View Poll Results: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $60k

Voters
96. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    41 42.71%
  • no

    55 57.29%
  • i dont know. i dont care

    0 0%
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 77

Thread: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $60k

  1. #51
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    358

    Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

    Quote Originally Posted by Luna Tick View Post
    Attachment 67116010

    That's what responsibility is all about. I hope this has cleared things up for you.
    Other people pay for me? No. I don't think so. I think I pay for the portion that I use. I am taxed afterall. I didn't get anything from anybody. Society and I have an agreement - we'll all chip in - and have national protection, local protection and roads to drive on. Just another mutually beneficial agreement. Don't act like I get these services without have to put anything towards it. I don't owe society thanks for giving them just as much as they gave me.

  2. #52
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    Monthly Expenses Guerrilla Standard of living Notes
    food $440 $450 450 sounds reasonable if you make all your meals at home and buy in bulk.
    childcare $0 $200 $10/day * 20 days a month
    medical $100 $200 for a family of 2 or more, its at LEAST $200 a month for complete coverage. I pay $282 for myself and wife from a company with outstanding benefits. I don't know how you only pay $100/month for 3-4 people.
    mortgage $470 $800 Low end rental rates are about $800 for 2-3 bedroom. Purchasing a home today even with low interest rates still puts you above $800/month not including insurance, PMI, repairs, etc (150k house, 5.5% rate, 30 years). So i think at LEAST $800 is a more reasonable number for the average American.
    transport $71 $318 $50 to fill tank and fill 2.5 times per month = $150
    Registration = $60/12month=$5/month. Car insurance minimum coverage $1/day → $30/month
    Car payments = $5000 vehicle with 5 year loan at 0% APR = $83/month
    Assume about $50/month for repairs/oil change/maintenance/tires/etc
    other $60 Other: toiletries, clothes, shoes, phone, tv/internet
    utils $200 electricity, gas, trash/sewer, water, prop taxes, home owners/renters insurance
    Monthly total $1,081 $2,228
    Yearly total $12,970 $26,736


    These are just basic necessities.
    My mortgage payment includes Principle, Interest, Taxes and Insurance.

    The rental prices around here are not $800 a month, not anywhere close.
    My townhouse, before I bought this house, was in a nice neighborhood and I paid $625 for it, that was high for my area.
    This is literally one of the best times in history to purchase a home, $800 a month is not the gold standard.

    My phone is $50 a month, I use a cell instead of a wired line, much more economical.
    Tv and internet is $50-60 a month.
    Electricity fluctuates but averages to around $150 or so.

    The cost of living here is lower than the area you are quoting as average.


    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    If I'm the Queen of England.... you get the picture.

    I think you highly over estimate that state of affairs in the US. As indicated by your own spending, you have a significant advantage many others do not with extremely small rent, medical insurance, etc. As the analysis shows, the 25k/year income can only sustain the most basic needs of an American family and that is with no extra money left over whatsoever! These are just basic necessities,
    I am completely aware of how much it costs to live.
    If you live in an area where you find it to costly to make ends meet, it may be time to move to an area where you can.

    That's just basic common sense.




    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    What type of rate and return are you anticipating exactly?


    CPI has been about 2-3% inflation per year.

    Stock market returns for last 100 years is about 9-10% per year.

    Calculate compound interest

    Lets assume you work and save from the time you are 25 to a 70 (45 years)
    Assume a yield of 7%. And monthly contribution of $200.
    You will have $760,000 in saving for retirement. How many years of living does that provide you if there is no SS or other benefits?


    Lets calculate on the very high side:
    Lets assume you work and save from the time you are 20 to a 75 (55 years)
    Assume a whooping yield of 9%!!! And monthly contribution of $200.
    You will have $3,700,000 in saving for retirement. How many years of living does that provide you if there is no SS or other benefits?


    So looks like if you can save +$200 a month you will probably be OK.... if you start early.
    Whoa, who said anything about having no SS or "other benefits?"

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    Members of a society both reaps rewards and share the burden of consequences. Everyone is responsible for their fair share, rich or poor.
    Rich people already pay taxes.

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    How does that have anything to with your LUCK being:
    1 born intelligent
    2 in this country
    3 in this time period
    4 without cerebral palsy
    5 without downs syndrome
    6 not orphaned before the age of five
    It's all about your response to bad circumstances.
    Make the better choice and you can lessen those negative effects.

    Just as Sam said, you attempt to claim credit for the above things when you had no hand in their outcome whatsoever!
    The vast majority of people are born without serious physical disabilities, not orphaned at 5 and most Americans (since this is a topic about taxation in America) are born in America.
    Some of those distinctions are ridiculous and shouldn't have been included.


    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    How did you personally ensure that you were:
    1 born intelligent
    2 born in this country
    3 born in this time period
    4 able to avoid cerebral palsy, cancer, etc
    5 born without downs syndrome
    6 not orphaned before the age of five

    According to you happenstance and chance (luck) had nothing to do with it! No one is trying to take credit where credit its deserved. But its astounding arrogant to take credit where none is earned. And the above things ( among many many many more things) you did not earn!
    Luck and chance are two different things.
    Luck is based on some quasi religious belief in mystical forces.

    Chance is randomness in the universe.

    I'm not taking credit for any of those, but your likely to find, as I pointed out with that chart, that most people have problems with money because they handle money like idiots.
    These programs are not creating any incentive for people to have personal financial soundness.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  3. #53
    Guru
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,873

    Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertz
    That is an excellent point. And if not for the opportunity to buy land yourself, I would have to agree with you. But in the US, so long as you have the opportunity to get a job, the opportunity to save and buy the land, then any shortfall is not that of society's, but of yourself.
    This misses the point entirely, for two reasons:

    1) If I'm one of the landowners, I'll just agree with the others like me to pay wages such that no one, or hardly anyone, ever has an opportunity in reality to buy any land (land, here, just meaning anything that allows someone to become wealthy purely on their own labor). The opportunity exists, but only on paper. In reality, the opportunity is quite slim.

    I happen to know, because I was once one of those who was a "landowner" in this context, and such collusion was commonplace, and completely untraceable. I quit and gave up much of my wealth to do something that would actually help people.

    2) In this society, even if someone could buy land, they'd very likely not be solely responsible for whatever we produced from it. We're simply too intertwined and interconnected to think otherwise.

  4. #54
    Guru
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,873

    Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertz
    That is an excellent point. And if not for the opportunity to buy land yourself, I would have to agree with you. But in the US, so long as you have the opportunity to get a job, the opportunity to save and buy the land, then any shortfall is not that of society's, but of yourself.
    Actually, the more I think about this, the more I think your reply is really just a red herring. The question isn't whether someone has the opportunity to become wealthy themselves (though certainly, my earlier remarks would still apply to that question). The question is whether those who currently are really owe their wealth to their own labor, or to the support system of society. I think both conceptually, and empirically, we could easily say it's rather more to the latter than the former. Just one simple point ought to suffice to show this: are the wealthy people of today any wealthier than the wealthy people of, say, one thousand years ago? I think the clear answer is that they are. The average king in Europe or the Middle East or North Africa lived a lifestyle that would be considered horrid by today's standards. The wealth of someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett couldn't even have been conceived by such as William the First or Ivan the Terrible (who were surely the wealthiest of men for their time).

    Now, is it the case that the wealthy have become personally that much better at extracting wealth? If we were to transport Bill Gates or Warren Buffett back to 1000 A.D. would they still enjoy the lifestyle they enjoy today? Obviously not. Why not? Clearly, because the social support systems which enable their lifestyles today weren't present at that time.

  5. #55
    Professor
    Luna Tick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,148

    Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    warren is just another pimple on the ass of capitalism
    There's a name for the logical fallacy you just used. It's known as an ad hominem attack, which is attacking someone personally rather than addressing the ideas presented. It's often used by people who either can't or don't want to use reason. Read up on it:
    Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    It doesn't. Everyone uses roads, bridges, etc... not everyone starts up a or keeps a successful business or corporation. The romance with "soak the rich" in taxes while still claiming "everyone must give their fair share" while ignoring 40% of the poplation does pay a cent of income taxes is irony at it's finest.
    The point is not that a person doesn't deserve credit for success. He or she does. The point is the government and society create an environment in which that success is possible. We all benefit from services like roads, police, defense, schools, libraries, etc., regardless of what level of success we're at. All are responsible for paying in. And most people are successful to some degree. Someone who builds a multimillion dollar corporation that employs thousands is successful. Someone else who is inspired to join the police force and protect others is also a success. Though less successful financially, this person is highly successful at creating value for society. In both cases, the person is rightfully expected to pay into the system that if we didn't have, we would be screwed. It's not about class warfare. It's about responsibility for all. When we have a system that allows GE to not only pay no taxes, but get corporate welfare, something's screwed up. When some billionaires pay less percentage in taxes than people earning 60K per year, that's a problem. It's not about soaking the rich, but about creating fair shared responsibility. If someone comes in here advocating a 90% tax bracket, I'll join you in opposing that. We have to determine what would be fair. Maybe we can start with proclaiming that GE paying zero percent plus getting money back isn't exactly responsible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Just another blathering class warfare idiot making yet another excuse for more class warfare.
    Another ad hominem attack. See above.


    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertz View Post
    Other people pay for me? No. I don't think so...
    Yes, they do. You did not personally pay for all the roads, libraries, schools, fire departments, the military, etc. You paid for a tiny fraction of it, and that's fine. Everyone's responsible for paying their own tiny fraction. I personally am fortunate enough to have never needed to call the fire department, but I'm perfectly fine to pay for that even though it's only helped others directly thus far. I'm glad if I ever need it, it's there. If we had a system where you only paid for your used portion, you would never pay any taxes to a fire department until you needed their services; then if you needed them you would get some ridiculous bill of 200K or however much it costs for a fire department to respond to a call. It's way better to just have everyone consistently pay in some taxes. We all pay in for each other. We're all responsible for each other.

  6. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    01-09-12 @ 10:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    1,014

    Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

    We should all pay a flat tax on goods and services period. That way even gangsters will be paying their fair share and illegals as well. Just add 10% to any sale in the country on any item or service for the federal government and abolish the IRS. We would save billions a year by eliminating the IRS and the federal government would have to learn to live within a budget. We have to maintain a budget, they should have to as well. It's common sense.

  7. #57
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

    Quote Originally Posted by Luna Tick View Post

    The point is not that a person doesn't deserve credit for success. He or she does. The point is the government and society create an environment in which that success is possible.
    And before government and society created said environment, if a company needed to get from point A to point B to sell their product, they would make a road to do that or travel the shortest distance by the most economical means available at the time. The point you made I understand but don't agree with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Luna Tick View Post
    We all benefit from services like roads, police, defense, schools, libraries, etc., regardless of what level of success we're at. All are responsible for paying in. And most people are successful to some degree. Someone who builds a multimillion dollar corporation that employs thousands is successful. Someone else who is inspired to join the police force and protect others is also a success. Though less successful financially, this person is highly successful at creating value for society. In both cases, the person is rightfully expected to pay into the system that if we didn't have, we would be screwed.
    Corporations, individuals who created those corporations, the employees, everyone already pays in - so what you identify as everyone's benefit, is therefore already paid for. If we decided that we weren't going to pay into the system the system would change - but a portion of us would not be "screwed" at all. Those who know nothing but dependency on the system would be screwed, those who are a little more creative and individualistic will create a new system or work around the broken system to continue to be successful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Luna Tick View Post
    It's not about class warfare. It's about responsibility for all.
    Otherwise known as "the common good", and "it takes a village". It very much IS about class warfare when one group is singled out as "fat cats" and then targeted to foot the bill for 40% who pay in $0. If everyone uses the roads, everyone should pay in, including the 40% who currently pay nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Luna Tick View Post
    When we have a system that allows GE to not only pay no taxes, but get corporate welfare, something's screwed up.
    Agreed, and when we have 40% of the populating paying $0 income taxes, something is even MORE screwed up, which is why I like a flat tax. It's the same for everyone, it requires 100% compliance and it's "fair". You believe in "fair" don't you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Luna Tick View Post
    When some billionaires pay less percentage in taxes than people earning 60K per year, that's a problem. It's not about soaking the rich, but about creating fair shared responsibility. If someone comes in here advocating a 90% tax bracket, I'll join you in opposing that. We have to determine what would be fair. Maybe we can start with proclaiming that GE paying zero percent plus getting money back isn't exactly responsible.
    Then you would agree that the 40% who pay $0 dollars is just as much of a problem yet you don't seem to want to mention that ... how come?


    Quote Originally Posted by Luna Tick View Post
    Another ad hominem attack. See above.
    Above is where the comment came from in the first place. And sometimes you have to call a duck a duck, even when others don't agree. Nice side step by the way. Primo.
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  8. #58
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,769

    Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

    Quote Originally Posted by Luna Tick View Post
    There's a name for the logical fallacy you just used. It's known as an ad hominem attack, which is attacking someone personally rather than addressing the ideas presented. It's often used by people who either can't or don't want to use reason. Read up on it:
    Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    The point is not that a person doesn't deserve credit for success. He or she does. The point is the government and society create an environment in which that success is possible. We all benefit from services like roads, police, defense, schools, libraries, etc., regardless of what level of success we're at. All are responsible for paying in. And most people are successful to some degree. Someone who builds a multimillion dollar corporation that employs thousands is successful. Someone else who is inspired to join the police force and protect others is also a success. Though less successful financially, this person is highly successful at creating value for society. In both cases, the person is rightfully expected to pay into the system that if we didn't have, we would be screwed. It's not about class warfare. It's about responsibility for all. When we have a system that allows GE to not only pay no taxes, but get corporate welfare, something's screwed up. When some billionaires pay less percentage in taxes than people earning 60K per year, that's a problem. It's not about soaking the rich, but about creating fair shared responsibility. If someone comes in here advocating a 90% tax bracket, I'll join you in opposing that. We have to determine what would be fair. Maybe we can start with proclaiming that GE paying zero percent plus getting money back isn't exactly responsible.


    Another ad hominem attack. See above.




    Yes, they do. You did not personally pay for all the roads, libraries, schools, fire departments, the military, etc. You paid for a tiny fraction of it, and that's fine. Everyone's responsible for paying their own tiny fraction. I personally am fortunate enough to have never needed to call the fire department, but I'm perfectly fine to pay for that even though it's only helped others directly thus far. I'm glad if I ever need it, it's there. If we had a system where you only paid for your used portion, you would never pay any taxes to a fire department until you needed their services; then if you needed them you would get some ridiculous bill of 200K or however much it costs for a fire department to respond to a call. It's way better to just have everyone consistently pay in some taxes. We all pay in for each other. We're all responsible for each other.
    there are several obvious problems with your rant. First of all many do NOT pay for others. Many use more in government services than they pay in total taxes. . Fire Department, police etc are mainly from local taxes such as property taxes. and those of us who pay higher state taxes cover the costs of those who don't pay much state taxes.

    The rich tend to be rich because they do stuff others value. In fact the rich benefit society greatly. They also don't use near as many government services as they pay in federal taxes.

    Warren is scum. another rich elitist power hungry turd who panders to people like you and engages in class warfare so she can become even richer. She seduces suckers who think she really cares about the untalented.



  9. #59
    Advisor GreenvilleGrows's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    My version of reality
    Last Seen
    10-05-12 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    566

    Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

    It's funny to me, the idea of "they deserve" vs. "they're lucky" or whatever. I think we should start considering taking people's kids if they have extra to give to those who don't have any. Maybe we could cut some height off of anyone who's over 5'10" and give it to people who are 5'6" or less. How about limit the amount of time "the rich" can spend outdoors? Afterall, they have money, why should they have sunlight, too? I think if you live too long, someone should injure you severely - I mean, what's the deal with being soooo healthy when I've been sick a lot in my life? I'd like to limit the amount of time people can exercise because I'm out of shape and it makes me feel bad.
    The US is an odd ship. The captain yells out when he sees obtacles , but 535 individual propellers do the steering.

  10. #60
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

    Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

    Taxed more in quantity? Yes. Taxes at a higher rate? No.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •