• 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
Catawba said:
...lower income consumers are more affected by it because they are less able to afford it.
Click to expand...

Catawba, I don't buy this "socialised" fallacy. "Les able to afford it"? Give me a break!
Then let's price everything according to "affordability". The poor will pay cheaper than middle class for electricity, water, gasoline, bread, etc., etc. The rich will pay more, accordingly... Bumps have no income, so let's sell them everything for free. This is absurd, this is upside down!
 
Last edited:
Canell said:
Catawba, I don't buy this "socialised" fallacy. "Les able to afford it"? Give me a break!
Then let's price everything according to "affordability". The poor will pay cheaper than middle class for electricity, water, gasoline, bread, etc., etc. The rich will pay more, accordingly... Bumps have no income, so let's sell them everything for free. This is absurd, this is upside down!
Click to expand...

You have yet to prove it is a socialized fallacy.

Dezaad said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Catawba said:
You have yet to prove it is a socialized fallacy.
Click to expand...

OK, how come someone has to be "able to afford it" in the first place? Where is this notion coming from ?
You get what you can afford. It may be hard but that's life.
 
cpwill said:
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%.
Click to expand...

Romney paid 13% and GE paid nothing....give it a rest marine...they rich skate on most of their responsibility and a family making 250k is not rich....they are the ones getting screwed the most...the middle to upper middleclass
 
I think all this talk of who is paying their fair share in taxes is pointless and unhelpful. Could the rich afford to pay more in taxes? Of course they could. Most people could afford to pay more. Should the rich pay more in taxes? For the time being, yes, they probably should. Paying off our massive government debt is going to require revenue increases. I don't see any way around it. And the wealthy are most able to handle a further small loss of income. However that's not to say that others shouldn't also pay more if they're able to.

In the long run, I'd like to see our tax system completely rewritten to be a lot simpler. All of the loopholes that everyone uses to pay less taxes would be removed, but tax rates would go down as well, since people would actually be paying the full tax rate.
 
Article 1
Section 8

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

How would you interpret the bold part?

Does that mean everyone should pay 1,000.00 per year per person? (amount is example only, no intent of actual amount implied)

Does that mean everyone pays 10% per year per person? (amount is example only, no intent of actual amount implied)

Everyone for the most part has the ability to use the same Services our Federal Government provides, ie National Security, Parks, Roads, etc. so why do we have discrimination against various Human Beings? Looks to me as the Founding Fathers intended for everyone to be treated Equally and Fairly without Discrimination :)

Thoughts?
 
Catawba said:
You are proposing eliminating the sales tax????
Click to expand...

Federal sales taxes? Certainly. I wouldn't mind the Fair Tax - which includes a prebate to make the system progressive. But simple, predictable taxes are best.

However, that is a dodge. The fact remains that a flat rate on income is a flat tax - not a regressive one. You may claim if you wish that some of its' effects are more regressive, but that does not change what it is.
 
lpast said:
Romney paid 13%
Click to expand...

:) He paid 14%. Which is more than the vast majority of Americans do:

Average_Tax_Rates.png


and GE paid nothing.
Thanks to the overwhelming complexity of the tax code, supreme political placement, and the highest costing tax shop on the planet yes, they do. Can we count you in favor of Paul Ryan's plan to strip out all of the deductions and credits that let GE get away with paying nothing while other businesses (for example, retail) pay nearly the full nominal rate? :)

they rich skate on most of their responsibility
Click to expand...

if by that you mean "pay most the taxes".

and a family making 250k is not rich
Click to expand...

that is correct - they are fabulously rich. A family making more than 250K is living a life of luxury beyond any king, emperor, or potentate over the vast majority of Human history.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Fairness is when everyone pays the same amount, not the same %, the same amount.
 
mpg said:
Fairness is when everyone pays the same amount, not the same %, the same amount.
Click to expand...

