• 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
MoSurveyor said:
:lamo :lamo :lamo

That's a great one!!!
Click to expand...

its almost as good as the constant litany that raising taxes on the rich will decrease government deficits, create more jobs and keep the jobs we have in this country.

in fact all that raising taxes on the rich does is slake the envy of those who are upset others are rich and provide a bogus argument for the dems to engage in even more vote buying spending
 
MoSurveyor said:
It's not voluntary, that's the whole point. When one is required to pick between Master A, Master B, or Master C and do what the Master wills it's still slavery.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what a job is?
 
TurtleDude said:
being truthful is even more fundamental. you are lying since the rich pay income taxes on all their income while the working class do not. In fact half of the united states pays almost no or no federal income taxes
Click to expand...

You are lying again, the rich don't have pay full income tax rate on their income from capital gains, nor do they have to pay FICA taxes on their full income as does the working class.
 
Catawba said:
You are lying again, the rich don't have pay full income tax rate on their income from capital gains, nor do they have to pay FICA taxes on their full income as does the working class.
Click to expand...

that is moronic. the rich pay the full rate that is applicable to investment income. You are unable to understand that the taxes on earned income use a different set of rates than the taxes on investment income. if working class people have investment income they don't pay FICA on that because that is not a progressive income tax

DUH.
 
MoSurveyor said:
In other words, there is no commons and no other choice but to deal with the real property owners.
Click to expand...

Do you know what slavery actually is?
 
Henrin said:
Do you know what slavery actually is?
Click to expand...
I'm relatively sure how you will define it, yes. Your Property Gods will allow nothing else.


I call slavery involuntary labor. Whether you like the definition or not is irrelevant.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I'm relatively sure how you will define it, yes. Your Property Gods will allow nothing else.
Click to expand...

I guess whether that is accurate or not is irrelevant to you.

I call slavery involuntary labor. Whether you like the definition or not is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

That isn't happening. Thanks for paying attention.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
the rich pay the full rate that is applicable to investment income.
Click to expand...

Exactly, as compared with the working class that have to pay a higher rate on their income. You forget that the rich pay a lower tax rate only because we allowed under the promise of job creation. Without job creation there is no reason for the working class to continue to allow the rich to pay a lower rate on their income.

So the more you **** with the working class, the less likely it is they will allow you to continue paying a lower tax rate.
 
MoSurveyor said:
In other words, there is no commons and no other choice but to deal with the real property owners.
Click to expand...

IIRC commons were popular US in the late 1800's early 1900's. I've read about several but they ALL lasted a very limited time, like 3-5 years. Many of the interviews I read blamed the lack of property ownership for the failure of these commons. Is this what you are referencing?
 
Catawba said:
Exactly, as compared with the working class that have to pay a higher rate on their income. You forget that the rich pay a lower tax rate only because we allowed under the promise of job creation. Without job creation there is no reason for the working class to continue to allow the rich to pay a lower rate on their income.

So the more you **** with the working class, the less likely it is they will allow you to continue paying a lower tax rate.
Click to expand...

I love how you're acting like taking control over property with the use of government is something you don't actually need to defend. Instead you assume its a good thing and then run from there with your argument. A really weird thing to see so many think the premise of makes sense.
 
Henrin said:
I guess whether that is accurate or not is irrelevant to you.
Click to expand...
Don't bother talking about "accuracy" to me. A lawyer of all people should know how words can be twisted.

I prefer to be precise and to that end I've defined what I mean by slavery, which is involuntary labor.

Henrin said:
That isn't happening.
Click to expand...
Which "that" do you think "isn't happening"?
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
I love how you're acting like taking control over property with the use of government is something you don't actually need to defend. Instead you assume its a good thing and then run from there with your argument. A really weird thing to see so many think the premise of makes sense.
Click to expand...
I find it amusing that minarchists actually believe their Fairyland can be a stable society.
 
johnny_rebson said:
I've had enough of the soak the rich argument.

How are we going to keep creating jobs if you raise our taxes?
Click to expand...

Because the more the Govt. takes and spends the more demand for jobs. Socking it away in hedge funds "creates" no jobs and it used to bid up commodities. So your "extra" money is also costng us all more in necessities like Gasoline or Coffee. It is unsustainable and the balance must be restored. You will see things improve whan the cuts for th etop bracket are allowed to expire.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I find it amusing that minarchists actually believe their Fairyland can be a stable society.
Click to expand...

I find it amusing how little you understand about voluntary arrangements.
 
Henrin said:
I find it amusing how little you understand about voluntary arrangements.
Click to expand...
It's not voluntary if there are no other arrangements to be had.


Where's the commons to provide an alternative?
 
Henrin said:
I love how you're acting like taking control over property with the use of government is something you don't actually need to defend. Instead you assume its a good thing and then run from there with your argument. A really weird thing to see so many think the premise of makes sense.
Click to expand...

Well then you can probably show me when much more progressive tax rates of the '40s thru the '70s were found to be unconstitutional, can't you? I'll wait........
 
Last edited:
When the uber wealthy are not paying close to the percentage I am paying ... and able to hide millions ...no they are not paying their fair share.
 
Catawba said:
Well then you can probably show me when much more progressive tax rates of the '40s thru the '70s were found to be unconstitutional, can't you? I'll wait........
Click to expand...

That has what to do with my point?
 
Dion said:
When the uber wealthy are not paying close to the percentage I am paying ... and able to hide millions ...no they are not paying their fair share.
Click to expand...

When the uber are amassing wealth at a rate out of proportion to 90% there is a problem.
 
cpwill said:
The middle class is generally skating. Gasoline taxes? Sales Taxes? Doesn't exactly make up 50% of my income.
Click to expand...

All in, we essentially have a flat tax. The majority of people pay 25-30% of income in taxes. (PS - no one pays 50%)

Taxes paid by income group2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
That has what to do with my point?
Click to expand...

You said, "I love how you're acting like taking control over property with the use of government is something you don't actually need to defend."

And I explained to you that progressive taxes are not "taking control over property" under the rule of the law based on the constitution. Therefore, I have nothing to defend, it is up to you to convince the Supreme Court that your case has validity. So far, you have failed.
 
Catawba said:
You said, "I love how you're acting like taking control over property with the use of government is something you don't actually need to defend."

And I explained to you that progressive taxes are not "taking control over property" under the rule of the law based on the constitution. Therefore, I have nothing to defend, it is up to you to convince the Supreme Court that your case has validity. So far, you have failed.
Click to expand...

Political reality =/= logical debate. My argument is based on ethics, logic, and rights. I'm not here to argue to the supreme court and I'm well enough aware of the sixteenth amendment. Are you aware of why it was needed?
 
Catawba said:
You said, "I love how you're acting like taking control over property with the use of government is something you don't actually need to defend."

And I explained to you that progressive taxes are not "taking control over property" under the rule of the law based on the constitution. Therefore, I have nothing to defend, it is up to you to convince the Supreme Court that your case has validity. So far, you have failed.
Click to expand...
Yep - they're doing the typical whiny ass Poor Little Rich Me routine about SCOTUS, again. Boo-hoo.
 
What case can be made in the supreme court on this? Wouldn't the only thing that could defeat the progressive tax be a constitutional amendment, since it was a constitutional amendment that allowed for it?
 
TurtleDude said:
We realize you operate under the assumption that the rich should pay more because they have more but WHY?

I don't pay more than you do for anything other than government
Click to expand...

Perhaps Thomas Jefferson can answer your question

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is
to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the
higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they
rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom