• 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:
Another believer in altruism??? :lol:
Click to expand...

Hmm. Altruism.



al·tru·ism
   [al-troo-iz-uhm] Show IPA

noun
1.
the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others ( opposed to egoism).

So, yes. I believe in voluntary altruism.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I have no idea what kind of crazy crap your right-wingnut websites are using to fill your head. Considering many of the half-truths and veiled lies we see you regurgitate I'm not sure I care, either.
Click to expand...

should we take that as a concession that you are unable or unwilling to answer the question. Yes we understand that the wealth stealers think progressive taxes were ordained by Christ himself and are only next to him in terms of Godliness but the real reasons are far more sinister and machiavellians
 
from Turtledude

but the real reasons are far more sinister and machiavellians
Click to expand...

What the heck????? What does that even mean?????
 
TurtleDude said:
should we take that as a concession that you are unable or unwilling to answer the question. Yes we understand that the wealth stealers think progressive taxes were ordained by Christ himself and are only next to him in terms of Godliness but the real reasons are far more sinister and machiavellians
Click to expand...
A penny tax on a million dollar yacht would be "sinister and Machiavellian" to some people around here. LOL!
 
kamikaze483 said:
Hmm. Altruism.

al·tru·ism
   [al-troo-iz-uhm] Show IPA

noun
1.
the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others ( opposed to egoism).

So, yes. I believe in voluntary altruism.
Click to expand...
So you believe people act without any return for themselves? They get nothing at all from giving - not even a sense of feeling good?? Sorry, I just don't buy it. There is no motivation to repeat behavior without reward of some kind. Even if it's just a "good feeling" it's still a selfish motivation with a reward.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
from Turtledude



What the heck????? What does that even mean?????
Click to expand...
ignoring the obvious? the purpose was to allow politicians to gain more power-the PIT allowed them to pander to lots of people and pay for that pandering by only pissing off a small number of people. Before the PIT, congress had to make do with the revenue that came from tariffs and excise taxes on spirits. with the PIT lots of money to buy votes with
 
MoSurveyor said:
A penny tax on a million dollar yacht would be "sinister and Machiavellian" to some people around here. LOL!
Click to expand...

if that is all the parasite advocacy group wanted, no. when you believe it is proper for those who make 22% of the income paying 40-50-60% of the income tax burden, that is disgusting
 
TurtleDude said:
ignoring the obvious? the purpose was to allow politicians to gain more power-the PIT allowed them to pander to lots of people and pay for that pandering by only pissing off a small number of people. Before the PIT, congress had to make do with the revenue that came from tariffs and excise taxes on spirits. with the PIT lots of money to buy votes with
Click to expand...

No - it is you who seem to be ignoring the obvious.

I was NOT referring to your standard speech given for what seems the 8,391 time about democratic party politicians and votes and the dependent. No. We have all heard that so many times we could recite it in out sleep but a discussion of nightmares would derail this thread.

The point was this that you wrote

but the real reasons are far more sinister and machiavellians
Click to expand...

What does that mean? ARE does not agree with MACHIAVELLIANS. Did you mean to say the singular and simply added the letter S when there should be none? Or is there some group of people that are pledged to follow the Italian writer that we do not know about?
 
some people understand that the progressive income tax is how their masters are able to buy the votes of the masses with the money of the few. To pretend that the progressive income tax was devised as some sort of humanitarian mechanism is just plain silly. and it certainly is one of the major sources of extra-constitutional power utilized by congress
 
TurtleDude said:
if that is all the parasite advocacy group wanted, no. when you believe it is proper for those who make 22% of the income paying 40-50-60% of the income tax burden, that is disgusting
Click to expand...
Can I get 70%? 70? The lie is at 60% can we get 70? Going once, Going twice, SOLD! The lie is sold at 60% to the poor lawyer from Ohio.


60% TD? Even for you that's absurd.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Can I get 70%? 70? The lie is at 60% can we get 70? Going once, Going twice, SOLD! The lie is sold at 60% to the poor lawyer from Ohio.


60% TD? Even for you that's absurd.
Click to expand...

what are you babbling about-this board is filled with people claiming that we need to go back to the rates of the 50s
 
TurtleDude said:
what are you babbling about-this board is filled with people claiming that we need to go back to the rates of the 50s
Click to expand...
And some who try to stretch the truth and claim we're already there. :roll:
 
Like the scorpion, it's their nature... It's what they do.
 
MoSurveyor said:
And some who try to stretch the truth and claim we're already there. :roll:
Click to expand...

many of the parasite advocates claim the poor pay tons more in terms of percentage because they include state and local taxes without doing the same for the rich (and they ignore the death/estate taxes)

but many rich are paying far more than the effective federal tax rates most of us face if we live in states with high state income taxes-such as Ohio or California
 
TurtleDude said:
many of the parasite advocates claim the poor pay tons more in terms of percentage because they include state and local taxes without doing the same for the rich (and they ignore the death/estate taxes)
Click to expand...
Let the rich add it in. With a 15% Fed tax rate and no FICA to speak of, it won't matter.

TurtleDude said:
but many rich are paying far more than the effective federal tax rates most of us face if we live in states with high state income taxes-such as Ohio or California
Click to expand...
I'll tell you what you tell the people that have jobs with terrible wages: it's a voluntary arrangement so take some personal responsibility! In fact, you've got more control over your State taxes than the people do over wages.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Let the rich add it in. With a 15% Fed tax rate and no FICA to speak of, it won't matter.

I'll tell you what you tell the people that have jobs with terrible wages: it's a voluntary arrangement so take some personal responsibility! In fact, you've got more control over your State taxes than the people do over wages.
Click to expand...

that is really silly. very few people in the top 1 percent pay an effective rate below 22-24%. most of us are paying about the same overall effective federal tax rate as we have for years. Its only a few thousand megarich who have seen drastic cuts in their overall effective federal taxes rate.

and those people pay MILLIONS of actual tax dollars each-which means they contribute far more than the yappers who whine they don't pay enough
 
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...

Because you take what you have off of everyone else for starters...number two you benefit the most from govt services....In florida the 99% pay horriific hurricane insurance premiums so all the 1%ers can own million dollar + houses on the beach and rebuild them everytime they get damaged...and the 1% has sucked the country dry out of greed...just pay and be happy...because pay is what your going to do like it or not :) we all have to get over what we dont like..
 
lpast said:
Because you take what you have off of everyone else for starters...number two you benefit the most from govt services....In florida the 99% pay horriific hurricane insurance premiums so all the 1%ers can own million dollar + houses on the beach and rebuild them everytime they get damaged...and the 1% has sucked the country dry out of greed...just pay and be happy...because pay is what your going to do like it or not :) we all have to get over what we dont like..
Click to expand...

1) claiming we take from other is a lie. the rich have much to trade and get back much in trade.
the more expensive your home and the higher your risk-the more your premiums. that is a moronic argument

2) the rich do not use more. For you to babble such idiocy you would have to prove that the 65+ million who pay no federal income tax and the 99% who pay no federal estate/death taxes use less than the 1% who pay all the federal death taxes and 40% of the income tax

you cannot
 
kamikaze483 said:
...Which is their absolute right and perogative. And it's no one's business but theirs. Its true that there are selfish people. There are also envious people who think that they have a claim to selfish people's money. They do not. And the vast majority (2/3) of charitable contributions are made by the top 3% of income earners.

WHAT DO WE DO NOW? | Giving Institute

The fact that the top 3% give more than 66% of the total charitable giving each year doesn't seem to indicate that selfishness is pervasive among the super rich.
Click to expand...

Stats... I love it.

If a millionaire donates 10,000 they are still left with 990,000 dollars
If I donate 10,000 I am left with 75,000

Of course they give the most. That really doesn't mean much though especially if much of that is a tax write off.

It is there right but should it be? Much of my family living the life of luxury... golfing and drinking and travelling the world all the time while never once working in their life while others work two jobs 7 days a week and barely survive? Anybody who thinks that this is OK has a ****ing problem.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Stats... I love it.

If a millionaire donates 10,000 they are still left with 990,000 dollars
If I donate 10,000 I am left with 75,000

Of course they give the most. That really doesn't mean much though especially if much of that is a tax write off.

It is there right but should it be? Much of my family living the life of luxury... golfing and drinking and travelling the world all the time while never once working in their life while others work two jobs 7 days a week and barely survive? Anybody who thinks that this is OK has a ****ing problem.
Click to expand...

if you run a charity and a billionaire gives one hundredth of what he makes and a somewhat rich guy (making 100K a year) gives you 10% which contribution means more for your charity?

most rich people don't have the life of dilettante leisure you speak of.
 
TurtleDude said:
if you run a charity and a billionaire gives one hundredth of what he makes and a somewhat rich guy (making 100K a year) gives you 10% which contribution means more for your charity?

most rich people don't have the life of dilettante leisure you speak of.
Click to expand...

No, they don't. That does not change the fact that there is an unequal and unfair distribution of wealth though.

Everybody wants it and those that have it justify why they deserve it.
 
TurtleDude said:
that is really silly. very few people in the top 1 percent pay an effective rate below 22-24%. most of us are paying about the same overall effective federal tax rate as we have for years. Its only a few thousand megarich who have seen drastic cuts in their overall effective federal taxes rate.

and those people pay MILLIONS of actual tax dollars each-which means they contribute far more than the yappers who whine they don't pay enough
Click to expand...
I see you've now pushed what the Rich pay from 22-24% in the first part of your post up to implying more than half in the last part. LOL! Is it any wonder no one can believe what you say?
 
Bodhisattva said:
No, they don't. That does not change the fact that there is an unequal and unfair distribution of wealth though.

Everybody wants it and those that have it justify why they deserve it.
Click to expand...

unequal does not mean unfair. Unfair is something you cannot establish objectively. what is unfair is politicians buying the votes of the unprosperous by telling them that those politicians will make things more fair. the market is always "more fair" than those who try to change natural outcomes in order to gain power through the votes of those who lose in the marketplace
 
MoSurveyor said:
I see you've now pushed what the Rich pay from 22-24% in the first part of your post up to implying more than half in the last part. LOL! Is it any wonder no one can believe what you say?
Click to expand...

you must be confused-you cannot tell the difference between effective rates of Federal income taxation vs the richest one percent's share of the Federal income tax burden. Go back and read what i actually wrote and you will see the error in your post
 
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

I don't particularly see 1860s America as a great place to live. Concentrated wealth, mass poverty, abysmal death rates, no health care for most of the populace. Do you see this as something which benefits a nation? That's the use of "tax rates" and taxes in general. So we can avoid returning to the middle ages that existed less than 2 centuries ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom