• 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
Yes.But seeing how we have a 'progressive' tax system that says the more you make the higher the percentage you pay more they do pay more than than their share. Yeah a lot of rich people use the tax system to pay a lower percentage.Big ****en deal half the American households use that same tax system to not pay any federal income tax at all and many others also use that to pay less in taxes.So its not like the rich are doing anything different than what millions of other Americans are doing.
 
No I do not. I think if you got rid of loopholes and wound it back to Clinton era they would pay about what they should be paying. As for the rest of us, I think all of us making over $20,000 should be paying more federal taxes than we do right now. I don't want to, but even if we were to bring down war and welfare spending to pre-9/11 levels it would take awhile to balance everything back out and quit borrowing from other countries.
 
No I do not. I think if you got rid of loopholes and wound it back to Clinton era they would pay about what they should be paying. As for the rest of us, I think all of us making over $20,000 should be paying more federal taxes than we do right now. I don't want to, but even if we were to bring down war and welfare spending to pre-9/11 levels it would take awhile to balance everything back out and quit borrowing from other countries.

I think in general the rich pay their fair share. There are obviously many rich people who do not, by using unproductive loopholes, storing their income in tax shelters etc. But overall, the US tax system is one of the most progressive in the OECD, and reduces inequality. However, the US welfare system doesn't do as good a job of reducing inequality as the other ones in the OECD, so as a result we're much more unequal.

I think for revenue we ought to give more funding to the IRS, because with their current amount of resources, and increasing burden, it's difficult for them to collect all the taxes. If we did that, we could raise a great deal of revenue.
 
Last edited:
First you must define "fair share". Many, it appears that includes YOU, will not define that as either a percentage of gross or net income. What is the fair share of corporate income? What is the fair share of a worker making $30,000 per year? Is it fair to tax two ctitzens, making the same gross income, different amounts, based on number of dependents, paying rent vs. paying mortagage, paying cash vs. using credit or whether they live in different zip codes? You do not even define what is rich; a single worker in NYC making $100K/year may not be considered rich (there) yet in rural MS that worker would indeed be considered to be rich.
 
Last edited:
First you must define "fair share". Many, it appears that includes YOU, will not define that as either a percentage of gross or net income. What is the fair share of corporate income? What is the fair share of a worker making $30,000 per year? Is it fair to tax two ctitzens, making the same gross income different amounts, based on number of dependents, paying rent vs. paying mortagage, paying cash vs. using credit or whether they live in different zip codes? You do not even define what is rich; a single worker in NYC making $100K/year is not considered rich yet in rural MS that worker would indeed be considered to be rich.

I intentionally left "fair share" vague, I think it should be left to the reader to decide what that means.

You're right about my failure to define "rich." That was unintentional. For future posts, I'll define it as the top income decile.
 
No, of course not. Almost everybody pays between 20% and 30% of their income towards taxes overall. The only exceptions are people living in poverty, who pay 16%, and the super rich, who pay 15%. Obviously it is not fair for super rich people to get lower taxes than working people. All it is is corruption. They have enough money to buy politicians and they use that power to get tax perks for themselves.
 
I intentionally left "fair share" vague, I think it should be left to the reader to decide what that means.

You're right about my failure to define "rich." That was unintentional. For future posts, I'll define it as the top income decile.

Perhaps the best way to ask that question (proper taxation of the rich) is: The correct FIT rate for AGI of over $250,000 is 10%, 20%, 30%... 100%. Better yet, include ALL current IRS AGI brackets in the poll.
 
Last edited:
No, of course not. Almost everybody pays between 20% and 30% of their income towards taxes overall. The only exceptions are people living in poverty, who pay 16%, and the super rich, who pay 15%. Obviously it is not fair for super rich people to get lower taxes than working people. All it is is corruption. They have enough money to buy politicians and they use that power to get tax perks for themselves.

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

No. Only a flat tax can give you that.
But then, the tax system is so out of balance (complicated and like a Swiss cheese), so a flat tax per se wouldn't really matter now.
 
No. Only a flat tax can give you that.
But then, the tax system is so out of balance (complicated and like a Swiss cheese), so a flat tax per se wouldn't really matter now.

A flat tax is regressive. That is the opposite direction needed.

"Definition of 'Regressive Tax'
A tax that takes a larger percentage from low-income people than from high-income people. A regressive tax is generally a tax that is applied uniformly. This means that it hits lower-income individuals harder.

Investopedia explains 'Regressive Tax'
Some examples include gas tax and cigarette tax. For example, if a person has $10 of income and must pay $1 of tax on a package of cigarettes, this represents 10% of the person's income. However, if the person has $20 of income, this $1 tax only represents 5% of that person's income.

Sales taxes that apply to essentials are generally considered to be regressive as well because expenses for food, clothing and shelter tend to make up a higher percentage of a lower income consumer's overall budget. In this case, even though the tax may be uniform (such as 7% sales tax), lower income consumers are more affected by it because they are less able to afford it."


Read more: Regressive Tax Definition | Investopedia
 
"Definition of 'Regressive Tax'

Sorry, I don't buy that. This is some socialistic gibberish, trying to present solidarity as justice. NO!
 
There is no such thing as a 'fair' share; or, at least, it is not as important as other things.

There is an optimal progressivity to the tax structure which yields the greatest prosperity for the middle class. This is the 'correct' level of tax burden distribution. Currently, there is too much money in the hands of the already wealthy... so much so that they collectively cannot find enough opportunities which are worthy of their investment. Simply put, the middle class and poor cannot consume everything the investor class could produce. This is inefficient toward the goal of overall optimal prosperity.

In brief, we need the 'Goldilocks' level of taxation of the wealthy, not what is 'fair'.
 
A flat tax is regressive.

No - it is a "flat" tax. A regressive income tax would be one that taxed the lower brackets at higher rates. However, flat tax of all income over a certain threshold (say, 200% of the poverty line) is progressive. The more you earn, the further you get away from that line, and the larger percentage of your total income you pay in taxes. At a "flat" rate of 20% for income above that line, the guy making $40,000 with a wife and two kids pays nothing, the guy making $70,000 with a wife and two kids pays 6.8%, the guy with a wife and two kids making $250,000 pays 16.3%.
 
Last edited:
There is no such thing as a 'fair' share; or, at least, it is not as important as other things.

There is an optimal progressivity to the tax structure which yields the greatest prosperity for the middle class. This is the 'correct' level of tax burden distribution. Currently, there is too much money in the hands of the already wealthy... so much so that they collectively cannot find enough opportunities which are worthy of their investment. Simply put, the middle class and poor cannot consume everything the investor class could produce. This is inefficient toward the goal of overall optimal prosperity.

In brief, we need the 'Goldilocks' level of taxation of the wealthy, not what is 'fair'.

Which is why I question what defintion we're using. If by fair, we mean fair for the society, to keep America strong, then at least a regression to the pre-Bush tax cuts would be warranted. There is a valid and proper reason we and other countries have relied on a progressive tax.

However, I think some are look for a mathimatical definition of fair, like with a falt tax, same percentage. This has a certain fairness in that everyone carries some of the burden, but that does increase the burden on those least able to handle it and doesn't help grow the middle class, which is essential to the success of this country.
 
The purpose of a tax code is not to be fair. Asking a tax code to be fair is kinda stupid since no two people will agree on what fair is(except maybe that they themselves should pay less). An ideally designed tax code should bring in enough revenue to do what the people think is necessary for the government to do(ie, pay the bills), while minimizing the effect of the tax on those paying it.
 
"Fair" is the wrong question. Progressive taxation is necessary and appropriate, and it should have more bracket, higher top rates and fewer deductions. I'm not gonna weep for people paying high marginal rates under the current tax code.

Oh, and tax capital gains as standard income.
 
Sorry, I don't buy that. This is some socialistic gibberish, trying to present solidarity as justice. NO!

You don't buy math??? That helps to explain why you think a flat tax is fair.
 
No - it is a "flat" tax. A regressive income tax would be one that taxed the lower brackets at higher rates.

Nope. As referenced above:

"Some examples include gas tax and cigarette tax. For example, if a person has $10 of income and must pay $1 of tax on a package of cigarettes, this represents 10% of the person's income. However, if the person has $20 of income, this $1 tax only represents 5% of that person's income.

Sales taxes that apply to essentials are generally considered to be regressive as well because expenses for food, clothing and shelter tend to make up a higher percentage of a lower income consumer's overall budget. In this case, even though the tax may be uniform (such as 7% sales tax), lower income consumers are more affected by it because they are less able to afford it.

Read more: Regressive Tax Definition | Investopedia
 
Oh, and tax capital gains as standard income.

Reagan thought the same thing, yet the GOP in congress today won't even consider it.
 
Last edited:
Which is why I question what defintion we're using. If by fair, we mean fair for the society, to keep America strong, then at least a regression to the pre-Bush tax cuts would be warranted. There is a valid and proper reason we and other countries have relied on a progressive tax.

However, I think some are look for a mathimatical definition of fair, like with a falt tax, same percentage. This has a certain fairness in that everyone carries some of the burden, but that does increase the burden on those least able to handle it and doesn't help grow the middle class, which is essential to the success of this country.

A flat tax doesn't distribute 'burden' evenly. Distributing burden evenly would be making it as difficult/easy for everyone to meet their tax obligation. The middle class citizen has a harder time paying ten dollars in taxes than a billionaire does paying 100 million. And we could argue endlessly about how to measure burden, but it certainly has zero to do with the percentage people pay.

But more to your point, yes a return to Clinton levels might be the ultimate goal, but something more drastic may be in order for the short term.
 
Nope. As referenced above:

reading comprehension much?

cpwill said:
A regressive income tax would be one that taxed the lower brackets at higher rates.

We are talking about income taxes, not sales taxes.
 
A flat tax doesn't distribute 'burden' evenly. Distributing burden evenly would be making it as difficult/easy for everyone to meet their tax obligation. The middle class citizen has a harder time paying ten dollars in taxes than a billionaire does paying 100 million. And we could argue endlessly about how to measure burden, but it certainly has zero to do with the percentage people pay.

But more to your point, yes a return to Clinton levels might be the ultimate goal, but something more drastic may be in order for the short term.

I think I said that in this sentence:

. This has a certain fairness in that everyone carries some of the burden, but that does increase the burden on those least able to handle it and doesn't help grow the middle class, which is essential to the success of this country.

I think some mistake what they see as mathimatical fairness for fairness. That's why I asked for a definition.

I think a return is a reasonable start. And something that really shouldn't be objected to. But, I'd be willing to pay more than that myself.
 
reading comprehension much?

We are talking about income taxes, not sales taxes.



You are proposing eliminating the sales tax????
 
Back
Top Bottom