• 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
ttwtt78640 said:
As for inheritance, that is NOT income, as it must have been ALREADY taxed as income by whoever is leaving it (and much of it is passed on as non-cash assets, like a home, family farm or business).
Click to expand...

Taxes were paid on all income by previous owners. If I earn $1,000 at my job, I pay taxes on it, then I use it to hire you to build me a widget, you still have to pay taxes on it. It isn't like money is somehow made immune to taxation in later transactions. When it changes hands, you need to pay taxes on it.

ttwtt78640 said:
As for capital gains, interest and dividend (investment) income, that is a tricky point indeed. It can only be made by investing a portion of your "income", that has already been taxed, so it too, could be left tax free and still be "fair". I am willing to "trade" here.
Click to expand...

That doesn't really add up either. You don't pay taxes on the part you invested, just the new income.

ttwtt78640 said:
I would prefer that corporate income, not be taxed (at all) since a corporation is NOT a person (citizen) that can vote, so that creates both taxation without representation and leads (as we all know) to politcal favors (corrupton?) used to alter corporate taxation laws and drive many of them (and their jobs) off-shore. The "trade" I offer, for excuding corporate income from taxation, is this; tax all "investment" income at 1/2 the rate of wage income, by simply adding HALF of investment income to each individual's total income, and then tax that total.
Click to expand...

Why half? Seems to me that, if anything, we ought to tax investment income more highly than wages. Wages you have to actually work to get, where investment income you don't. Seems to me that if we were to tax one more, it would be the one you don't have to do anything to get... I'm fine with taxing them the same, but I don't see any reason to tax investment income less..
 
molten_dragon said:
This would be my preferred solution as well. Every household gets a single cost of living deduction based on some percentage of the poverty level (say 150%) for their family size (and probably where they live since cost of living varies around the country) and pays a flat percentage on everything after that. And that would apply to everything. There would be no special taxes for estates, or for capital gains. All of it would be taxed as income.

Is that too simple to actually work in the real world? Probably. But I think starting with that as a basis and adding the bare minimum of complications necessary to make it work in reality would be better than trying to fix the god-awful complicated pile of crap tax code that we have now.
Click to expand...

I diasgree with having DIFFERENT individual "non-standard" deductions. It is your choice whether you have children, rent vs. buying home, pay cash vs. incurring credit interest, live in a high tax state or any other personal financial decision you make. Taxation is for revenue generation, not for "social engineering" or "social justice" causes. If you want to give away taxpayer money, then do it AFTER tax collection, directly by a gov't check that all may easily see the cost of, not through a sneaky complex quagmire of tax laws, so that its true cost may never be made known.
 
molten_dragon said:
The argument that inheritance and capital gains shouldn't be taxed as income because they already have been once doesn't really fly. Earned income has been taxed as income before too, just a little more indirectly. For example, I earn money at work, and pay taxes on that income. Then later I go buy some groceries, and with some of the money I spent on groceries, the grocery store pays their employees, who also have to pay taxes on that money.
Click to expand...

teamosil said:
Taxes were paid on all income by previous owners. If I earn $1,000 at my job, I pay taxes on it, then I use it to hire you to build me a widget, you still have to pay taxes on it. It isn't like money is somehow made immune to taxation in later transactions. When it changes hands, you need to pay taxes on it.
Click to expand...

Those are all transactions that trigger a tax. Exchanging something for another, in the form of a contract. Trade. Labor for money, and money for goods and services. Gifts and inheritance are not examples of this.
 
Last edited:
Neomalthusian said:
Those are all transactions that trigger a tax. Exchanging something for another, in the form of a contract. Trade. Labor for money, and money for goods and services. Gifts and inheritance are not examples of this.
Click to expand...

But why is that distinction significant in terms of taxation? Ownership is changing hands -- it's a transfer of title, or to title, in the case of inheritance and capital gains.
 
This is the kind of debate that is too politically correct for me. We're arguing a difference of a few percentage points. Why not argue the point that the income tax is inefficient, immoral, and the cause of our problems today? I guess this doesn't fit in the Hillary Clinton<--->Mitt Romney spectrum of allowed opinion. But in the end, you know it's true. The fact that I have basically no control over the federal government suggests that they should not be able to take any of my money. I'm much more sympathetic to the idea of taxation when I actually have a chance of influencing opinion on the subject, that is, in tiny municipalities.
 
molten_dragon said:
The argument that inheritance and capital gains shouldn't be taxed as income because they already have been once doesn't really fly. Earned income has been taxed as income before too, just a little more indirectly. For example, I earn money at work, and pay taxes on that income. Then later I go buy some groceries, and with some of the money I spent on groceries, the grocery store pays their employees, who also have to pay taxes on that money. Would you argue that the people working at the grocery store shouldn't have to pay income taxes on their wages because that money has already been taxed as income once?
Click to expand...

You miss some key distinctions. What you spend is gone (consumed), yes it may be recirculated, but you have neither interest in, nor control over, how. What you invest is still yours (hard earned income), but you have placed it at risk, to be used by others with a CHANCE that you will benefit, yet your have no such guarantee it will benefit you, like eating that hot dog or driving that car, that you could have done instead. Investment helps us ALL, not just the guy taking the risk, as it grows the economy, creates jobs and thus should be encouraged, over simple personal consumption. Offering a reward for successful private investment, by taxing that "income" at a lower rate, is a common good, especially considering that, if money is lost, then you get no tax break for that "bad" investment.
 
Last edited:
teamosil said:
Taxes were paid on all income by previous owners. If I earn $1,000 at my job, I pay taxes on it, then I use it to hire you to build me a widget, you still have to pay taxes on it. It isn't like money is somehow made immune to taxation in later transactions. When it changes hands, you need to pay taxes on it.



That doesn't really add up either. You don't pay taxes on the part you invested, just the new income.



Why half? Seems to me that, if anything, we ought to tax investment income more highly than wages. Wages you have to actually work to get, where investment income you don't. Seems to me that if we were to tax one more, it would be the one you don't have to do anything to get... I'm fine with taxing them the same, but I don't see any reason to tax investment income less..
Click to expand...

You miss some key distinctions. What you spend is gone (consumed), yes it may be recirculated, but you have neither interest in, nor control over, how. What you invest is still yours (hard earned income), but you have placed it at risk, to be used by others with a CHANCE that you will benefit, yet your have no such guarantee it will benefit you, like eating that hot dog or driving that car, that you could have done instead. Investment helps us ALL, not just the guy taking the risk, as it grows the economy, creates jobs and thus should be encouraged, over simple personal consumption. Offering a reward for successful private investment, by taxing that "income" at a lower rate, is a common good, especially considering that, if money is lost (or its value reduced by inflation), then you get no tax break for that "bad" investment.
 
Last edited:
GhostlyJoe said:
But why is that distinction significant in terms of taxation? Ownership is changing hands -- it's a transfer of title, or to title, in the case of inheritance and capital gains.
Click to expand...

The transactions that generate taxes are voluntary contracts, which are an intentional creation of a legal obligation on the part of both parties involved. Whether it's an employment contract, a sales contract or an investment, the common denominator is that adults are legally entering into contract with one another and it is this activity that is taxable.

See: Section 61, Internal Revenue Code
 
Last edited:
Neomalthusian said:
Because income is something you earn by trading one thing for another (e.g. through work or investments).
Click to expand...

Er, you contended that investment income wasn't income. Now you seem to be saying that it is like wages. That would be a counter to your position that it wasn't income, no?

Neomalthusian said:
Then why not tax the **** out of it, say 90%? After all, if you're investing it, you ought not really "need" it in any immediate sense, so have government take it. Taxing CGs is essentially without consequence, according to your analysis.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't say it was without consequence. I said that creating an incentive to invest internationally instead of domestically isn't an actual issue.

Capital gains taxes do have consequences. If you tax them way too much, you soak up too much of the pool of investment capital and then businesses that need investment to grow can't grow. You certainly need to balance that out. On one hand, you have the value of more investment capital, on the other you have lower deficits. When you're really starved for investment capital, you can even potentially lower deficits by cutting capital gains taxes. But, we're way below that point now. We have much more investment capital than we currently need and recent capital gains rate cuts have all led to a reduction in revenues.

Of course, all taxes have consequences. If we tax capital gains lower and need to tax wages at a higher rate, that means less consumer spending. Right now, it is consumer spending we need more badly than investment capital.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Those are all transactions that trigger a tax. Exchanging something for another, in the form of a contract. Trade. Labor for money, and money for goods and services. Gifts and inheritance are not examples of this.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that money you get for nothing should be taxed less than money you earn? Why? Should lottery winnings and gambling winnings and whatnot be taxed at a lower rate too? Why?

ttwtt78640 said:
You miss some key distinctions. What you spend is gone (consumed), yes it may be recirculated, but you have neither interest in, nor control over, how. What you invest is still yours (hard earned income), but you have placed it at risk, to be used by others with a CHANCE that you will benefit, yet your have no such guarantee it will benefit you, like eating that hot dog or driving that car, that you could have done instead. Investment helps us ALL, not just the guy taking the risk, as it grows the economy, creates jobs and thus should be encouraged, over simple personal consumption. Offering a reward for successful private investment, by taxing that "income" at a lower rate, is a common good, especially considering that, if money is lost (or its value reduced by inflation), then you get no tax break for that "bad" investment.
Click to expand...

You do get a tax break for losses. In fact, not only can losses cancel out any wins for a given year, but if you're crafty about when you sell the stock that took the loss, you can potentially cancel out any wins for many years.

But, regardless, with investments you have to accept risk, but with wages you have to work for it. Personally, I think working 50 hours a week is a much bigger sacrifice than accepting some risk. Especially given that it isn't exactly a 50/50 bet. On average, investors win. And, if they lose bad, those losses just get put back on society as a whole due to limited liability. I see the risk argument as, at most, offsetting the "you don't have to work for it" argument.
 
The top couple percent are the only group that pay a higher share of the income tax burden than their share of the income

so they Pay far more than their fair share


based on what they get from the government--they pay far more than their fair share

so on objective standards the rich are extremely overtaxed''
 
teamosil said:
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.
Click to expand...


psychobabble. very few people are in that group you whine about and that group still pays a far higher effective income tax rate than the vast majority of americans. MORE IMPORTANTLY, they pay MILLIONS in actual tax dollars meaning they are paying far more than 60+ million people COMBINED


there is much more to fairness than actual percentages. The rich don't get any more value back than those paying no taxes so on that ground anyone paying more than the average federal tax bill is paying more than their fair share


Your ranting about the rich really is applicable to less then a few thousand people-not the several million that your master Obama calls rich
 
TurtleDude said:
The top couple percent are the only group that pay a higher share of the income tax burden than their share of the income'
Click to expand...

Oh man! You forgot AGAIN td!?! You said "income tax burden" when you meant "federal income tax burden excluding FICA" didn't you! So forgetful!

.... or just dishonest.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
"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.
Click to expand...

this country prospered and grew without a progressive tax so saying it is necessary and appropriate is not subject to proof since it is an opinion. I don't think a progressive tax is appropriate nor necessary.
 
Catawba said:
You are proposing eliminating the sales tax????
Click to expand...

that's a state matter-why do you tax hike (on the rich) fans always want to mix tax systems?

a sales tax is one of the most fair-the more you buy the more you pay and the parasites in office cannot pander to the masses by giving them more goodies paid for by increasing the top bracket
 
To IPAST


GE paid nothing? GE provided hundreds of thousands of jobs which all provided income tax at federal and state levels. are we better off having GE in existence-of course
 
TurtleDude said:
psychobabble.
Click to expand...

TD, I shouldn't be able to refute every argument you make with arguments I have previously made to you. Do you just not get that or what?

TurtleDude said:
very few people are in that group you whine about
Click to expand...

No idea why you thought that was relevant. If anything, that would be an argument in my favor...

TurtleDude said:
that group still pays a far higher effective income tax rate than the vast majority of americans.
Click to expand...

No. Again, they pay just under half of the effective tax rate of the vast majority of Americans. Close to 15% for them, the median American pays 27%.

TurtleDude said:
MORE IMPORTANTLY, they pay MILLIONS in actual tax dollars meaning they are paying far more than 60+ million people COMBINED
Click to expand...

Again, as has been explained to you many, many, times, that is just an indication of how severe the concentration of wealth is. That is an argument for why taxation needs to be made more progressive, not less.

TurtleDude said:
there is much more to fairness than actual percentages. The rich don't get any more value back than those paying no taxes so on that ground anyone paying more than the average federal tax bill is paying more than their fair share
Click to expand...

Oh come on TD. How many times has this claim of yours been debunked. It's just disgusting that you still sit there pretending like it is true when you know full well that we have debunked it over and over and that you've never been able to defend it. Get your act together.
 
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...

well its not possible given how greedy and bloated the government has become but ideally yes. Kock doesn't get any additional value from the government and indeed he provides more to society. and if that factory worker knew everyone would pay the same tax bill, he might be far less likely to support some left wing politician who tries to buy his vote by promising more government.

If you cannot afford more taxes you cannot afford more government-sadly the current system encourages those who claim they cannot pay more taxes to vote for those who promise them more government
 
teamosil said:
So you're saying that money you get for nothing should be taxed less than money you earn? Why? Should lottery winnings and gambling winnings and whatnot be taxed at a lower rate too? Why?



You do get a tax break for losses. In fact, not only can losses cancel out any wins for a given year, but if you're crafty about when you sell the stock that took the loss, you can potentially cancel out any wins for many years.

But, regardless, with investments you have to accept risk, but with wages you have to work for it. Personally, I think working 50 hours a week is a much bigger sacrifice than accepting some risk. Especially given that it isn't exactly a 50/50 bet. On average, investors win. And, if they lose bad, those losses just get put back on society as a whole due to limited liability. I see the risk argument as, at most, offsetting the "you don't have to work for it" argument.
Click to expand...

Your "either or argument" makes me suspect that you work yet do not invest, so you prefer "equal" treatment of these earnings. Investing is needed to create jobs for all who work directly for, or do business with, any corporation or small business (just about everyone). Why put money in a bank, or invest it in a business if you can simply spend it now? Do you honestly believe that nobody should have any tax incentive to save or invest, rather than simply spend all of their income now? Why invest in the U.S. if they tax 100% of your gains, instead of Singapor or China if they do not? Much of the movement of capital and jobs to off-shore locations is precisely to avoid the higher U.S. taxation. The rich are not rich because they are stupid or patriotic.
 
Last edited:
leftofabbie said:
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.
Click to expand...

but in those countries the rich tend to pay the same share of the tax burden as their share of the income-same with the middle class In our country the top 5% pay more than half the tax burden and the top one percent pay a huge disparity between their share of the income (22%) and their share of the FIT burden (39+%)
 
teamosil said:
Er, you contended that investment income wasn't income.
Click to expand...

No, I contended that inheritance is not income.

teamosil said:
So you're saying that money you get for nothing should be taxed less than money you earn? Why? Should lottery winnings and gambling winnings and whatnot be taxed at a lower rate too? Why?
Click to expand...

Lottery and gambling are a bit like investing, just with far smaller chances for a much larger gain. They are not the same mechanism, but I see them as similar in that way.

I think that letting a family keep its assets in the family is essential. Having to forfeit a large chunk of a person's estate because they died is a bad tax policy idea for a number of reasons. The focus need not be on whether children have a right to inherit, but rather, should people have the liberty to build up savings and (if they don't have to burn through them), leave it to their children?

But, regardless, with investments you have to accept risk, but with wages you have to work for it. Personally, I think working 50 hours a week is a much bigger sacrifice than accepting some risk.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think working 50 hours a week is not a sacrifice at all, because it contains virtually no investment risk. I can count on that paycheck if I put in 50 hours. Plus it feels healthy to actually, you know, work. Accepting investment risk, especially after the roller coaster of the last decade, is much more of a sense of sacrifice to me, because usually I'm putting up many, many 50-hour weeks' worth of disposable income and it could just evaporate because rich bankers and corporate knobjobs I've never met are taking enormous, stupid risks that send panic into the system and **** everything up.

To a motivated, risk-averse, conservative, prudent person, working a full time job is not thought of as sacrifice. We are not victims because we work. We are victims if our work is mooched off of excessively, however.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
that's a state matter-why do you tax hike (on the rich) fans always want to mix tax systems?

a sales tax is one of the most fair-the more you buy the more you pay and the parasites in office cannot pander to the masses by giving them more goodies paid for by increasing the top bracket
Click to expand...

It also taxes money made (and spent) from ALL sources, even criminal proceeds (drug profits) get taxed when they are spent.
 
teamosil said:
TD, I shouldn't be able to refute every argument you make with arguments I have previously made to you. Do you just not get that or what?



No idea why you thought that was relevant. If anything, that would be an argument in my favor...



No. Again, they pay just under half of the effective tax rate of the vast majority of Americans. Close to 15% for them, the median American pays 27%.



Again, as has been explained to you many, many, times, that is just an indication of how severe the concentration of wealth is. That is an argument for why taxation needs to be made more progressive, not less.



Oh come on TD. How many times has this claim of yours been debunked. It's just disgusting that you still sit there pretending like it is true when you know full well that we have debunked it over and over and that you've never been able to defend it. Get your act together.
Click to expand...

You engage in the usual leftwing dishonesty about taxes. Romney's FIT effective rate is higher than 97% of the effective FIT rate of Americans. You try to use non progressive taxes such as state taxes, FICA, gasoline etc to create an overall tax rate which is made up of often non-progressive taxes. The only fair comparison when it comes to progressive tax rates are progressive taxes

and that again is based on an assumption that taxes should be progressive.

and I don't care if wealth is concentrated. winners win, losers lose and giving the government power to even things up to slake the envy of the left causes far more problems
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It also taxes money made (and spent) from ALL sources, even criminal proceeds (drug profits) get taxed when they are spent.
Click to expand...

and even more importantly, it castrates the extraconstitutional power the government grabbed with the IRS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom