• 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
Dickieboy said:
No more than they will ignore that the current policies aren't working to fix the broken system...
Click to expand...

We will see who was right in November!
 
Catawba said:
Because there were no corporations in the 90's when tax rates were higher for the wealthy? :lamo
Click to expand...

you keep yammering about old tax rates as if those were fair or necessary. you need to prove that they have some use other than appealing to the envy and spite of those who have failed to achieve success
 
I am still waiting for somebody to explain what is "fair".

If I make $500,000 a year, what is my "fair share" I should pay in federal income taxes.

Right now I believe it is 35%. Why isn't that "fair"?
 
proud2Bcatholic said:
I am still waiting for somebody to explain what is "fair".

If I make $500,000 a year, what is my "fair share" I should pay in federal income taxes.

Right now I believe it is 35%. Why isn't that "fair"?
Click to expand...

because claiming that will cause a politician to be supported by those who aren't smart enough or talented enough to make one fifth of what you make
 
TurtleDude said:
I think most people-reviewing your comments about silk diapers and how the rich ought grovel on their knees to keep their wealth-would conclude that your posts contain a tremendous amount of loathing and hatred for the rich that has no sound basis for these feelings
Click to expand...

Who elected you to speak for "most people"?

I have repeatedly told you over and over again in thread after thread after thread that I deeply admire people who get rich by the hard work and intelligence they exercise. I do not loathe them. I do not hate them. I helped people like Steven Speilberg, Steve Jobs, Stephen King, Larry Bird, Bruce Springsteen and others get rich by buying their products and fruits of their labor. That is support for them where it counts.
 
TurtleDude said:
why? I understand "From each according to their ability" has appeal to the weak minded but that is just plain stupid
Click to expand...

Hollow words which defy reality and defy the practical human limits of each person in the real world.

Could you explain how anyone can be asked to contribute more than their ability? To do so would make no sense at all and would be glaringly stupid in the extreme. People can only contribute each according to their ability because that is the real world practical limitation on what they can do.

But if you can tell us how people can contribute more than they are able, step right up and do so.
 
proud2Bcatholic said:
I am still waiting for somebody to explain what is "fair".

If I make $500,000 a year, what is my "fair share" I should pay in federal income taxes.

Right now I believe it is 35%. Why isn't that "fair"?
Click to expand...

You bring up a good point. The word FAIR used in this context is utterly ridiculous and has no real meaning. It should be crushed and flushed, trashed and smashed and consigned to the dustbin.

The word APPROPRIATE is a far more apt word to use in the discussion of taxation.
 
TurtleDude said:
because claiming that will cause a politician to be supported by those who aren't smart enough or talented enough to make one fifth of what you make
Click to expand...

Yeah.... sure..... whatever ..... like Steven Speilberg or Warren Buffet could not buy anybody here with their chump change. gimmeabreak.
 
As I stated in another thread.
The actual 2011 # look like this
Actual outlay $3,598,086 M / 312 M people = $11,532 per person per year.
If everyone cannot afford that much, then Government is too big!
Our Federal Government is not chartered to engage in charity!
 
longview said:
As I stated in another thread.
The actual 2011 # look like this
Actual outlay $3,598,086 M / 312 M people = $11,532 per person per year.
If everyone cannot afford that much, then Government is too big!
Our Federal Government is not chartered to engage in charity!
Click to expand...

What a fallacy!!!!!

You are assuming that EVERYONE has equal income, equal ability, equal means, equal everything to pay that $11K. That is simply silly.

By your 'reasoning' - since we have homeless people with no income and no ability to pay anything, that then is the standard for EVERYONE.

Amazing!!!!
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
What a fallacy!!!!!

You are assuming that EVERYONE has equal income, equal ability, equal means, equal everything to pay that $11K. That is simply silly.

By your 'reasoning' - since we have homeless people with no income and no ability to pay anything, that then is the standard for EVERYONE.

Amazing!!!!
Click to expand...

But you would agree that we are a country of 'equal rights' correct? And the governance is responsible for protecting these 'equal rights' so logically those who have these 'rights' equally owe the expense of protecting them equally. This may not be practical but it is logical.
 
proud2Bcatholic said:
I am still waiting for somebody to explain what is "fair".

If I make $500,000 a year, what is my "fair share" I should pay in federal income taxes.

Right now I believe it is 35%. Why isn't that "fair"?
Click to expand...
Show me the one person in America who is making this hypothetical $500,000 income only from wages - then we'll talk.
 
My point was, that the raw cost of goods sold of our Government is $11,532 per person per year.
Think of it this way.
A large social group has their annual get-together. Everyone is served a steak dinner worth $20.
So out of 100 members, the 40 middle income members pay $20, the 30 high income members have to pay
$40, low income members get theirs free.
Next year the low income members think they should pick a nicer place to eat!
That's fair, Right?
 
Last edited:
Dickieboy said:
But you would agree that we are a country of 'equal rights' correct? And the governance is responsible for protecting these 'equal rights' so logically those who have these 'rights' equally owe the expense of protecting them equally. This may not be practical but it is logical.
Click to expand...

Of course we are a nation of equal rights. Which has nothing at all to do with anything else in terms of taxation or ability to pay taxes.

Your post is neither practical nor is it logical since you are attempting to equate two very different things that are not at all connected.

As I have repeatedly stated, I agree that all people who make money should share in the burden of the federal income tax. I believe every American who earns dollar one should pay at least 5% in federal income tax. But to pretend that we can all pay the same - either in a gross number or in the same percentage is simply folly.
 
longview said:
My point was, that the raw cost of goods sold of our Government is $11,532 per person per year.
Think of it this way.
A large social group has their annual get-together. Everyone is served a steak dinner worth $20.
So out of 100 members, the 40 middle income members pay $20, the 30 high income members have to pay
$40, low income members get theirs free.
Next year the low income members think they should pick a nicer place to eat!
That's fair, Right?
Click to expand...

You comparison makes me hungry and it is not even lunchtime. ;)

However, your comparison is not an apt one. A social group is a voluntary organization and if one cannot pay the tab, one need not be in it. The nation is not like that.
 
TurtleDude said:
I think most people-reviewing your comments about silk diapers and how the rich ought grovel on their knees to keep their wealth-would conclude that your posts contain a tremendous amount of loathing and hatred for the rich that has no sound basis for these feelings
Click to expand...
haymarket said:
Who elected you to speak for "most people"?............
Click to expand...

I did.

It was on the news.
 
Catawba said:
More importantly does anyone think the working class is going to ignore that GOP policies broke the system they are now whining about?
Click to expand...

I hope they ignore it because its not true.

Its just more leftwing propoganda
 
proud2Bcatholic said:
I did.

It was on the news.
Click to expand...

Since you did not present me with a valid voter ID and sixteen collaborating pieces of other valid ID as well as testimony of the doctor who assisted in your birth as a US citizen, you vote has been thrown out.
 
haymarket said:
Since you did not present me with a valid voter ID and sixteen collaborating pieces of other valid ID as well as testimony of the doctor who assisted in your birth as a US citizen, you vote has been thrown out.
Click to expand...

LOL. I appreciate the sarcasm. :)
 
haymarket said:
You comparison makes me hungry and it is not even lunchtime. ;)

However, your comparison is not an apt one. A social group is a voluntary organization and if one cannot pay the tab, one need not be in it. The nation is not like that.
Click to expand...
I realize the comparison is a poor one, but it is hard to find a nice analogy to someone
being coerced to pay for something for someone else.
In Addition, the people not paying, always think of ways to improve on what they are not paying for.
 
longview said:
I realize the comparison is a poor one, but it is hard to find a nice analogy to someone
being coerced to pay for something for someone else.
In Addition, the people not paying, always think of ways to improve on what they are not paying for.
Click to expand...

Point taken. This is why I have always said that ALL American earning dollar one should at least pay 5% in federal income tax.
 
haymarket said:
Point taken. This is why I have always said that ALL American earning dollar one should at least pay 5% in federal income tax.
Click to expand...
I have always favored a final point of sales consumption tax (excluding food and housing), as that
would keep the Government out of the "How does everyone make" business.
It would also move significant power back to the source of the Government's power(the People)
I agree that everyone should pay something.
 
haymarket said:
Point taken. This is why I have always said that ALL American earning dollar one should at least pay 5% in federal income tax.
Click to expand...
Funny, last time I checked, with the Republicans talking about SS like it's welfare, every America paid 7.45% of their income to Uncle Sam - at a minimum.

Now, if the Republicans and their lackey's want to stop referring to SS as welfare or something even close to it then we might have something to talk about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom