• 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
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.

No, they don't. That doesnt change the fact that there is an unequal distribution of wealth and that those who have it justify why they should get to keep it though...
 
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

I didn't say that unfair meant unequal. I am saying that it is both unfair and unequal.
 
I didn't say that unfair meant unequal. I am saying that it is both unfair and unequal.

unequal-objectively true

unfair-worthless

some would say with equal validity that any income redistribution by the government is unfair. and even more unfair is those who gain wealth and power by promising the "have nots" the wealth of the haves
 
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
My mistake - you raised the 40% you were whining about earlier up to 50%+ in this last post. With all the right-wingnut half-truths and outright lies it's hard to keep track. :roll:
 
No, they don't. That doesnt change the fact that there is an unequal distribution of wealth and that those who have it justify why they should get to keep it though...

I couldn't care less. there will always be inequality. Those born smarter, prettier or more athletic than others will always have more. Several kids I know hit as many tennis balls as a guy my age did-John McEnroe. They went to top coaches, went to the tournaments and guess what-they never got a full ride to Stanford nor made millions playing pro tennis.

There were kids at my HS who worked far harder than I did, studied longer, took better notes etc but I got top boards and grades and they didn't. There were kids who worked less than I did who had higher grades. same in college.

Pretty girls tend to have much higher standards of living than plain or ugly women from similar backgrounds. I know lots of really wealthy guys. for the most part, their wives are far more attractive than average.
 
My mistake - you raised the 40% you were whining about earlier up to 50%+ in this last post. With all the right-wingnut half-truths and outright lies it's hard to keep track. :roll:

Why don't you just admit you didn't pay attention and that caused you to spew nonsense

I stated the effective federal income tax rate on most of us in the top one percent is around 24 or so percent

the top one percent make about 22% of the income yet pay almost 40% of the income tax burden and almost all the estate/death tax burden on a federal level

does that help?
 
the top one percent make about 22% of the income yet pay almost 40% of the income tax burden and almost all the estate/death tax burden on a federal level

does that help?

Yes, they also own 40% of the wealth in this country with 80% of this country owning less than 10% of the country's wealth.
 
Yes, they also own 40% of the wealth in this country with 80% of this country owning less than 10% of the country's wealth.

which has ZERO relevance to a discussion of income taxes

and taxing wealth is idiotic given much wealth does not generate income and came from income that was already taxed
 
which has ZERO relevance to a discussion of income taxes

and taxing wealth is idiotic given much wealth does not generate income and came from income that was already taxed
Not when one starts talking about paying for what they use. At that point wealth is important because the responsibility for military spending should be directly related to wealth just as any other insurance policy is directly related to what's being insured.


Personally, I'm fairly happy with the current system except the rates are too low.
 
Last edited:
which has ZERO relevance to a discussion of income taxes

and taxing wealth is idiotic given much wealth does not generate income and came from income that was already taxed

Only because you were presented with a factual statistic that kicks your butt and you do not like that one bit do you?

Yes, they also own 40% of the wealth in this country with 80% of this country owning less than 10% of the country's wealth.
 
Not when one starts talking about paying for what they use. At that point wealth is important because the responsibility for military spending should be directly related to wealth just as any other insurance policy is directly related to what's being insured.


Personally, I'm fairly happy with the current system except the rates are too low.

of course-so many people want other people to pay more taxes

I suggest people like you pay the same rates I do and better yet-the same amount of taxes. when you do I might consider your rants about the rates of the rich to have some merit
 
Only because you were presented with a factual statistic that kicks your butt and you do not like that one bit do you?


its irrelevant. That wealth was purchased with income already taxed. If I make a million dollars a year and have 500K left over after expenses and taxes and I buy my wife an expensive painting or a summer cottage why should I pay tax on that wealth?
 
which has ZERO relevance to a discussion of income taxes

Of course it does. Wealth ownership automatically has an impact on the general responsibilities you have to the society in which you live. You can't have a family of 4 in a house and then claim that the main breadwinner doesn't have to provide for the majority of things in the house specially if the other 3 simply don't generate a comparable revenue. Same scenario. Those who make more should have to pay more in order to make sure that they can continue to enjoy those riches. Otherwise, wealth is heavily concentrated and the nation falls into chaos.
 
Last edited:
Of course it does. Wealth ownership automatically has an impact on the general responsibilities you have to the society in which you live. You can't have a family of 4 in a house and then claim that the main breadwinner doesn't have to provide for the majority of things in the house specially if the other 3 simply don't generate a comparable revenue. Same scenario. Those who make more should have to pay more in order to make sure that they can continue to enjoy those riches. Otherwise, wealth is heavily concentrated and the nation falls into chaos.

wealth has no relevance to income tax arguments

and basing income tax on something other than income is idiotic

I know people who have lots of "wealth" and not much income, Farmers for example who have lots of land based wealth but it doesn't generate all that much income

and the rich will always pay more but justifying more and more taxes because the indolent poor and middle classes demand more and more government is going to collapse.
 
its irrelevant. That wealth was purchased with income already taxed. If I make a million dollars a year and have 500K left over after expenses and taxes and I buy my wife an expensive painting or a summer cottage why should I pay tax on that wealth?

So now you are against sales tax?
 
So now you are against sales tax?

that's a pathetic comment. The proper analogy would be me having to pay a sales tax every year on that painting merely for owning it.

I oppose all taxes on income-sales taxes are the proper taxes
 
that's a pathetic comment.{/QUOTE]

egads who pissed in your corn flakes to day?

The proper analogy would be me having to pay a sales tax every year on that painting merely for owning it.

I oppose all taxes on income-sales taxes are the proper taxes


Perhaps you should use your "superiorness":roll: to make your point more lucid in the first place.

BTW if your Thomas Kinkade print that you bought at the dollar store goes up in value you will have to pay a tax.
 
that's a pathetic comment.{/QUOTE]

egads who pissed in your corn flakes to day?




Perhaps you should use your "superiorness":roll: to make your point more lucid in the first place.

BTW if your Thomas Kinkade print that you bought at the dollar store goes up in value you will have to pay a tax.


having a bad day dude? Trying to make others miserable by demanding the government tax them more won't heal what ails you
 
having a bad day dude? Trying to make others miserable by demanding the government tax them more won't heal what ails you

Having a great day. Doesn't seem like you are

BTW on that aluminum tool shed you call a summer cottage you will have to pay property taxes yearly.
 
Having a great day. Doesn't seem like you are

BTW on that aluminum tool shed you call a summer cottage you will have to pay property taxes yearly.

property taxes fund local services such as schools and fire and police protection.

but the parasites think that if you use after tax income to buy something and then pay sales tax on that purchase you ought to be taxed on the wealth you bought even if it doesn't generate income.


It all comes down to those who don't or cannot wanting to use the government to stick it to those who can and do.
 
property taxes fund local services such as schools and fire and police protection.

but the parasites
" :roll: "
think that if you use after tax income to buy something and then pay sales tax on that purchase you ought to be taxed on the wealth you bought even if it doesn't generate income.



It all comes down to those who don't or cannot wanting to use the government to stick it to those who can and do.

Who said that?
 
wealth has no relevance to income tax arguments

...

Farmers for example who have lots of land based wealth but it doesn't generate all that much income

We're not talking about a farmer owning 20 acres of farm land in nowhere'sville Ohio. We're talking about people who own acres in the tens of thousands. So of course wealth has relevance in an income tax argument as wealth is a generator of income in and of itself. Don't you own like 2-3 houses? I rent my house in Canada quite often. That's wealth generating income. Once that wealth is denied to the rest because of a concentration of wealth within an elite minority, it restricts the majority of the populace from assuming the tax burden which they would be able to handle in a more economically balanced society.
 
Last edited:
We're not talking about a farmer owning 20 acres of farm land in nowhere'sville Ohio. We're talking about people who own acres in the tens of thousands. So of course wealth has relevance in an income tax argument as wealth is a generator of income in and of itself. Don't you own like 2-3 houses? I rent my house in Canada quite often. That's wealth generating income. Once that wealth is denied to the rest because of a concentration of wealth within an elite minority, it restricts the majority of the populace from assuming the tax burden which they would be able to handle in a more economically balanced society.
1) they pay property tax on those holdings

2) if you rent out your summer home and get payment-you pay income on that.

3) wealth is not denied to you by someone else owning it

4) the best way to have a more balanced society is for those who are unwilling to be productive or who engage in activity that retards their ability to be productive, to change the choices they have made
 
how in the world does you owning a house keep me from purchasing another?
 
Of course it does. Wealth ownership automatically has an impact on the general responsibilities you have to the society in which you live. You can't have a family of 4 in a house and then claim that the main breadwinner doesn't have to provide for the majority of things in the house specially if the other 3 simply don't generate a comparable revenue. Same scenario. Those who make more should have to pay more in order to make sure that they can continue to enjoy those riches. Otherwise, wealth is heavily concentrated and the nation falls into chaos.

You ignore another reality though. Giving a moron assets, by wealth redistribution, does NOT mean that they will do anything productive with it. Taking a 10,000 acre ranch, run productively, and splitting it into 10 ranches of 1,000 acres does NOT mean that those 9 new ranchers will be successful, in fact, the odds are that they will all fail. Some things are practical only at a large scale, and only when managed with expertice. We see what happens when morons are given public housing, they tear it up, as it cost them nothing and therefore has no value. If they tear it up then they simply demand new public housing. People live poor, where I live, but they take care of their property because nobody will give them a replacement. People tend to value ONLY what they pay for,by EARNING IT, not what they are simply given.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom