• 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!

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

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


  • Total voters
    50
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

Well you've heard the saying that "socialism is great until you run out of other people's money".

yeah it was my second signature on the board
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

Well, I don't know about you, but I really need 5 lamborghinis and a private jet. I mean, that's just the bare necessities, you know? How are you supposed to survive without that kind of stuff?

that is an envy based argument. need has nothing to do with rights.

you have no just claim on a man who owns 6 cars merely because you are not industrious enough to earn the money to buy one car
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

If we are talking income tax. They should. Income tax was designed to be progressive. Sales takes is designed to be regressive.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

Not only do you (again) misinterpret what has been said, you simultaneously assert that anyone who is poor or less wealthy is so probably because of their own mismanagement and fault.

Thank you for demonstrating just how deluded and sociopathic you are on this matter.

Yes because you, nor Sam, has presented any evidence to the contrary.
Your position is at the very least, equal to mine.


Taxing the wealthy a greater percentage WILL help alleviate the problem. (note: no one is arguing for 70+% or anything extreme like how taxes were in the 40's and 50's.)

By doing what?
Does it change the behavior of those with no assets to get them to have assets?


Correct. This thread discusses only ONE ASPECT OF NEEDED REFORM. I and Sam agree that reform on government efficiency and spending reductions are also needed but dishonest debaters bring them up as red herrings to distract people from discussing tax reform on the wealthy.

You and Sam are just lacking evidence.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

however, to claim there is a moral imperative for the rich to pay more is fraudulent

I'm not claiming a moral imperative. I'm saying that the rich have more ability to pay taxes than the poor without affecting their ability to provide for the basic necessities of life.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

And of course YOU would be king of the world and determine where necessity ends and discretionary begins. Hehehe, what a joke.

Did I say that? No, I didn't. I think most people could probably agree on what are the bare necessities. I'm talking about things like food, a roof over your head, clothing, transportation to and from work.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

Yes because you, nor Sam, has presented any evidence to the contrary.

I suppose you'd like evidence to prove that water is wet and the pope is catholic too.

Sorry but its nothing less than dumb to assert that most people are poor or lack wealth because they must be mismanaging their money. At the very most i could understand the position that most non-wealthy people lack wealth because they dont save enough. But your assertion is just an embaressment to yourself. One that even if proven absolutely wrong i dont see you backing down from.

When the median salary in the US is around $32k and the living wage required for a family of two adults and one child is somewhere around $40k, then its no surprise that most Americans lack any significant wealth.

But even if we dont go into the details of statistics your assertion is still laudable. Most US jobs pay wages that barely support a decent standard of living unless you are single without children. You would have us believe that anyone working these average American jobs mismanages their money and are entirely to blame because they arent pulling in a CEOs, engineering, or doctors wage.

Sam pegs your response to a 'T':
And lurking at the bottom of this morass one finds flagrantly irrational ideas about the human condition. Many of my critics pretend that they have been entirely self-made. They seem to feel responsible for their intellectual gifts, for their freedom from injury and disease, and for the fact that they were born at a specific moment in history. Many appear to have absolutely no awareness of how lucky one must be to succeed at anything in life, no matter how hard one works. One must be lucky to be able to work. One must be lucky to be intelligent, to not have cerebral palsy, or to not have been bankrupted in middle age by the mortal illness of a spouse. Many of us have been extraordinarily lucky—and we did not earn it. Many good people have been extraordinarily unlucky—and they did not deserve it. And yet I get the distinct sense that if I asked some of my readers why they weren’t born with club feet, or orphaned before the age of five, they would not hesitate to take credit for these accomplishments.


Your position is at the very least, equal to mine.
Not even close. But continue with your sociopathic rationalizations if it makes you feel better.



By doing what?
Does it change the behavior of those with no assets to get them to have assets?
yet another red herring and strawman.

I ahree that having the rich and ultra rich pay fair taxes does not make the middle and lower class more wealthy. But thats entirely irrelevant to this discussion.



This discussion is about solving the budget crisis so the government can continue to offer necessary services and programs for its citizens. Nothing about wealth redistribution whatsoever.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

I suppose you'd like evidence to prove that water is wet and the pope is catholic too.

Sorry but its nothing less than dumb to assert that most people are poor or lack wealth because they must be mismanaging their money. At the very most i could understand the position that most non-wealthy people lack wealth because they dont save enough. But your assertion is just an embaressment to yourself. One that even if proven absolutely wrong i dont see you backing down from.

When the median salary in the US is around $32k and the living wage required for a family of two adults and one child is somewhere around $40k, then its no surprise that most Americans lack any significant wealth.

But even if we dont go into the details of statistics your assertion is still laudable. Most US jobs pay wages that barely support a decent standard of living unless you are single without children. You would have us believe that anyone working these average American jobs mismanages their money and are entirely to blame because they arent pulling in a CEOs, engineering, or doctors wage.

:lol:

I speak from experience.
My income (family income) for the past 4 years has been roughly $25k a year, yet I support a family of 4, have savings and investments, just bought a house and for some crazy reason I should believe that clap trap that the living wage is $32k.

You're making excuses and it's a sad joke.

You want to know the most striking difference between me and my coworkers who have a similar income?
They grossly mismanage their money.

Sam pegs your response to a 'T':
And lurking at the bottom of this morass one finds flagrantly irrational ideas about the human condition. Many of my critics pretend that they have been entirely self-made. They seem to feel responsible for their intellectual gifts, for their freedom from injury and disease, and for the fact that they were born at a specific moment in history. Many appear to have absolutely no awareness of how lucky one must be to succeed at anything in life, no matter how hard one works. One must be lucky to be able to work. One must be lucky to be intelligent, to not have cerebral palsy, or to not have been bankrupted in middle age by the mortal illness of a spouse. Many of us have been extraordinarily lucky—and we did not earn it. Many good people have been extraordinarily unlucky—and they did not deserve it. And yet I get the distinct sense that if I asked some of my readers why they weren’t born with club feet, or orphaned before the age of five, they would not hesitate to take credit for these accomplishments.

Sam is an idiot.
Each person expresses different behaviors in regards to their finances, you'll likely find that people with low amounts of assets, treat their money with an emotional, not logical process.

Luck is a fantasy, much like religion, that you would otherwise dismiss.
Contradiction of beliefs for you. :)


Not even close. But continue with your sociopathic rationalizations if it makes you feel better.

Incorrect.


yet another red herring and strawman.

I ahree that having the rich and ultra rich pay fair taxes does not make the middle and lower class more wealthy. But thats entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

Then why bring up how much in assets people have?
You have virtually adopted Sam's argument as your own.
Explain what significance that has when you and Sam have introduced it.

This discussion is about solving the budget crisis so the government can continue to offer necessary services and programs for its citizens. Nothing about wealth redistribution whatsoever.

I'm dissecting his and your crappy arguments.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

How Much Do Americans Save | Shrinkage Is Good

Here's a nice picture link of some of the various reasons people don't save.
It's even sourced.

Notice how people in China, with much, much lower income levels and much, much lower lifestyle amenities save more than your average America.

I guess they're just lucky....:roll:
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

I speak from experience.
My income (family income) for the past 4 years has been roughly $25k a year, yet I support a family of 4, have savings and investments, just bought a house and for some crazy reason I should believe that clap trap that the living wage is $32k.
Please list your approximate monthly expenses for your family for the following:
1 Food
2 child care
3 medical (insurance and any reoccuring expenses)
4 housing/rent
5 transporation (car loan + gas + repairs + registration, etc)

What state do you live in?

If you are going to advertize yourself as a poster child then prove it. Otherwise i think you are lying or grossly misrepresenting.

You want to know the most striking difference between me and my coworkers who have a similar income?
They grossly mismanage their money.
Your coworkers mismanage their income so everyone else most likely is too. :roll:


Each person expresses different behaviors in regards to their finances,

I agree.

you'll likely find that people with low amounts of assets, treat their money with an emotional, not logical process

Even if they did (which i am not conceding) they still have to be making a high enough income to even invest. Saving a couple hundred a month isn't going to pay for retirement. Only a new fridge, car replacement, and rainy day fund.


Then why bring up how much in assets people have?

Because it demonstrates the rich and ultra wealthy are in the best position financially and ethically to pay a greater percentage without adversely effecting their life and finances as compared to others.

Luck is a fantasy,

:roll: of course.

You werent lucky to be:
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

You werent lucky to not have been bankrupted or unemployed by mortal illness of yourself or spouse.

Harry Guerilla succedded and avoided all these pitfalls on his own merit, skill, and talent. :roll:
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

Please list your approximate monthly expenses for your family for the following:
1 Food - Approximately $100-120 per week
2 child care - $0
3 medical (insurance and any reoccuring expenses)- $21.53 per week Med, $4.43 per week Dental
4 housing/rent- $467.36 PITI
5 transporation (car loan + gas + repairs + registration, etc)- Gas per week is approximately $30-40, I just bought new tires with the rebate it comes to $250, registration was $60 this year, I do my own oil changes which usually comes to around $30 but I do buy the premium oil.

What state do you live in? Georgia

If you are going to advertize yourself as a poster child then prove it. Otherwise i think you are lying or grossly misrepresenting.

As requested in bold.

Your coworkers mismanage their income so everyone else most likely is too. :roll:

That's not what I said but that is just a survey of the people around me, that I know more intimately than others.
If they are a verifiable example of the American public, the problems are of their own doing.



Cool.

Even if they did (which i am not conceding) they still have to be making a high enough income to even invest. Saving a couple hundred a month isn't going to pay for retirement. Only a new fridge, car replacement, and rainy day fund.

A couple hundred a month certainly can pay for retirement, compounding interest and a dedicated savings plan would see to that.

Because it demonstrates the rich and ultra wealthy are in the best position financially and ethically to pay a greater percentage without adversely effecting their life and finances as compared to others.

Ethically, it is wrong to make people pay for damages they did not incur.

:roll: of course.

You werent lucky to be:
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

You werent lucky to not have been bankrupted or unemployed by mortal illness of yourself or spouse.

I take care of a family member that was born with a life long physical disability, that was shuffled around to different family members because their parents did not want the responsibility.
Luck has nothing to do with it.

It's all about your response to bad circumstances.
Make the better choice and you can lessen those negative effects.

Harry Guerilla succedded and avoided all these pitfalls on his own merit, skill, and talent. :roll:

Nope, I had help from others, but my response to those events was the make or break moment, of whether or not, I succeed or fail.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

As requested in bold.

Monthly ExpensesGuerrillaStandard of livingNotes
food$440$450450 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$200for 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$800Low 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$60Other: toiletries, clothes, shoes, phone, tv/internet
utils$200electricity, 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.


If they are a verifiable example of the American public, the problems are of their own doing.
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,



A couple hundred a month certainly can pay for retirement, compounding interest and a dedicated savings plan would see to that.
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.

Ethically, it is wrong to make people pay for damages they did not incur.
Members of a society both reaps rewards and share the burden of consequences. Everyone is responsible for their fair share, rich or poor.


I take care of a family member that was born with a life long physical disability, that was shuffled around to different family members because their parents did not want the responsibility.
Luck has nothing to do with it.
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!


Nope, I had help from others, but my response to those events was the make or break moment, of whether or not, I succeed or fail.

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

I forgot to ask this: is that 25k/year after fed/state income taxes?
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

No.

I am a proponent of a flat tax, the only fair tax. :)
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

scourge99 said:
How many Republicans who have vowed not to raise taxes on billionaires would want to live in a country with a trillionaire and 30 percent unemployment? If the answer is “none”—and it really must be—then everyone is in favor of “wealth redistribution.”

I think Mr. Harris far underestimates the committment to ideology among some republicans. While attending a conference in Tulsa, Oklahoma for two weeks, I asked almost this very question to many of the local attendees (most of whom worked in higher education, I might add, so presumably these were among the more liberal people to be found there). I didn't keep track of numbers, but the vast majority said not only yes, but hell yes, they'd rather see that than any higher taxation on the wealthy. There were a few who answered differently. But not many.

Anyway, I find the article almost spot on. Most of the wealthy did not really earn their wealth, and none who did any earning earned it all on their own. Wealth is a product of society as a whole first, and only of individuals as a distant second.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

I think Mr. Harris far underestimates the committment to ideology among some republicans. While attending a conference in Tulsa, Oklahoma for two weeks, I asked almost this very question to many of the local attendees (most of whom worked in higher education, I might add, so presumably these were among the more liberal people to be found there). I didn't keep track of numbers, but the vast majority said not only yes, but hell yes, they'd rather see that than any higher taxation on the wealthy. There were a few who answered differently. But not many.

Anyway, I find the article almost spot on. Most of the wealthy did not really earn their wealth, and none who did any earning earned it all on their own. Wealth is a product of society as a whole first, and only of individuals as a distant second.

the lengths people go through to justify confiscating wealth they had nothing to do with creating.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

the lengths people go through to justify confiscating wealth they had nothing to do with creating.

People claim society is repsonsible for the success. I find that idea disgusting. I just don't understand...

If I make widgets and sell 5 million a year at a $1 profit each, it was my innovation and work that created the products. Sure, I needed to hire people to help make the products, but the people hired had agreements with me as to exactly what that help was worth and there was mutual consent between us. Sure, I needed people to buy the product, but I also had agreements with in terms of the worth of the benefit of each product to each consumer and so they paid a price for the product. In each arrangement, it is a win/win situation - mutuall beneficial and mutual consent. The workers don't get more money because I make more money. Their worth is determined seperately based on what others are willing to work for and what I'm willing to pay. The customers don't get my money because they found it beneficial to buy my product. I don't understand what debt I owe to any part of society... Could someone explain this to me? How is wealth a product of society and not an individual? Because society didn't prevent me from earning wealth? So a person who runs a marathon should thank me for not tripping him?
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

turtledude said:
the lengths people go through to justify confiscating wealth they had nothing to do with creating.

Did you think my post was unreasonably long? Surely you are aware of books that are rather longer...aren't you?
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

fredmertz said:
If I make widgets and sell 5 million a year at a $1 profit each, it was my innovation and work that created the products. Sure, I needed to hire people to help make the products, but the people hired had agreements with me as to exactly what that help was worth and there was mutual consent between us.

The bolded bit is false, because you're leaving something out. Adam Smith, and most of the other classical economists, recognized this, and it ought to be plain as day. Once all land (including, I suppose, the "virtual land" of other means of production) is owned, the people who are in the position of "making widgets" have the power to compel the nature and terms of that agreement.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

The bolded bit is false, because you're leaving something out. Adam Smith, and most of the other classical economists, recognized this, and it ought to be plain as day. Once all land (including, I suppose, the "virtual land" of other means of production) is owned, the people who are in the position of "making widgets" have the power to compel the nature and terms of that agreement.

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 is of course ignoring the practical applications of the real world - one could rent - one could simply put themselves in a position of high-demand by being the best and demand their pay - but I am trying to respond to the overall philosophy of your argument)
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

People claim society is repsonsible (sic) for the success. I find that idea disgusting. I just don't understand...

If I make widgets and sell 5 million a year at a $1 profit each, it was my innovation and work that created the products. Sure, I needed to hire people to help make the products, but the people hired had agreements with me as to exactly what that help was worth and there was mutual consent between us. Sure, I needed people to buy the product, but I also had agreements with in terms of the worth of the benefit of each product to each consumer and so they paid a price for the product. In each arrangement, it is a win/win situation - mutuall (sic) beneficial and mutual consent. The workers don't get more money because I make more money. Their worth is determined seperately (sic) based on what others are willing to work for and what I'm willing to pay. The customers don't get my money because they found it beneficial to buy my product. I don't understand what debt I owe to any part of society... Could someone explain this to me? How is wealth a product of society and not an individual? Because society didn't prevent me from earning wealth? So a person who runs a marathon should thank me for not tripping him?
NoOneGotRichOnHisOwn.jpg

That's what responsibility is all about. I hope this has cleared things up for you.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

View attachment 67116010

That's what responsibility is all about. I hope this has cleared things up for you.

warren is just another pimple on the ass of capitalism
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

warren is just another pimple on the ass of capitalism

its amusing watching the mental gymnastics you must perform to avoid having to honestly confront a difficult argument. It really shows just how deep and pervasive your blind partisanship is.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

Call me crazy, but I'm going with Yes.... Obviously.

As long as gov't is so damn expensive we HAVE to go where the money is for new revenue... and with a trillion-plus in debt, somethings got to give somewhere.

I'd rather see a tax equally - if we're talking about income tax. One may assume many of the 1 billion dollar earners own, run, or open businesses. If that's the case they get taxed there as well... pay for a portion of health care, workmans comp... all the normal things. Flat tax is the only "fair" option.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

View attachment 67116010

That's what responsibility is all about. I hope this has cleared things up for you.

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. Just another blathering class warfare idiot making yet another excuse for more class warfare.
 
Back
Top Bottom