So you're OK with a factory worker making $40K a year paying the same amount as David Koch, who earned more than $5 billion last year?
 
leftofabbie said:
So you're OK with a factory worker making $40K a year paying the same amount as David Koch, who earned more than $5 billion last year?
Click to expand...
My comment was not a policy proposal. It was a comment about fairness, and a highly conventional one.
 
mpg said:
My comment was not a policy proposal. It was a comment about fairness, and a highly conventional one.
Click to expand...

Then let's try again. Are you indicating that your think a $40K /year factory worker and a $400 million/year hedge fund manager should pay the same amount of federal taxes?
 
cpwill said:
:) He paid 14%. Which is more than the vast majority of Americans do:

Average_Tax_Rates.png
Click to expand...

Not sure where that chart came from, but it seems a vast underestimation. My wife and I fell in the 100k-200k range last year and paid a hell of a lot more than 12%. Most years we fall right about 100k, and still pay a hell of a lot more than 8-12%.

cpwill said:
that is correct - they are fabulously rich. A family making more than 250K is living a life of luxury beyond any king, emperor, or potentate over the vast majority of Human history.
Click to expand...

250K a year is quite well off. I certainly wouldn't call it fabulously rich though. And it certainly doesn't afford one "a life of luxury beyond any king, emperor, or potentate over the vast majority of human history". Unless of course you simply mean that people today have access to technology that raises the standard of living above what most people throughout history had, which is true, but is nearly as true of a family making 40k per year as one making 250k or 250 million.
 
leftofabbie said:
Then let's try again. Are you indicating that your think a $40K /year factory worker and a $400 million/year hedge fund manager should pay the same amount of federal taxes?
Click to expand...
No, I don't think they should pay the same amount. I believe that a progressive tax code is unfair, but a necessary evil. Even though our current tax code is extremely progressive by OECD standards, we may have to make it more progressive, but let's not kid ourselves and say that we're making it more fair.
 
mpg said:
No, I don't think they should pay the same amount. I believe that a progressive tax code is unfair, but a necessary evil. Even though our current tax code is extremely progressive by OECD standards, we may have to make it more progressive, but let's not kid ourselves and say that we're making it more fair.
Click to expand...


Actually, no, our tax code is not progressive by OECD standards...

How do US taxes compare internationally?

U.S. taxes are low relative to those in other developed countries. In 2008 U.S. taxes at all levels of government claimed 26 percent of GDP, compared with an average of 35 percent of GDP for the 33 member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
 
Snake_Plissken said:
Article 1
Section 8

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

How would you interpret the bold part?

Does that mean everyone should pay 1,000.00 per year per person? (amount is example only, no intent of actual amount implied)

Does that mean everyone pays 10% per year per person? (amount is example only, no intent of actual amount implied)

Everyone for the most part has the ability to use the same Services our Federal Government provides, ie National Security, Parks, Roads, etc. so why do we have discrimination against various Human Beings? Looks to me as the Founding Fathers intended for everyone to be treated Equally and Fairly without Discrimination :)

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

That was ALL changed by the FIT system allowed via the 16th amendment, unfortunately. ;-)
 
leftofabbie said:
Then let's try again. Are you indicating that your think a $40K /year factory worker and a $400 million/year hedge fund manager should pay the same amount of federal taxes?
Click to expand...

The same AMOUNT no, the same RATE yes. Why is it "fair" that SS taxes are based on only GROSS wage income, using the same rate, and have a cap ($116K?) after which NONE are due? Taxation should not be about "social engineering" or "social justice" but simply to raise revenue needed to support a reasonable amount of gov't spending.
 
mpg said:
Fairness is when everyone pays the same amount, not the same %, the same amount.
Click to expand...

That is both INSANE and impossible, but other than that, a great idea. ;-)
 
Snake_Plissken said:
Article 1
Section 8

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

How would you interpret the bold part?

Does that mean everyone should pay 1,000.00 per year per person? (amount is example only, no intent of actual amount implied)

Does that mean everyone pays 10% per year per person? (amount is example only, no intent of actual amount implied)
Click to expand...

People have tried to make the argument you are making in court- that "uniform" means "flat". But that isn't really what it says. What it say is that the federal taxes need to be the same in Delaware as they are in Georgia, which of course they are. We tax every person according to the same tax brackets for wages, the same rules for capital gains, etc.

Snake_Plissken said:
Everyone for the most part has the ability to use the same Services our Federal Government provides, ie National Security, Parks, Roads, etc. so why do we have discrimination against various Human Beings? Looks to me as the Founding Fathers intended for everyone to be treated Equally and Fairly without Discrimination
Click to expand...

The amount of benefit somebody draws from society is proportionate to their income. If somebody owns a company with 100 employees, for example, they are drawing benefit from 101 educations, where the employee is only drawing benefit from one. The person with $1 million in investments benefits 1,000 times as much as the person with $1,000 in investments from most bailouts. National security and law enforcement both provide more value the more you have to protect. The richer somebody is, the more stock they own, the more wear and tear they are putting on the roads through those companies, the more pollution they are generating, the more regulatory costs they are creating, etc.

But those are just the benefits they draw directly from the government. All the money they have is drawn from society as a whole obviously. They aren't printing it in their basements on animal skins from animals they killed themselves, they are getting it from transactions with other people. That's the source of their money- society. So, it makes sense that they would pay more to keep that society strong, right?
 
leftofabbie said:
Actually, no, our tax code is not progressive by OECD standards...

How do US taxes compare internationally?

U.S. taxes are low relative to those in other developed countries. In 2008 U.S. taxes at all levels of government claimed 26 percent of GDP, compared with an average of 35 percent of GDP for the 33 member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Click to expand...
I didn't say that our taxes are HIGH, I said that our tax code is extremely PROGRESSIVE by OECD standards.
 
Catawba said:
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
Click to expand...

That includes a HUGE logical falacy. That both the rich and the poor will eat the same type and amount of food, or buy the same type and amount of other items. The sales tax on a Yugo is much less than the sales tax on a Rolls Royce. I understand your basic premise, that the poor must CONSUME more of their income than the rich must, but by simply exemtping food (and used goods) from sales taxation that "regressive" curve changes very dramatically.
 
mpg said:
I didn't say that our taxes are HIGH, I said that our tax code is extremely PROGRESSIVE by OECD standards.
Click to expand...

Yes, the top rates are higher, but you're overlooking the fact that the top 10% of America's earners are taking home 50% of America's income. This is much more lopsided than other OECD countries.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That includes a HUGE logical falacy. That both the rich and the poor will eat the same type and amount of food, or buy the same type and amount of other items. The sales tax on a Yugo is much less than the sales tax on a Rolls Royce. I understand your basic premise, that the poor must CONSUME more of their income than the rich must, but by simply exemtping food (and used goods) from sales taxation that "regressive" curve changes very dramatically.
Click to expand...

That's not a logical fallacy, that is what regressive means- takes a smaller share of your income the richer you are. Consumption based taxes are virtually always regressive. When somebody talks about "regressive taxes", that is what they are referring to. If regressive taxes didn't include consumption taxes, they wouldn't really refer to anything...
 
teamosil said:
That's not a logical fallacy, that is what regressive means- takes a smaller share of your income the richer you are. Consumption based taxes are virtually always regressive. When somebody talks about "regressive taxes", that is what they are referring to. If regressive taxes didn't include consumption taxes, they wouldn't really refer to anything...
Click to expand...

That simply depends on what YOU call "fair". "From each according to their ability (to pay taxes), to each according to their need (for gov't help)" may sound quite fair to YOU, but that does not make it so. The current BASIS for FIT is an AGI to make basic living costs exempt and tax the balance of income using progressively higher rates, which is also seen as "fair" in the eyes of many. Many state sales tax systems, including ours in Texas, exempt food completely, making them much less "regressive".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom