• 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!

Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes in the United States?

Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

  • Yes

    Votes: 58 48.3%

  • No

    Votes: 62 51.7%
  • Total voters
    120
dontworrybehappy said:
Can anyone explain to me why a flat tax, say 10% of your net income for EVERYONE, from the guy that makes 10k a year to the guy that makes 10 BILLION, why is this not ok? I think that is as fair as you can possibly be. That way everybody has a little meat in the pot and I think more people would care about where their money is being spent in Washington. With 47% of Americans not paying any income tax, what do they care how Washington wastes it? Make them have a little meat in the pot and I promise they would care.
Click to expand...

1) it castrates the power of congress. By making everyone pay the same rate, you cannot buy the votes of the masses by telling them that the government needs more taxes but only the rich will see an increase. Rather, the pimps in office will have to raise everyone's taxes thus costing themselves votes.

2) if everyone had some skin in the game they might be less likely to cavalierly approve of those pimps wasting so much of our money. That too would castrate the power of congress.
 
TurtleDude said:
where is the first 150 years? where is the data for those who demand most of the government services?

where are the 47% who don't pay federal income tax

where are the people who use more services than they pay in taxes
Click to expand...



Right in your head where those strawmen were created I would guess.
 
Catawba said:
Right in your head where those strawmen were created I would guess.
Click to expand...

you dishonestly ignore the years were we did not have an income tax or where the rates were rather low

the fact is there is nothing that PROVES that a progressive tax is fair, proper or as American as apple pie. Its a scheme that politicians use to pay for the stuff they use to buy the votes of the many without losing the votes of the many. That it appeals to losers, ne'er do wells and the envious is even better for those pimps in office.

its time people like you start paying for what you use. Your existence does not benefit me in the least and I derive no positives from having to pay for some of your wants
 
TurtleDude said:
your entire premise is based on the assumption that a progressive tax is fair.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the premise of myself and the majority of both parties for most of the last hundred years. It is only a small group of ultra-conservatives who think the progressive tax is unfair.
 
TurtleDude said:
1) it castrates the power of congress. By making everyone pay the same rate, you cannot buy the votes of the masses by telling them that the government needs more taxes but only the rich will see an increase. Rather, the pimps in office will have to raise everyone's taxes thus costing themselves votes.

2) if everyone had some skin in the game they might be less likely to cavalierly approve of those pimps wasting so much of our money. That too would castrate the power of congress.
Click to expand...

What you say is true. The massive FIT code is a huge "fund raiser" for members of congress, they get paid handsomely to tinker with it. We can't quite call it bribery but it is; if this change is made you will get $$$ from XXX given to your campaign fund, and if you get voted out of office next election YYY will give you ZZZ position at the XYZ lobbying foundation for $$$ per year, for life.

A simple fix, to keep the rate flat, but to make it politically possible to pass (progressive), is a large 'standard deduction' of say $20,000/year.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Yeah, the premise of myself and the majority of both parties for most of the last hundred years. It is only a small group of ultra-conservatives who think the progressive tax is unfair.
Click to expand...

Appealing to the fleas to justify biting one dog is not intellectually honest.

of course those who benefit from paying less than they should think its fair. that is why that disgusting scheme works.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What you say is true. The massive FIT code is a huge "fund raiser" for members of congress, they get paid handsomely to tinker with it. We can't quite call it bribery but it is; if this change is made you will get $$$ from XXX given to your campaign fund, and if you get voted out of office next election YYY will give you ZZZ position at the XYZ lobbying foundation for $$$ per year, for life.

A simple fix, to keep the rate flat, but to make it politically possible to pass, is a large 'standard deduction' of say $20,000/year.
Click to expand...

also unworkable but another way to castrate congress and render to it the proper level of power as intended would be to allow those who pay more taxes to have more votes-like stockholders. than the fleas could not constantly vote away the blood of the fewer dogs. the politicians would no longer cater to the many by promising them the wealth of the few
 
DA60 said:
So for - what is it the fifth time - I have asked this guy to back up his claim with a link to unbiased, factual data.
And yet again he refuses.
I give up.
Just let me know MS when you can answer the question...I have things i would rather do then this silly back-and-forth.
Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
DA60 said:
The government should have NOTHING to do with the economy at ALL.
Click to expand...
Why monopolies are bad:

These will help you understand the basics ...
The Basics - reference #1
The Basics - reference #2


Now, I know this is a big step from the last one but we'll try anyway ...
Hydraulic empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Monopolies being bad and the need for a national currency are so obvious and basic that, honestly, if you need proof of those you should return to class, check out some books at the library, or do a lot more Internet reading at the very least. Providing links to basic, well-established theories and facts is something I will not waste time on. Regardless of how much free time I may have, that does not mean I am somehow required to waste it educating you.

If you think the well-established theories are wrong then I invite you to do what every other fringe idealist of the past two centuries has been required to do - show proof that everyone else is wrong and you're right.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Why monopolies are bad:

These will help you understand the basics ...
The Basics - reference #1
The Basics - reference #2


Now, I know this is a big step from the last one but we'll try anyway ...
Hydraulic empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Monopolies being bad and the need for a national currency are so obvious and basic that, honestly, if you need proof of those you should return to class, check out some books at the library, or do a lot more Internet reading at the very least. Providing links to basic, well-established theories and facts is something I will not waste time on. Regardless of how much free time I may have, that does not mean I am somehow required to waste it educating you.

If you think the well-established theories are wrong then I invite you to do what every other fringe idealist of the past two centuries has been required to do - show proof that everyone else is wrong and you're right.
Click to expand...

Ahhhhhh....yeaaaah.

So this is your proof?

Noted.


And you asked me for mine.

Here is a start to why I think government intervention in the economy is bad:

"Why Was the Fed Created?" with George Selgin -- Ron Paul Fed Lecture Series, Pt 1/3 - YouTube


Have a nice day.
 
MoSurveyor said:
If you think the well-established theories are wrong then I invite you to do what every other fringe idealist of the past two centuries has been required to do - show proof that everyone else is wrong and you're right.
Click to expand...
Btw - 'the well-established theories' are generally 'well-established' by Keynesian, macro-economic ignoramuses like Ben Bernanke, Paul Krugman and Timothy Geithner who don't understand free markets...all they understand is printing money.

They are mostly arrogant, condescending, close-minded and out-of-touch with reality...much as you seem to be...especially the first three.
 
MoSurveyor said:
You make many assumptions in your reply - most of which are wrong.

Sorry, go back to the end of the line.
Click to expand...
Really, which were wrong. That you have never been a business owner. That most employees never run a business. That most business owners have been employees. Do please tell.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Why monopolies are bad:

These will help you understand the basics ...
The Basics - reference #1
The Basics - reference #2


Now, I know this is a big step from the last one but we'll try anyway ...
Hydraulic empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Monopolies being bad and the need for a national currency are so obvious and basic that, honestly, if you need proof of those you should return to class, check out some books at the library, or do a lot more Internet reading at the very least. Providing links to basic, well-established theories and facts is something I will not waste time on. Regardless of how much free time I may have, that does not mean I am somehow required to waste it educating you.

If you think the well-established theories are wrong then I invite you to do what every other fringe idealist of the past two centuries has been required to do - show proof that everyone else is wrong and you're right.
Click to expand...

First of all there are MANY well established theories of economics, classical, neo classical, Keynesian, Chicago, Marxizm, ect. Heres a secret for you, there is no gold standard all encompasing economic theory. If there was we would not have economic downturns.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Why monopolies are bad:

These will help you understand the basics ...
The Basics - reference #1
The Basics - reference #2


Now, I know this is a big step from the last one but we'll try anyway ...
Hydraulic empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Monopolies being bad and the need for a national currency are so obvious and basic that, honestly, if you need proof of those you should return to class, check out some books at the library, or do a lot more Internet reading at the very least. Providing links to basic, well-established theories and facts is something I will not waste time on. Regardless of how much free time I may have, that does not mean I am somehow required to waste it educating you.

If you think the well-established theories are wrong then I invite you to do what every other fringe idealist of the past two centuries has been required to do - show proof that everyone else is wrong and you're right.
Click to expand...

Nice little jab there with the basic reference. :) Problem is your the one who is ignorant. Willfully so.:thumbdown
 
The smart thing to do on taxes is to tax consumption, not earnings.

The Income Taxed should be abolished and a national sales tax should be esablished.

Punishing wage earner punishes the economy as a whole
 
PirateMk1 said:
Really, which were wrong. That you have never been a business owner. That most employees never run a business. That most business owners have been employees. Do please tell.
Click to expand...
Employees make the business run. Ownership is static, work is dynamic--to use a right-wing expression that, like all their other mantras, is never used against them.
 
proud2Bcatholic said:
The smart thing to do on taxes is to tax consumption, not earnings.

The Income Taxed should be abolished and a national sales tax should be esablished.

Punishing wage earner punishes the economy as a whole
Click to expand...

LOL You want to "punish" consumers for buying in a economy that is 75 % consumer spending. You love recessions that much?
Taxing income NOT spent is the only way to grow a consumer economy. You have it EXACTLY backwards.
 
TurtleDude said:
you dishonestly ignore the years were we did not have an income tax or where the rates were rather low

the fact is there is nothing that PROVES that a progressive tax is fair, proper or as American as apple pie. Its a scheme that politicians use to pay for the stuff they use to buy the votes of the many without losing the votes of the many. That it appeals to losers, ne'er do wells and the envious is even better for those pimps in office.

its time people like you start paying for what you use. Your existence does not benefit me in the least and I derive no positives from having to pay for some of your wants
Click to expand...

It's all about economics dude and the fact that you can't get blood from a stone. You need to stop saving 80% of what you earn, your taxes are going up anyway,so why not live a little? The Govt. is going to take it all when you die you know.
 
winston53660 said:
In a consumer based economy?
Click to expand...

WTF do you guys think a sales tax is? but, I forget, if we did away with sales taxes and only taxed income...the "poor" wouldn't pay any taxes at all...which is probably your desired end state.
 
OscarB63 said:
WTF do you guys think a sales tax is? but, I forget, if we did away with sales taxes and only taxed income...the "poor" wouldn't pay any taxes at all...which is probably your desired end state.
Click to expand...
Many economists over the years have told us that we discourage investment when we raise taxes on long-term capital gains.

Many economists have told us that extra taxing of cigarettes and liquor (sin taxes) discourages their use.

Using either of those theories leads one to the conclusion that sales taxes discourage consumer spending.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Many economists over the years have told us that we discourage investment when we raise taxes on long-term capital gains.

Many economists have told us that extra taxing of cigarettes and liquor (sin taxes) discourages their use.

Using either of those theories leads one to the conclusion that sales taxes discourage consumer spending.
Click to expand...

and yet a $5 dollar pack of cigarettes has $1.01 federal tax, not to mention state and local taxes. and people still smoke. same for alcohol, embedded fed/state/local taxes have done little to discourage their consumption.

If you eliminate all consumption taxes...where is that revenue going to be made up from???? oh...that's right from increasing income/investment/etc taxes on the rich.
 
OscarB63 said:
WTF do you guys think a sales tax is? but, I forget, if we did away with sales taxes and only taxed income...the "poor" wouldn't pay any taxes at all...which is probably your desired end state.
Click to expand...

Sales taxes are REgressive since they impact the poor far more than the rich. That's what you would "like" I guess. What makes you idolize the wealthy? Are they super-human or something?
 
iguanaman said:
Sales taxes are REgressive since they impact the poor far more than the rich. That's what you would "like" I guess. What makes you idolize the wealthy? Are they super-human or something?
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Texas has a state sales tax 8.25% (base rate) and NO state income tax. Many things are not taxed, e.g. FOOD, many "used" goods and labor. It is not regressive, it is flat, with food exempt so it CAN be progressive, since the rich do not eat much more than the poor do. The rich pay far more tax on a Lincoln or Hummer than the poor do on a good used pickup truck or even a new Yugo.
 
iguanaman said:
Sales taxes are REgressive since they impact the poor far more than the rich. That's what you would "like" I guess. What makes you idolize the wealthy? Are they super-human or something?
Click to expand...

sales taxes are virtually the only taxes the "poor" pay. why should they get a free ride on govt services when the rest of us have to pay OUR "fair share" and theirs too?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nonsense. Texas has a state sales tax 8.25% (base rate) and NO state income tax. Many things are not taxed, e.g. FOOD, many "used" goods and labor. It is not regressive, it is flat, with food exempt so it CAN be progressive, since the rich do not eat much more than the poor do. The rich pay far more tax on a Lincoln or Hummer than the poor do on a good used pickup truck or even a new Yugo.
Click to expand...

but...but...but... :2bigcry: the rich don't pay enough :2bigcry:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom