• 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
I do not feel I should subsidize the gambling of anyone else. Why would you?

there we have it-investing is no different than feeding money into a slot machine

when one has that sort of "understanding" about investment capital, its no wonder one would have such a disdain of investment and the good it does
 
I do not feel I should subsidize the gambling of anyone else. Why would you?

Well, if you use a ridiculous hyperbolic phrase to describe it, then sure it sounds silly. Of course, just about anything can be dismissed that way.

A better statement would be that we're incentivizing investment in the US economy, which is more accurate as opposed to "subsidizing gambling," since the only real similarity between investment and gambling is the risk.
 
Last edited:
They are capital gains taxes. They are taxed at a lower rate than other forms of income. It's also important to point out that these low tax rates only apply to long-term investments.

Yep, those who's income comes primarily from investments (like Romney), pay a lower total tax rate on their income than the working class who have to pay full taxes on all their income.

I agree with Reagan, they should be taxed at the same rate as earned income.



"For two years, thanks to Republican icon Ronald Reagan, capital gains and earned income were treated equally."

"As Citizens for Tax Justice has noted, Reagan’s tax increase did not cause investment to fall, as many anti-tax ideologues had predicted."

FLASHBACK: Reagan Raised Capital Gains Taxes To The Same Level As Wage Taxes For First Time | ThinkProgress
 
Its funny watching welfare socialists slurp Reagan without understanding the whole package.
 
there we have it-investing is no different than feeding money into a slot machine

when one has that sort of "understanding" about investment capital, its no wonder one would have such a disdain of investment and the good it does

SIX can be three plus three.
SIX can be eight minus two.
SIX can the four plus two.
SIX can be twelve divided by two.

Its still six no matter how you do the math.

And its still risk and you are asking me to subsidize it regardless if it is investing in stocks or rollin the dice at Vegas. Risk is risk is risk. No taxpayer should have to subsidize it for another.
 
Its funny watching welfare socialists slurp Reagan without understanding the whole package.

The whole package represents lower tax rates for the wealthy than under Reagan, and still they whine that they want even lower tax rates!!!
 
Well, if you use a ridiculous hyperbolic phrase to describe it, then sure it sounds silly. Of course, just about anything can be dismissed that way.

A better statement would be that we're incentivizing investment in the US economy, which is more accurate as opposed to "subsidizing gambling," since the only real similarity between investment and gambling is the risk.

No. Its gambling and you want me to subsidize it for you.

No thank you.
 
The whole package represents lower tax rates for the wealthy than under Reagan, and still they whine that they want even lower tax rates!!!

You need to pay the same amount of taxes I do before you start whining about the rich again.

People like me subsidize your low rates
 
No. Its gambling and you want me to subsidize it for you.

No thank you.

we subsidize the sloth and unproductively of the millions of pawns the dem party has created with its handouts, and we have thus increased deleterious behavior that hurts our nation while investment helps it

It appears you like expenditures that increase dem voters but you dislike stuff that makes the country more prosperous
 
Okay. That is my position. And what does that have to do with what you claimed I believed?



What you quoted me saying and what you claimed I believed are not the same.

Perhaps, yet you seem to not mind deductions, credits, deferals and all sorts of nonsense that has a FAR greater effect on lowering the "average" or "middle class" tax bills (shrinks their AGI) than any "bracket rates" do. The rich pay WAY more than a "fair" share, based on taxation paid relative to their income, yet not a peep from you about this difference. The top income earners make 22% of the nations income, yet they NOW pay 38% of the nations taxes, you want that to increase MORE mainly for the top 1%. You want ALL income to be treated the SAME in one breath, then want the rich to pay more (at a higher rate) even though they clearly already do. You SAY you want inheritance taxed, yet duck every mention of taxation on the passing down of the family farmland or the average small business from parent to child. You ignore tax defered retirement (IRA/Keogh/401K) "investment" income for the "middle class", but want that same "investment" income taxed if it goes to a "rich guy". Calling the same thing a deduction/deferal for one taxpayer yet calling it "gambling income" for another makes NO sense to me.
 
we subsidize the sloth and unproductively of the millions of pawns the dem party has created with its handouts, and we have thus increased deleterious behavior that hurts our nation while investment helps it

It appears you like expenditures that increase dem voters but you dislike stuff that makes the country more prosperous

More pompous pontifications based only upon your extremist and elitist beliefs.

By all means do present your verifiable factual evidence about making the country more prosperous because of long term capital gains preferences.
 
Perhaps, yet you seem to not mind deductions, credits, deferals and all sorts of nonsense that has a FAR greater effect on lowering the "average" or "middle class" tax bills (shrinks their AGI) than any "bracket rates" do. The rich pay WAY more than a "fair" share, based on taxation paid relative to their income, yet not a peep from you about this difference. The top income earners make 22% of the nations income, yet they NOW pay 38% of the nations taxes, you want that to increase MORE mainly for the top 1%. You want ALL income to be treated the SAME in one breath, then want the rich to pay more (at a higher rate) even though they clearly already do. You SAY you want inheritance taxed, yet duck every mention of taxation on the passing down of the family farmland or the average small business from parent to child. You ignore tax defered retirement (IRA/Keogh/401K) "investment" income for the "middle class", but want that same "investment" income taxed if it goes to a "rich guy". Calling the same thing a deduction/deferal for one taxpayer yet calling it "gambling income" for another makes NO sense to me.

Again, you are inventing things and claiming I believe them.

I have posted in this very thread that any discussion of FAIR is absurd as it has become a totally meaningless word in this context.
 
If the rich can't solve the spending problem by paying more, then where is the problem with government spending? Are the rich suppressing the masses from earning a living wage, so that they need gov assistance or is the gov simply wasting money or is it all the above?
 
More pompous pontifications based only upon your extremist and elitist beliefs.

By all means do present your verifiable factual evidence about making the country more prosperous because of long term capital gains preferences.


tell us what would happen if there was no investment capital

versus no people sucking on the public teat

tough call I suspect?
 
tell us what would happen if there was no investment capital

versus no people sucking on the public teat

was that a TWILIGHT ZONE EPISODE or an OUTER LIMITS?
 
SIX can be three plus three.
SIX can be eight minus two.
SIX can the four plus two.
SIX can be twelve divided by two.

Its still six no matter how you do the math.

And its still risk and you are asking me to subsidize it regardless if it is investing in stocks or rollin the dice at Vegas. Risk is risk is risk. No taxpayer should have to subsidize it for another.

You DO realize that eight and twelve do not exist on die at Vegas...right?
 
You need to pay the same amount of taxes I do before you start whining about the rich again.

People like me subsidize your low rates

If your income comes primarily from investments, as does Romneys, I pay a higher total tax rate on my income that do you. People like me subsidize your low rates.
 
Last edited:
tell us what would happen if there was no investment capital

Who has suggested doing away with investment capital? No one! What the working class sees that you ignore to pad your pockets even more, is that the rich have the most capital for investment they have had in 50 years, and it's not producing jobs in this country.

Why should we agree to give the wealthy even more of the working class wealth, when they haven't done squat to create jobs with the tax breaks we've already given them?
 
If the rich can't solve the spending problem by paying more, then where is the problem with government spending? Are the rich suppressing the masses from earning a living wage, so that they need gov assistance or is the gov simply wasting money or is it all the above?

A big part of gov't spending is in entitlements; the politically "untouchable" areas of welfare (in all of its many forms) and the ever increasing aging population getting Social Security and Medicare benefits. If these two areas were "on the table" then spending cuts could be made to balance the federal budget. Increasing taxation alone has ZERO chance of achieving a budget balance.

Welfare link: Poverty and spending over the years - Federal Safety Net

Social Security Link: In 2011 The Baby Boomers Start To Turn 65: 16 Statistics About The Coming Retirement Crisis That Will Drop Your Jaw

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/45222.pdf
 
Last edited:
If your income comes primarily from investments, as does Romneys, I pay a higher total tax rate on my income that do you. People like me subsidize your low rates.

Show your math.
 
No I do not. I think if you got rid of loopholes and wound it back to Clinton era they would pay about what they should be paying. As for the rest of us, I think all of us making over $20,000 should be paying more federal taxes than we do right now. I don't want to, but even if we were to bring down war and welfare spending to pre-9/11 levels it would take awhile to balance everything back out and quit borrowing from other countries.

This guy does the math and you'd be surprised at the result:

EAT THE RICH! - YouTube

It's only 9 minutes;

Anyone can do this math, it's not very hard if you know how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide.
 
Show your math.

The capital gains rate is half the rate of earned income and a wage earner is required to pay a pay-roll tax on their entire income, while the investor only has to pay payroll taxes on a small portion of their income.

Ask anyone in the working class, most are aware of this tax inequality. Hell, even Reagan saw this and increased the Capital gains tax rate equal to that of earned income. That is why Mr.-14%-tax-rate running for president is going to have a such hard row to hoe in November.
 
Nope. If people like my family can sit around at their expensive county club playing golf every day and not working can do this year after year then they are not paying enough.
 
Back
Top Bottom