• 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
Catawba said:
There is only a distinction between the tax rates on earned income and unearned income because the voters allowed it based on the promise that it would create jobs.
Since it has not produced jobs in this country, it is unlikely voters will continue to allow it, especially when they are being asked to accept lower benefits to continue the tax cuts.
Click to expand...

Oh you mean they meant that trickle down thing ? yanno where you let the rich an corporations pay zero taxs and they create alot of jobs ??? is that why we have 9% unemployment...because they didnt tell us ...all the jobs they created and all the trickle down was for CHINESE
No one believes their chit anymore
 
lpast said:
Oh you mean they meant that trickle down thing ? yanno where you let the rich an corporations pay zero taxs and they create alot of jobs ??? is that why we have 9% unemployment...because they didnt tell us ...all the jobs they created and all the trickle down was for CHINESE
No one believes their chit anymore
Click to expand...

can you tell us why the rich have a duty to fund all the stuff you think you are entitled to?

why the rich have a duty to create jobs for people who don't have the ability, talent or drive to make themselves useful?
thanks
 
haymarket said:
You bring up several good points. That is why my long standing position has been

1- All Americans who earn dollar one should pay at least 5% in federal income tax.
2- all brackets should be raised five points
3- most deductions should be ended
4- stop preferential rates for capital gains and inheritance abolishing both and simply declaring those monies as income.
5- cut at least $300 billion from the federal budget today
6- have 100% of American earners pay FICA tax on 100% of their earnings instead of just the lower 93% who pay that full load today.
Click to expand...

lets examine this crap

if someone makes a million a year in EARNED income their FICA taxes will go up SIX TIMES

What most deductions should be eliminated? losses?

if someone makes 1 million in dividends you want their taxes to go up two and a half times

from say 150K or on that income to 400K
 
TurtleDude said:
can you tell us why the rich have a duty to fund all the stuff you think you are entitled to?

why the rich have a duty to create jobs for people who don't have the ability, talent or drive to make themselves useful?
thanks
Click to expand...
People won't just lay down and die willingly regardless of how much you'd that. If you want REAL Darwinism instead of fake Darwinism (aka capitalism), just keep going the way you're going and you'll get it. Luckily, I'll be dead in another couple of decades at best so I won't be around to see it. In the end you can only abuse people so far until they snap and push back, usually violently.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
So they stole from people or were they given it by those individuals?
Click to expand...

Depends on perspective. I say both. Legally though everything they have was legal, just not moral. Same with the Stanfords and Huntingtons. Legal but not moral. Same with the Irvines. Many many rich took. They then sit back and protect their wealth. Why is taking land or legally ripping off the government viewed as noble? What many families have done is screw over people and then whine about having to pay more in taxes. They should have to pay more. If you take an extra million of so from some of my family members it can imrove the quality of life for others and that will find it's way back into my family's pockets anyway as those with better lives get out and spend. It is win win.

Not really unless the avenue they took to gain their wealth is similar.
Click to expand...

Yes really...
Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
can you tell us why the rich have a duty to fund all the stuff you think you are entitled to?

why the rich have a duty to create jobs for people who don't have the ability, talent or drive to make themselves useful?
thanks
Click to expand...

It should be the duty of everybody to help out those in need. It is moral.

Gecko got it wrong, buddy. Greed is bad.

In helping others they will, eventually, help you. Ever just wave to a person or smile randomly? They smile or wave back.
 
MoSurveyor said:
People won't just lay down and die willingly regardless of how much you'd that. If you want REAL Darwinism instead of fake Darwinism (aka capitalism), just keep going the way you're going and you'll get it. Luckily, I'll be dead in another couple of decades at best so I won't be around to see it. In the end you can only abuse people so far until they snap and push back, usually violently.
Click to expand...

I guess that is one way of saying you are not up to competing. But I really wish all those on this board who keep threatening violent revolution because they aren't industrious or intelligent enough to provide for themselves would really act out their threats.
 
Bodhisattva said:
It should be the duty of everybody to help out those in need. It is moral.

Gecko got it wrong, buddy. Greed is bad.

In helping others they will, eventually, help you. Ever just wave to a person or smile randomly? They smile or wave back.
Click to expand...

I think you confuse private charity freely given versus government redistribution of wealth that is the farthest thing from altruism that there is
 
TurtleDude said:
there again is two fold stupidity in that post

1) assuming that none of the rich have earned income

2) pretending that earned income and investment income are the same thing

another massive bit of dishonesty on your part
Click to expand...

Lets do this experiment Turtle.

I get ten stacks of five thousands dollars each in new fifty dollar bills from the bank and you get ten stacks of five thousand dollars each in new fifty dollar bills from the same bank bank. No other markings or designations will be placed upon the bills. We will call my stacks EARNED INCOME FROM WAGES. We will call your stacks INVESTMENT INCOME. We have an independent third party place a tiny marker in each and then arrange them so that the twenty are scattered across a table.

Can you tell them apart? Is there any actual difference between the money or - is it as you maintain - not the same thing at all. Because if they are NOT the same thing, then you should have no trouble identifying the investment income from the earned income.

If you are able to identify the stacks properly, you walk away with all the money. If you fail to do so - which should be impossible given your vast knowledge of the difference between earned income and investment income, you lose the money to me.

Are you up to proving to everyone that there is a difference in the money or are you going to admit that money is money is money and there is no difference other than the discriminatory and preferential rates the rich have been able to get from the government because of the power of the Golden Rule?
 
TurtleDude said:
lets examine this crap

if someone makes a million a year in EARNED income their FICA taxes will go up SIX TIMES

What most deductions should be eliminated? losses?

if someone makes 1 million in dividends you want their taxes to go up two and a half times

from say 150K or on that income to 400K
Click to expand...

It hurts when you will have to play by the same rules that everyone else plays by doesn't it?

I guess its hard to learn to learn to feed yourself when somebody else has been spoon feeding you from birth and you see that as the natural and normal order of things.

It might be a painful transition - but a needed and necessary one for America.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
I guess that is one way of saying you are not up to competing. But I really wish all those on this board who keep threatening violent revolution because they aren't industrious or intelligent enough to provide for themselves would really act out their threats.
Click to expand...
I do provide for myself but your lack of memory in that regard is no surprise. But unlike you I'd rather be a person of average means than walk over others, treating people like property just to make an extra buck or two.

As for violence, I'm just reminding people of history. As noted, and as you ignored (what else is new?), I doubt it will happen in my lifetime and I wouldn't personally espouse it - but the writing is on the wall in Day-Glo colors. As with everyone else, you have the right of willful ignorance so you can choose to ignore it if you wish.


As an aside, you seem to be the one obsessed with violence. I've seen it many times in many of your posts. I'd rather shoot things with a camera than a firearm. Your gun fetish earns you no extra points here.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I do provide for myself but your lack of memory in that regard is no surprise. But unlike you I'd rather be a person of average means than walk over others, treating people like property just to make an extra buck or two.

As for violence, I'm just reminding people of history. As noted, and as you ignored (what else is new?), I doubt it will happen in my lifetime and I wouldn't personally espouse it - but the writing is on the wall in Day-Glo colors. As with everyone else, you have the right of willful ignorance so you can choose to ignore it if you wish.


As an aside, you seem to be the one obsessed with violence. I've seen it many times in many of your posts. I'd rather shoot things with a camera than a firearm. Your gun fetish earns you no extra points here.
Click to expand...


1) gun fetish is some made up nonsense that the left invokes. I have never met anyone who had a true fetish for guns. I am sure they exist but mainly in the minds of lefties.

2) I realize you beleve that those who are successful must have "walked over others" to achieve. Its common in any sort of competition for those who fail to claim the winners must have cheated. Its easier to blame one's lack of success on some unfair advantage rather than one's own personal failings.

3) It is not I who says that violence is a predicted result of personal failings. rather it is you and others like you
 
TurtleDude said:
1) gun fetish is some made up nonsense that the left invokes. I have never met anyone who had a true fetish for guns. I am sure they exist but mainly in the minds of lefties.
Click to expand...
I can understand your shyness. No one likes to admit their obsessions.

TurtleDude said:
2) I realize you beleve that those who are successful must have "walked over others" to achieve. Its common in any sort of competition for those who fail to claim the winners must have cheated. Its easier to blame one's lack of success on some unfair advantage rather than one's own personal failings.
Click to expand...
I didn't say walking over others was cheating. Since you have asserted it, am I to assume you cheated as well?

TurtleDude said:
3) It is not I who says that violence is a predicted result of personal failings. rather it is you and others like you
Click to expand...
So our Founding Fathers were personal failures now? :lamo
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
I think you confuse private charity freely given versus government redistribution of wealth that is the farthest thing from altruism that there is
Click to expand...

No I don't. The problem is that people are inherently selfish. I take my multi-million dollar family as a prime example. They sit in luxary and of course give some to charity but nobody needs nor deserves the luxaries that they have while others work harder and have next to nothing. Life isn't fair, sure, but people mistake what they were born into for what they deserve and I think that is what you are confusing.
 
TurtleDude said:
2) I realize you beleve that those who are successful must have "walked over others" to achieve. Its common in any sort of competition for those who fail to claim the winners must have cheated. Its easier to blame one's lack of success on some unfair advantage rather than one's own personal failings.
Click to expand...

Here is the major problem. You view personal income or a job as winning or losing.
 
TurtleDude said:
I think you confuse private charity freely given versus government redistribution of wealth that is the farthest thing from altruism that there is
Click to expand...
HaHah! I missed this earlier.

You honestly believe altruism exists?!?!?
 
nobody needs nor deserves the luxaries that they have
Click to expand...

Based on whose rules? Who are you to say what another person deserves? What do you think the word "deserves" means?


de·serve
   [dih-zurv] Show IPA verb, de·served, de·serv·ing.

verb (used with object)
1.
to merit, be qualified for, or have a claim to (reward, assistance, punishment, etc.) because of actions, qualities, or situation

That family has a claim to that money based on their situation (the fact that they inherited it and it belongs to them). Therefore, by definition, they deserve it
 
Bodhisattva said:
No I don't. The problem is that people are inherently selfish. I take my multi-million dollar family as a prime example. They sit in luxary and of course give some to charity but nobody needs nor deserves the luxaries that they have while others work harder and have next to nothing. Life isn't fair, sure, but people mistake what they were born into for what they deserve and I think that is what you are confusing.
Click to expand...

So, based on your personal, intimate knowledge of ONE family, we should basically say that it follows that all "rich" are undeserving, pampered and greedy, thus it is just that we tax them, for having these bad qualities, at rates 2x to 5x, what "normal" hardworking people are expected to pay. How do you determine what someone deserves? Do a machinist, carpenter and auto mechanic deserve the same pay? Do a burger flipper, a store clerk and a taxi driver deserve the same pay?
 
kamikaze483 said:
Based on whose rules? Who are you to say what another person deserves? What do you think the word "deserves" means?


de·serve
   [dih-zurv] Show IPA verb, de·served, de·serv·ing.

verb (used with object)
1.
to merit, be qualified for, or have a claim to (reward, assistance, punishment, etc.) because of actions, qualities, or situation

That family has a claim to that money based on their situation (the fact that they inherited it and it belongs to them). Therefore, by definition, they deserve it
Click to expand...

It is the OWS logic. They have, I want, they don't need that much, I need more, therefore it is just that the gov't take from them and give to me, making life "fair".
 
Bodhisattva said:
Here is the major problem. You view personal income or a job as winning or losing.
Click to expand...

Not really. Many view their personal income FROM a job as deserved. They supply their labor/talent for use by another and they get money in return. Try it sometime, you might even like it. ;-)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Not really. Many view their personal income FROM a job as deserved. They supply their labor/talent for use by another and they get money in return. Try it sometime, you might even like it. ;-)
Click to expand...

Yes. This also fits in with the proper meaning of "deserve." Meriting wages due to working. Hmm. What a concept.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I can understand your shyness. No one likes to admit their obsessions.

I didn't say walking over others was cheating. Since you have asserted it, am I to assume you cheated as well?

So our Founding Fathers were personal failures now? :lamo
Click to expand...

what gaping idiocy. You were the one who brought up violence not me. Your obsession appears to be over the fact others are more industrious than you are and you think that means they should be taxed to pay for what you want

and you also have this attitude that those who succeed must have "walked over others"

that assumes facts not in evidence and demonstrates the typical attitude of excusing why you do not succeed
 
Bodhisattva said:
No I don't. The problem is that people are inherently selfish. I take my multi-million dollar family as a prime example. They sit in luxary and of course give some to charity but nobody needs nor deserves the luxaries that they have while others work harder and have next to nothing. Life isn't fair, sure, but people mistake what they were born into for what they deserve and I think that is what you are confusing.
Click to expand...

that makes no sense whatsoever. you are in no position to determine what someone else deserves or "needs" and using that attitude, you can be held to say that as long as someone is poor, no one should be rich
 
MoSurveyor said:
HaHah! I missed this earlier.

You honestly believe altruism exists?!?!?
Click to expand...

So when rich dem elitists proclaim they are pushing higher taxes to help the poor that is complete BS? thanks for that admission-I agree.
 
TurtleDude said:
So when rich dem elitists proclaim they are pushing higher taxes to help the poor that is complete BS? thanks for that admission-I agree.
Click to expand...

And when Governor's that so happen to own drug testing centers propose testing people for drugs they aren't suckling at the tit are they....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom