• 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
if the governments were limited to what they were intended to do, then it would be possible. of course those who whine the most for more taxation (of others usually) are the ones who demand more and more government.

I really doubt that. I don't think even if we stepped back to government only doing what it was explicitly allowed to do in federal and state constitutions, that a 10% total tax rate would be enough to support all local, state, and federal government spending together.
 
I really doubt that. I don't think even if we stepped back to government only doing what it was explicitly allowed to do in federal and state constitutions, that a 10% total tax rate would be enough to support all local, state, and federal government spending together.

what were people paying before the new deal
 
The "rich" get that way as they over-charge for thie good and services.
This, I consider to be a "sin".
Our government must tax them more.
If we have a better people, this would not be a debate nor a problem.
Of course, we must keep things in a balance - we must be fair..
In truth, I feel that most "rich" deserve to be this way.....but, a baseball player, is he really worth one thousand dollars per pitch during competition ???
As to a flat tax vs a progressive tax.....
Do we have more thoughtless, selfish people here than caring people ?
If so, our nation is in its dieing years.
 
The "rich" get that way as they over-charge for thie good and services.
This, I consider to be a "sin".
Our government must tax them more.
If we have a better people, this would not be a debate nor a problem.
Of course, we must keep things in a balance - we must be fair..
In truth, I feel that most "rich" deserve to be this way.....but, a baseball player, is he really worth one thousand dollars per pitch during competition ???
As to a flat tax vs a progressive tax.....
Do we have more thoughtless, selfish people here than caring people ?
If so, our nation is in its dieing years.

Nonsense. Did Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Stevie Nicks, Steve Martin or Payton Manning get rich by riping people off or over charging? I would assert that they were voluntarily rewarded for excelling in thier fields of endevour. They all had skills and talents that got rewarded, by their exercising of those skills and talents in a free market. A doctor, lawyer or indian chief get rewarded because they provide a needed service. More valuable or in demand services get higher compensation than a burger flipper commands, not because they rip off people or over charge but because they offer goods and services that people are WILLING to pay more for. Why go to medical school for 7 or 8 years to make minimum wage? Why pay more than minimum wage for a low skilled worker?
 
Last edited:
The tax problems that we have today...isn't about the rich. It's about a tax code system that allows government to keep us all under their control and to manipulate the ways that they construct their power.

Look folks. Until you can forget about liberalism and conservatism being the guiding tenets in our political structure in our government and call it what it really is, which is POWERISM, we'll forever be ****ed to death by our elected officials. That's the facts Jack. Wake the **** up.
 
Hello Earthworm. You my friend are a TROLL consider yourself called out. Happy Trolling.:)
 
Last edited:
Nonsense. Did Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Stevie Nicks, Steve Martin or Payton Manning get rich by riping people off or over charging? I would assert that they were voluntarily rewarded for excelling in thier fields of endevour. They all had skills and talents that got rewarded, by their exercising of those skills and talents in a free market. A doctor, lawyer or indian chief get rewarded because they provide a needed service. More valuable or in demand services get higher compensation than a burger flipper commands, not because they rip off people or over charge but because they offer goods and services that people are WILLING to pay more for. Why go to medical school for 7 or 8 years to make minimum wage? Why pay more than minimum wage for a low skilled worker?
Dont count out the good burger flipping dudes they get good money too, Ya know.:2wave:

PS You get what you negotiate. If you dont negotiate you get whats givin. If you want more ask. You may be pleasently surprised. :twocents:
 
Last edited:
Dont count out the good burger flipping dudes they get good money too, Ya know.:2wave:

PS You get what you negotiate. If you dont negotiate you get whats givin. If you want more ask. You may be pleasently surprised. :twocents:

More likely you will be laughed at, in low wage/skill jobs, and shown the pile of pending applications. Si se puede! (yes we can!) ;-)
 
Last edited:
More likely you will be laughed at, in low wage/skill jobs, and shown the pile of pending applications. Si se puede! (yes we can!) ;-)

You might be surprised espeacially if you been at the company for a length of time. Very rarely does it hurt to ask. By the way a skilled burger flipper is paid a pretty good wage out here in California, ever heard of In and Out Hamburgers? They are only the best chain burger you can get anywhere in the States. I am fortunate to have one not too far from me. Tasty Goodness. :) In and Out pays at the higher end of the wage scale for restraunts in general let alone burger joints. It shows in their product. Damn fine burgers.:2razz:
 
Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low?

"Historically, the term “tax rate” has meant the average or effective tax rate — that is, taxes as a share of income. The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product.

By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan’s administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984.

In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time. Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010.

Yet if one listens to Republicans, one would think that taxes have never been higher, that an excessive tax burden is the most important constraint holding back economic growth and that a big tax cut is exactly what the economy needs to get growing again."

Bruce Bartlett: Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low? - NYTimes.com
 
Earthworm said:
The "rich" get that way as they over-charge for thie good and services.
This, I consider to be a "sin".

You can "consider" it as you please, but simple supply and demand dictates that overcharging for goods and services do not result in profit maximization. Economics triumphs over your belief system.

In truth, I feel that most "rich" deserve to be this way.....but, a baseball player, is he really worth one thousand dollars per pitch during competition ???

A professional athlete is paid what an owner feels is fair dinkum for his services.

If you're against salaries and costs of the industry, you can do your part by boycotting and refusing to give money to professional sports organizations. This can be done by not attending games, not purchasing licensed merchandise, etc.

As to a flat tax vs a progressive tax.....
Do we have more thoughtless, selfish people here than caring people ?

As an educated businessman, very few things piss me off more than subjective ploys and emotional pandering to trump fiscal science. You may as well just keep screaming out "WON'T SOMEONE PLEEEEEEEEEEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN" over and over. Your rant would have equal substance.
 
Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low?

"Historically, the term “tax rate” has meant the average or effective tax rate — that is, taxes as a share of income. The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product.

By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan’s administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984.

In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time. Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010.

Yet if one listens to Republicans, one would think that taxes have never been higher, that an excessive tax burden is the most important constraint holding back economic growth and that a big tax cut is exactly what the economy needs to get growing again."

Bruce Bartlett: Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low? - NYTimes.com

Clever but completely and totally irrelevant. When we talk of taxes, what we MEAN is total federal revenue, not ONLY from FIT, that is but one piece of the complex federal tax structure, ignoring FICA, tarriffs, land leases, excise taxes and many other "user" fees. Total federal revenue is now about 17% of GDP, just as it was under Bush, under Clinton it was about 18% of GDP. Total federal spending, on the other hand, is now 24% of GDP, yet only (averaged) 20% of GDP under Bush and (averaged) 19% under Clinton. It is NOT that federal taxation has suddenly dropped under Obama, but that federal spending rose by 20% under Obama, that gives us the HUGE federal deficits. You may also say the Exxon is getting rich off of the gasoline prices since they make about a whopping 6.2 cents per gallon in profit, but fail to relate that tiny Exxon profit take to the 42 cents per gallon that the federal gov't takes in gasoline taxes. We the sheeple are taxed plenty, our gov't just spends plenty more than that. ;-)
 
Last edited:
That's the name of the game. The most excellent part is that you don't have to play the game. It's all about your personal desires. If you just have to have all the latest flotsam of "modern life", and buy the adverts hammered into you, then you have to play the game. You won't die without a television, or a cable/satellite subscription. Straight internet connections and computers can be found on the cheap, the deluxe package and speed aren't really necessary. Find a career you love, that doesn't require your absolute bondage, you'll make enough to live a joyous life, free from the constraints of the rat race.

It's your choice.
My choice is to have a system where I don't have to weaken myself in order to achieve my potential. If I don't have a choice over who creates and controls the requirements for success, then only those with the power to do that have any real choices under the present monopolistic and moribund system. "Choose to do it my way or the highway" just makes us road kill. I'd rather go on an overpass than on the parade ground those in power lay out for us, but I still claim that we the people must own the highway, not those who force these false choices on us and say that's the way it is. It is only the way they want it to be. They manipulate us into thinking we are free to choose.
 
Clever but completely and totally irrelevant.

Thanks for your opinion anonymous internet guy, but I think I will go with the economic adviser in the White House, the Treasury Department and Congress.
 
Thanks for your opinion anonymous internet guy, but I think I will go with the economic adviser in the White House, the Treasury Department and Congress.

Most of whom are about as intelligent as a rock. If they were put out in the real world on their own they would eaten by the mice in their walls. Some of the most ignorant idiots I know live in DC.:doh
 
Oh really? Where did you get your initial money? Was it not earned (and taxed) by someone?
MINE was, that doesn't mean most investment income went the same route. I'm sure somewhere back in the dawn of time it was all earned but you could be talking generations ago.


Besides, what does it matter? My earning get taxed. Then I buy stuff and it's taxed, again. Then the company I bought from gets the profit taxed. AND?

Money circulates and when it changes hands it gets taxed. That's the way the it works. :shrug:
 
Catawba said:
Thanks for your opinion anonymous internet guy, but I think I will go with the economic adviser in the White House, the Treasury Department and Congress.

Haha!

So you'd believe words by Henry Paulson, Bush's Secretary of the Treasury and CEO of Goldman Sachs (ever so slight conflict of interest there), because he was in a Presidential Cabinet? Or does he just get dismissed because he served under an elected official you do not agree with?

You might want to wipe off that kool-aid mustache and expand further on your opinions here. I'm listening.
 
4x the poverty level is WAY too high. The poverty level for a family of 4 is $23,050. 4x that would be $92,200. A family of 4 living on $92,200 should absolutely be paying taxes. 1.25x or 1.5x the poverty level would be FAR more reasonable.
Mmmm, I should have been more specific. I meant the poverty level for one person, since there would be no deductions. Right now it's ~$11k depending on who you ask.


But I'm flexible on the multiplier to some extent - the point was to tie it to the poverty level instead of having a fixed amount. (Minimum wage should also be tied to the poverty level.) Of course, if we threw out joint filings and all the other nonsense then the numbers you indicated might work.
 
Last edited:
the usual response of those who demand others be taxed more and more. Why don't you just pay for what you use and let others do the same? Your existence is not a just claim on his property
Same old TD. Poor little rich me! :2bigcry:
 
[...]
2. Sixteenth Amendment. More importantly, in 1909 Congress passed the Sixteenth Amendment, which would do away with the apportionment requirement of the Constitution if enacted. This amendment reads as follows:


The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.[11] {wiki}

Congress immediately enacted the first “constitutional” tax law, The Revenue Act of 1913.
Let's get the story straight, shall we? An Amendment starts out being passed by Congress but at least 3/4 of the States must pass it as well. The way you've told this story you've tried to pin it all on Congress but that's just not the way things work in this country. All the States except Connecticut, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia, Florida, and Pennsylvania have ratified this Amendment. Alaska and Hawaii were not States at the time.
 
If you had a loan at any time in your life, then I am afaid sir, you already bought it. So sorry.
Investment income it still not earned - so sorry!

But you should be happy, it's not subject to earnings taxes, either.
 
Last edited:
Same old TD. Poor little rich me! :2bigcry:

I all I got to say is dont steal from me.:flame: If you like taxes so much use the little box on the bottom of your tax form and donate some more. I promise your government wont waste a bit of it. Really.:laughat:
 
PS You get what you negotiate. If you dont negotiate you get whats givin. If you want more ask. You may be pleasently surprised. :twocents:
Or more likely your employer will start looking for your replacement and show you the door when he finds it.
 
Let's get the story straight, shall we? An Amendment starts out being passed by Congress but at least 3/4 of the States must pass it as well. The way you've told this story you've tried to pin it all on Congress but that's just not the way things work in this country. All the States except Connecticut, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia, Florida, and Pennsylvania have ratified this Amendment. Alaska and Hawaii were not States at the time.

I just pasted from WIKI which I cited in the little bracket thingies. If you have a problem take it up with them. I believe the assumption was that people knew of the admendment process. You know what they say about assuming.:Oopsie
 
Investment income it still not earned - so sorry!

But you should be happy, it's not subject to earnings taxes, either.

Correct. Wasnt argueing that point.:) I would be much happier if it was not taxed at all.:censored
 
Back
Top Bottom