• 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
I'd be fine with a flat tax of 20% on anything over $20,000. There. Everybody's happy.

I should probably ask .. are you proposing cutting out welfare programs as well, or just instituting a flat 20% tax rate?
 
works for me=but that would castrate the ability of many politicians to buy votes by promising one group they can have more and more and only the top bracket will be raised to pay for it.

it also means that just about everyone would have to pay more taxes when government spends more and that would be deleterious to the election hopes of big spenders

I would have thought you would have jumped for joy over that proposition .. would you ever be happy?
 
again you cannot make a sound argument for why I should pay more than you.

I understand why a progressive tax scheme is politically attractive to politicians who deal with the fact that non taxpayers ahve the same votes as us who pay lots of taxes.

I am asking you why I should pay more for the same benefits. since you support that I want to hear a good argument. iF you were forced to pay for what you use, you would be less likely to demand more government. which of course is the idea. we need to get rid of the demand for more and more and more government

that demand comes from the fact that those who demand more and more government normally aren't tasked with paying for it

If you don't get it by now you never will .. again, read some of my other posts including the conversations I have had with you
 
that's a silly response

are you saying that no one in that group can afford any income tax?

This is a silly response (look, I'm special I can say that too :))

Most cannot, living expenses, especially medical ones, are just too expensive .. the uber-wealthy would barely feel a tax increase in comparison
 
This is a silly response (look, I'm special I can say that too :))

Most cannot, living expenses, especially medical ones, are just too expensive .. the uber-wealthy would barely feel a tax increase in comparison

I call BS on that

your claim that most of those in that 47% cannot afford to pay ANY income tax is a bald faced lie
 
Your mom and apple pie faux patriotism gets nauseating after a while.

It says something about you turtle that you find patriotism nauseating.

Your entire premise about not having "skin in the game" is of course blatantly false. One would have to look hard and long to find people who vote today who do not pay taxes or contribute to America. So again, your very idea is based on a lie. I suspect this is far more about you stacking the deck in favor of the wealthy and their toadies and sycophants in the Republican party who carry their water willingly than it is about anything else.

But since the Constitution says otherwise, your dream - most Americans nightmare - is just a far right wing fantasy. God Bless America and the American people.
 
If you don't get it by now you never will .. again, read some of my other posts including the conversations I have had with you

1) that I can pay more is not a sound argument

2) that the many want the rich to pay more is not a sound argument

3) that you refuse to say and tell me to look for all your posts is a cowardly position
 
OK, you're right, I see the sarcasm in that post now

Doesn't surprise me that you liked that proposal as it is completely unfair

yeah treating everyone the same is unfair even if it means the rich still pay far more for the same government services?
 
I call BS on that

your claim that most of those in that 47% cannot afford to pay ANY income tax is a bald faced lie

They own something like 2.5% of the countries income combined (or less) how could that not be conceivable to you? Perhaps the government has coddled you for too long or you have never had the opportunity to work with a budget that didn't afford you all your needs and many wants to boot? I've been there, I know what it can be like.
 
yeah treating everyone the same is unfair even if it means the rich still pay far more for the same government services?

Unfortunately you have never proposed treating everyone the same
 
They own something like 2.5% of the countries income combined (or less) how could that not be conceivable to you? Perhaps the government has coddled you for too long or you have never had the opportunity to work with a budget that didn't afford you all your needs and many wants to boot? I've been there, I know what it can be like.

you are being dishonest now.

the bottom 50% make about 12.5% of the income

they sure use far more than 12,5% of the government services.

uh how has the government coddled me? I pay far more than I use.

and where does the nonsense that if you cannot afford something you should be able to get it without paying for it come from?
 
Unfortunately you have never proposed treating everyone the same

sure I have. everyone should pay for what they use. everyone has the same basic citizenship rights
 
Turtle - you keep gloating that a certain poster has not made a sound argument in favor of progressive income taxes. If you need any solid reasons for it please read this article

Progressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here are but a few within the limits of the rules

The higher one's income, the greater the fraction of it that tends to consist of economic rent rather than rewards for any commensurate contribution to production. By definition, economic rent is a factor payment exceeding that required to place a factor in its most productive use, so it can be taxed away entirely without impairing wealth production. Consequently, in the absence of taxes specifically levied on economic rent, a steeply progressive tax on the highest incomes can be expected to fall almost exclusively on economic rent, minimizing the excess burden of such taxation.
In a market economy, the larger an investment is, the higher its rate of return. This is due to both economies of scale and the increased range of investment opportunities. In addition to these economic forces, those who control greater amounts of capital within a society are able to participate more directly in shaping government policy, often in ways that further maximize their wealth. Thus, due to both economic and political realities within a market economy, it is a natural process for the wealthiest individuals and firms in a society to become disproportionately wealthier over time. In order to prevent the political instability resulting from the natural stratification of the populace into an ever smaller and wealthier aristocracy or moneyed class, and an ever larger working class, all free market democracies engage in progressive taxation and programs to enhance economic opportunity for the lower and middle classes.[citation needed]

You should really read the entire section as it has many more.

It contains an entire section with nothing but good reasons to support a progressive income tax.

You are most welcome and I am happy to help. :)
 
Last edited:
Let me try again Haymarket

I disagree with the progessive income tax because it encourages the many to vote for more spending because they don't have to pay for it.

it also assumes many things I reject. I think if people are forced to pay for the government services they want, they won't vote for more and more government

you want more and more government

I do not
 
Wealth disparity in US.jpg
It has been shown that the middle class pays the most crippling amount of income taxes and the middle class is relatively small. Crippling means that the ratio of living expenses to income tax makes it so that despite one’s increased income, the standard of living has not gone up much and there is still significant hardship. It is clear that most making above $250,000 are not crippled by income tax and instead cannot wrap their minds around the concept of progressive taxation (even though the wealthiest find loopholes out of such taxation). So, why is this the case? Why does the middle class shoulder the largest relative tax burden?

Because the Regressives want to recreate Mexico in the north.... a society of ruling class and peasants. Their plan, seems to be working quite well. Bring on 1929 and Hoover all over again!

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/
 
Last edited:
An Immoral Tax - WSJ.com
We are so habituated to the progressive income-tax that most conservatives, fiddling at the margins, fail to focus their ire on the basic immorality of that progressive income-tax, and the social damage it has caused.
For decades, progressive economists have tried to make what one called "the uneasy case for the progressive income tax" -- without success. That is why the debate about President Bush's tax reforms does not go nearly deep enough. The problem is the progressive income tax itself, and how it has become a cornerstone of the punish-the-rich mentality of the Democratic Party.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/....org/publications/policy-review/article/72291

the second article has a rather sound destruction of the "benefits" argument for progressive income taxes
First, the basic premise of the protection theory is flawed. Government protections extend to much more than property. The Founding Fathers made clear their vision for America in the Declaration of Independence when they spoke of the “unalienable rights” of all Americans to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” There is no basis for believing that a low-income person’s life is worth more or less to an individual (as contrasted with an insurance actuary, an economist, or a jury assessing damages in a wrongful death case) than the life of a high-income person. The same is true for liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The American military and other protective agencies and institutions of government exist to protect and preserve these rights for all Americans equally, regardless of how rich or poor they are.
 
Let me try again Haymarket

I disagree with the progessive income tax because it encourages the many to vote for more spending because they don't have to pay for it.

it also assumes many things I reject. I think if people are forced to pay for the government services they want, they won't vote for more and more government

you want more and more government

I do not

Of course you would reject anything that didn't coddle you
 
An Immoral Tax - WSJ.com
We are so habituated to the progressive income-tax that most conservatives, fiddling at the margins, fail to focus their ire on the basic immorality of that progressive income-tax, and the social damage it has caused.
For decades, progressive economists have tried to make what one called "the uneasy case for the progressive income tax" -- without success. That is why the debate about President Bush's tax reforms does not go nearly deep enough. The problem is the progressive income tax itself, and how it has become a cornerstone of the punish-the-rich mentality of the Democratic Party.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/....org/publications/policy-review/article/72291

the second article has a rather sound destruction of the "benefits" argument for progressive income taxes
First, the basic premise of the protection theory is flawed. Government protections extend to much more than property. The Founding Fathers made clear their vision for America in the Declaration of Independence when they spoke of the “unalienable rights” of all Americans to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” There is no basis for believing that a low-income person’s life is worth more or less to an individual (as contrasted with an insurance actuary, an economist, or a jury assessing damages in a wrongful death case) than the life of a high-income person. The same is true for liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The American military and other protective agencies and institutions of government exist to protect and preserve these rights for all Americans equally, regardless of how rich or poor they are.

Enough with the "punish the rich" straw man already
 
An Immoral Tax - WSJ.com
We are so habituated to the progressive income-tax that most conservatives, fiddling at the margins, fail to focus their ire on the basic immorality of that progressive income-tax, and the social damage it has caused.
For decades, progressive economists have tried to make what one called "the uneasy case for the progressive income tax" -- without success. That is why the debate about President Bush's tax reforms does not go nearly deep enough. The problem is the progressive income tax itself, and how it has become a cornerstone of the punish-the-rich mentality of the Democratic Party.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/....org/publications/policy-review/article/72291

the second article has a rather sound destruction of the "benefits" argument for progressive income taxes
First, the basic premise of the protection theory is flawed. Government protections extend to much more than property. The Founding Fathers made clear their vision for America in the Declaration of Independence when they spoke of the “unalienable rights” of all Americans to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” There is no basis for believing that a low-income person’s life is worth more or less to an individual (as contrasted with an insurance actuary, an economist, or a jury assessing damages in a wrongful death case) than the life of a high-income person. The same is true for liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The American military and other protective agencies and institutions of government exist to protect and preserve these rights for all Americans equally, regardless of how rich or poor they are.

Progressive taxation is a lawful amendment to the U.S. Constitution, so what some of the Founding Fathers might have thought about it is immaterial.

Progressive taxation only exists because the wealthy have too much money relative to other income brackets. If you the wealthy want it to go away, they need to start making those jobs, raising to salaries, and signing out those bonuses.
 
Last edited:
Of course you would reject anything that didn't coddle you

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.
 
Progressive taxation is a lawful amendment to the U.S. Constitution, so what some of the Founding Fathers might have thought about it is immaterial.

glad to see you are such a statist. tell me what does the 16th Amendment actually say

you do understand--and I am extending a lot of credit here-that whether its constitutional or not is not of interest when discussing whether the PIT is sound or not
 
glad to see you are such a statist. tell me what does the 16th Amendment actually say

you do understand--and I am extending a lot of credit here-that whether its constitutional or not is not of interest when discussing whether the PIT is sound or not

I edited my post:

Progressive taxation only exists because the wealthy have too much money relative to other income brackets. If you the wealthy want it to go away, they need to start making those jobs, raising to salaries, and signing out those bonuses. Then the tax code can be reformed.
 
I edited my post:

Progressive taxation only exists because the wealthy have too much money relative to other income brackets. If you the wealthy want it to go away, they need to start making those jobs, raising to salaries, and signing out those bonuses. Then the tax code can be reformed.

wrong

progressive income tax is a politically sound strategy

it allows politicians to buy the votes of the many with the wealth of a minority voting bloc.


it also gave congress a ton of power.

so your claim is without any rational basis
 
Back
Top Bottom