• 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
VanceMack said:
Define 'receive'. Is there some magic gifting program from the federal money fairy that is 'giving' the 1% their income? Or the top 7%? Cuz...funny...I thought we EARNED it.
Click to expand...
If it's investment income it's not earned - or haven't you been paying attention?
 
PirateMk1 said:
How do you think they passed the 16th amendment? They promissed not to go over 1% on the income tax.
Click to expand...

BS, provide the link. I believe that they toyed with the idea of a 10% max, but thought better of it, as the top rate originally was 3%, and thought that might simply encourage raising it that high unnecessarily.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
One EARNS a paycheck. No one gifts it. As such, no one is entitled to what you have EARNED. It may seem nitpicky to YOU...but I promise you, the difference is very real to people actually EARNING their way in life, especially when so many people insist that it isnt FAIR that people that EARN their income dont have more of it involuntarily taken from them and GIVEN to the pathetic perpetual handout crowd. "Fair share" indeed.
Click to expand...

In other words, no, you do not intend to make any relevant points, and just want to nitpick over word choice. Go do it with someone else then, I have no interest in playing along.
 
molten_dragon said:
In other words, no, you do not intend to make any relevant points, and just want to nitpick over word choice. Go do it with someone else then, I have no interest in playing along.
Click to expand...
that you see it as mere nitpicking speaks volumes about you. I would at LEAST have more respect for people if they abandoned the 'fair share' lie and just came right out and said..."look...its not 'fair'...and we damn sure arent paying 'ours' but we want to take more of the money you have earned anyway." At least that would be honest.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Is investment income treated the same as earned income?
Click to expand...
IS it EARNED? I promise you...I lay out the investment capital. I take the risk. It is absolutely 'earned'. Is it TAXED the same way? No. But is it earned? You bet. The only ones that see it otherwise are people with little to no skin in the game.
 
PirateMk1 said:
How do you think they passed the 16th amendment? They promissed not to go over 1% on the income tax.
Click to expand...

You're misinformed on a couple things here.

First off, the income tax rate was never 1%. The lowest bracket was 1% in 1913, but it went up to 7% for the higher brackets. Income taxes existed as far back as the civil war, where the lowest tax bracket was 3%. As far as I know, from the time income taxes were first instituted, the rate for all brackets has never been 1%.

And second, a 1% federal income tax rate is a completely different animal than a combined total local, state, and federal tax rate (including tariffs, income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc.) of 1%.
 
molten_dragon said:
Do you have a source for this? I have trouble believing that local, state, and federal governments put together ever got by on a combined 1% tax rate.
Click to expand...

The original FIT at the time of the 16th amendment was at rates of 1%, 2% and 3% (top rate). Federal gov't was much smaller then, as the constitution was taken seriously, and the role of the federal gov't was actually limitted by it.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Is investment income treated the same as earned income?
Click to expand...

No. It is taxed three times. Once when it is initially earned as wage income (then used to buy the stock), again when it is earned as corporate income and a third time when it is paid out as a stock dividend back to the shareholder. ;-)
 
Canell said:
OK, so the system is false but that's no reason to fix it with wrong decisions (different prices for different classes). It is sad to what mess socialism (big government) leads. :doh
Click to expand...

The Progressive tax has been accepted by both parties under our rule of law for the last hundred years. It is only the far-right that find it socialistic today.
 
VanceMack said:
IS it EARNED? I promise you...I lay out the investment capital. I take the risk. It is absolutely 'earned'. Is it TAXED the same way? No. But is it earned? You bet. The only ones that see it otherwise are people with little to no skin in the game.
Click to expand...
That's like a gambler saying he earned his Big Score. LOL!

No one is buying the crap so you may as well stop shoveling.
 
MoSurveyor said:
That's like a gambler saying he earned his Big Score. LOL!

No one is buying the crap so you may as well stop shoveling.
Click to expand...
So ya got no clothes. Got it.

Yeah...you tell that to the average American that lost his and/or her ass on their 401ks.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
No. It is taxed three times. Once when it is initially earned as wage income (then used to buy the stock), again when it is earned as corporate income and a third time when it is paid out as a stock dividend back to the shareholder. ;-)
Click to expand...
That's a big assumption to take thinking it starts as wages somewhere.
 
Catawba said:
The Progressive tax has been accepted by both parties under our rule of law for the last hundred years. It is only the far-right that find it socialistic today.
Click to expand...

The simple and effective way to deal with that "income disparity" is by using the "standard" deduction; by exempting the first $10K from FIT and applying a single rate of 20% taxation on all income above that point you get a "fair" yet "progressive" basis for taxation. Consider the following example: Citizen A makes $20K/year, while citizen B makes $100K/year; Citizen A pays $2K in taxes or 10% of their gross income, while citizen B pays $18K in taxes or 18% of their gross income. Wasn't that easy and "fair"? A FIT code with only two numbers, won't the lobbyists be mad?
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
So ya got no clothes. Got it.

Yeah...you tell that to the average American that lost his and/or her ass on their 401ks.
Click to expand...
Exactly why I think privatizing the SSA is the stupidest idea yet!!!

It's still not "earned" - it's a bet people make with money. If they wanted to keep their money safe they would have put it in a savings account instead of a 401k.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You make it sound like if you simply CHOOSE to make only enough to sustain yourself (and as big a family as you desire) then you have no tax obligation at all.
Click to expand...

I suppose you could look at it that way. However you, I, and several others have already pointed out in this thread that most people don't choose to be poor. Most don't choose to make only enough money to buy the basic necessities. Now there might be some people that would choose to do that, but that number would be so low as to be irrelevant on the scale of the country as a whole.

ttwtt78640 said:
That is INSANE. You then convert income tax into basically a luxury tax.
Click to expand...

And what if it is? I don't think that's insane at all. The fact that you think someone can (or would) pay income tax when they're barely able to put food on the table for their kids is far more insane.

ttwtt78640 said:
The simple answer is that if you can not afford to raise a child that you wait until you can to have that child, not that you trade raising a child for paying your income taxes. If you can not afford a big house then you live in a smaller one or share one. As it is now, I pay for the education of the children for those that pay no taxes at all, plus the money to feed and house those ADULTS that chose to have them, that is insane.
Click to expand...

Once again, that's a nice simple answer, but it's too simple for the real world. Let's say a family of four is living on $50,000 a year. Mom is making $10,000 a year working in the evenings (so that they don't have to pay for child care) and dad is making $40,000 a year working on the line at an auto assembly plant. Neither one has a college degree that would allow them to get a more lucrative job. Assuming the $10,000 deduction you suggested, and a tax rate of 20%. They pay $8,000 in taxes. Let's say it takes $30,000 to buy basic necessities for their family of four. Currently, they're doing okay. They bring home $42,000 a year after taxes. Plenty to live on and still afford a few luxuries. Then a recession hits, and dad loses his job. He finds another job, but it only pays minimum wage, so now he's only making $16,000 a year. Mom is able to switch to full time second shift, so her salary goes up to $16,000 a year as well. Now, together, they're making $32,000 a year. After taxes though, they're only bringing home $27,600. That's not enough to meet their basic needs. Now which do you think that family will choose to do, go hungry, or not pay their taxes?

The numbers in the scenario might not be completely realistic, but it serves to illustrate my point. People may choose to have children when they have enough money to do so, and later find themselves in worse financial circumstances that make it much harder to afford the size family they have. What are those people supposed to do? Just give their kids up for adoption? Or are people supposed to never have kids even if they can currently afford them, but at some point in the future they might not be able to? That would more than likely result in the extinction of the human race. Congratulations, you've just wiped out our species.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The simple and effective way to deal with that "income disparity" is by using the "standard" deduction; by exempting the first $10K from FIT and applying a single rate of 20% taxation to all income above that point you get a "fair" yet "progressive" basis for taxation. Consider the following example: Citizen A makes $20K/year, while citizen B makes $100K/year; Citizen A pays $2K in taxes or 10% of their gross income, while citizen B pays $18K in taxes or 18% of their gross income. Wasn't that easy and "fair"? A FIT code with only two numbers, won't the lobbyists be mad?
Click to expand...
You've posted this a million times so I'll address it. Change the deduction to 4x the poverty level and adjust the tax rate as needed to fit.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Exactly why I think privatizing the SSA is the stupidest idea yet!!!

It's still not "earned" - it's a bet people make with money. If they wanted to keep their money safe they would have put it in a savings account instead of a 401k.
Click to expand...
The only people that believe investments arent earned are people with no investments. I get it. Its 'magic'.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The original FIT at the time of the 16th amendment was at rates of 1%, 2% and 3% (top rate). Federal gov't was much smaller then, as the constitution was taken seriously, and the role of the federal gov't was actually limitted by it.
Click to expand...

You must be getting your info somewhere else than I am.

This site says that the highest bracket in 1913 just after the passage of the 16th amendment paid 7%.
 
MoSurveyor said:
You've posted this a million times so I'll address it. Change the deduction to 4x the poverty level and adjust the tax rate as needed to fit.
Click to expand...

So what you want is a luxury tax, not really an income tax. We (my family) make less than that, yet now pay FIT. How "progressive" of you.
 
cpwill said:
:lol: I like how they compare the Fair Tax only to the Income tax, when the Fair Tax replaces all Federal taxation.... oh, and how they didn't even score the Fair Tax, but rather their own marked-up altered version.


:) But you continue to try to dodge and divert. A flat tax on income is a flat tax. A regressive tax on income is bracketed, with higher rates at the lower brackets.
Click to expand...

Most people are not gullible enough to fall for a flat tax, that is why all the president candidates that propose it go down in flames.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom