionately greater than that afforded the poor. Perhaps this was true centuries ago in some feudal nations, but it is not now and never has been generally true in the United States. Others argue that insurance is priced according to risk as well as value, implying that high-value property is at greater risk of loss. While this notion has conceptual merit, it does not follow that property owned by high-income people is at greater risk than property owned by low-income people. In fact, the rich are more likely to engage in self-protection (e.g., build protective walls, install security systems, hire guards, etc.), which would result in reduced, not greater, risk. Seligman, Blum and Kalven, and others have examined the property protection arguments for progression and dismissed them as either untenably weak or without merit.

The Inequity of the Progressive Income Tax | Hoover Institution
 
TurtleDude said:
so it is your learned argument that the top one percent

1) use more government services than the 47% who pay no income taxes

2) than the 90% of so who pay less of the Income taxes than the top one percent?

that is the issue

taxes paid versus services used

for your silly rants about the rich to have merit, you have to prove that all of those combined-who pay as much of the income tax as the rich use less services.

the top 5% pay 58% of the federal income taxes. that means the bottom 95% pay 42% of the income taxes. The top one percent pays 39% of the income taxes

that means the top one percent pays as much income tax as the bottom 92 or 93% of the population.

now that both groups pay the same federal income taxes for the rich to use more you would have to show that 1% uses more government services than 92%

I suggest common sense suggests that would be an idiotic assertion
Click to expand...

NO. It his his assertion that

"I see your lips a flappin', but you ain't sayin' nothin'"
Click to expand...

that was really easy to understand. I have no idea where you got the rest of your post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom