• 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
The problem I have with this continual debate point is that when ‘your side of the isle’ argues individual taxation it is about percentage but ‘you guys’ argue corporate taxation it is all about the dollars. It is very common to read about the obscene profits oil companies make but in reality their profit margins are in mid-single digits and are far away from the industries with much higher rates. I understand why this is done without sensationalizing an issue it would go unnoticeable to the average citizen and both sides use the same tactic.

Could you point out where I took that position regarding corporate taxation?
 
Could you point out where I took that position regarding corporate taxation?

No, the point was a generally subjective not meant to be directed at you specifically. You typically are not true to form but do have SOME of the tendencies.
 
Do bears crap in the woods?

Since the question in the OP is ‘do the rich pay their fair share’ AND bears DO crap in the woods it would appear that your response is that ‘yes’ the rich DO pay their fair share. Thank you for lending an original opinion to the discussion…
 
I know the country - I've got family and kinfolk there. Hell, I live surrounded by cows. What in the world makes you think that access to a store = access to food?
In dire straits people will steal. Put them in a bad enough spot and many will become violent if need be. Only a few will just lay down and die.
 
Last edited:
They don't have charities in big cities? That's unfortunate.
You honestly think charities have enough to go around? You honestly think no one is lacking for food or shelter in America?!? It's no wonder you people have such a difficult time - you're living in Lala Land.
 
In dire straits people will steal. Put them in a bad enough spot and many will maim or kill if need be. Only a few will just lay down and die.

Supply a U.S. link for that please. People will NOW kill for popular shoes, yet I have not read of food robberies. When you steal, you do NOT steal heavy, hard to carry food, you steal small valuable items to sell/pawn or go big time and get cash, cars or ransom money. It is TOO easy to get food assistance, and I have yet to read of "food need based" crime sprees/epidemics.
 
In dire straits people will steal. Put them in a bad enough spot and many will become violent if need be. Only a few will just lay down and die.

...what the hell?
 
In dire straits people will steal. Put them in a bad enough spot and many will become violent if need be. Only a few will just lay down and die.

I think you are underestimating the determination of the 'haves' in protecting their food against the 'have nots'. Considering this 'lay down' is more accurately stated as 'fall down and die'.
 
Sorry wrong.

Richest 400 Earn More, Pay Lower Tax Rate - Forbes.com

The $80k guy pays 25% and then ads on 13% for FICA etc etc etc. Lots more than 16%. And thats a FACT.

A hell of a deal for the rich, and what do they do? Whine that seniors need to accept lower benefits so they can get an even bigger tax cut. Too bad they need seniors to vote for them to win the election. An oversight in their demonization of the working class that we see demonstrated so often.
 
In dire straits people will steal. Put them in a bad enough spot and many will become violent if need be. Only a few will just lay down and die.

yeah deprive them of their cell phones, color TV's, Air Jordan's with the slam dunk treads and they will riot in the streets if we also take away their twinkles, wings and things etc.

Yawn
 
A hell of a deal for the rich, and what do they do? Whine that seniors need to accept lower benefits so they can get an even bigger tax cut. Too bad they need seniors to vote for them to win the election. An oversight in their demonization of the working class that we see demonstrated so often.



What i find amusing about your constantly babbling is your attitude that the wealth of the nation is owned by the people collectively and that its wrong for the wealth to be used for any purpose other than to appease the masses.

your advocacy of the massed mediocrity is as hilarious as it is idiotic
 
yeah deprive them of their cell phones, color TV's, Air Jordan's with the slam dunk treads and they will riot in the streets if we also take away their twinkles, wings and things etc.

Yawn

Your tremendous display of touching compassion for your fellow Americans is noted.
 
What i find amusing about your constantly babbling is your attitude that the wealth of the nation is owned by the people collectively and that its wrong for the wealth to be used for any purpose other than to appease the masses.

your advocacy of the massed mediocrity is as hilarious as it is idiotic

But he never took that position at all. Why would you intentionally and purposely either outright lie or misrepresent what another poster stated?
 
Your tremendous display of touching compassion for your fellow Americans is noted.

I find telling the truth to be a better pursuit than what dem elitists-or wannabe elitists do

that is to pretend to sympathize with the unwashed masses in order to gain power and votes while in reality (and privately) looking down on them as simple minded children who need the vast wisdom of the dem elite to guide them and tell them what they need to do
 
But he never took that position at all. Why would you intentionally and purposely either outright lie or misrepresent what another poster stated?

I find it interesting that you know claim to speak with one of the other welfare socialists on this board-that is clearly what he implied with his rants about the masses allowing the wealthy to keep what they have
 
Supply a U.S. link for that please. People will NOW kill for popular shoes, yet I have not read of food robberies. When you steal, you do NOT steal heavy, hard to carry food, you steal small valuable items to sell/pawn or go big time and get cash, cars or ransom money. It is TOO easy to get food assistance, and I have yet to read of "food need based" crime sprees/epidemics.
Did I say they were stealing food? I didn't. Does it matter what they steal if some of the proceeds are used to buy food?

People steal food none the less. If you've never seen someone walk into QT, hide a sandwich under their coat, then walk out, then you do indeed live a sheltered life. :lol:
 
yeah deprive them of their cell phones, color TV's, Air Jordan's with the slam dunk treads and they will riot in the streets if we also take away their twinkles, wings and things etc.

Yawn
:lamo Anything to vilify the poor so you can buy that Mercedes for TD, Jr., with less guilt. :lamo
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Catawba
A hell of a deal for the rich, and what do they do? Whine that seniors need to accept lower benefits so they can get an even bigger tax cut. Too bad they need seniors to vote for them to win the election. An oversight in their demonization of the working class that we see demonstrated so often.

And here is Turtledude to illustrate what I mean:

What i find amusing about your constantly babbling is your attitude that the wealth of the nation is owned by the people collectively and that its wrong for the wealth to be used for any purpose other than to appease the masses.

your advocacy of the massed mediocrity is as hilarious as it is idiotic


..............
 
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.

Absolutely agreed. In my opinion, a true patriot understands that taxation (at reasonably levels) is necessary and vital for a strong and functioning society to flourish. Sometimes taxes must be raised for the good of the nation. While it makes a wonderful political talking point to say you're for "low taxes" and demonize the "organized Left" for raising taxes, it makes for poor governance. While "tax and spend" doesn't sound too good, not taxing and spending as much if not more sounds even worse.
 
What i find amusing about your constantly babbling is your attitude that the wealth of the nation is owned by the people collectively and that its wrong for the wealth to be used for any purpose other than to appease the masses.

your advocacy of the massed mediocrity is as hilarious as it is idiotic

So why did people use oil in this very same manner appeasing the masses?
 
I find it interesting that you know claim to speak with one of the other welfare socialists on this board-that is clearly what he implied with his rants about the masses allowing the wealthy to keep what they have

He never said what you claimed he did. A simple reading of his post clearly shows this.
 
hm...........

In the interests of intellectual integrity and honesty could you please reproduce my entire quote with the full sentence and context about helping the poor rather than just a snippet that has been dishonestly selected by you to create an intentionally false impression? A link to the actual post would also enable all to see what exactly was being discussed at the time. So please do provide that link.

And when you do that you also may want to explain why you would use such a tactic in the first place without either the full quote or the link.
 
Last edited:
In the interests of intellectual integrity and honesty could you please reproduce my entire quote with the full sentence and context about helping the poor rather than just a snippet that has been dishonestly selected by you to create an intentionally false impression? A link to the actual post would also enable all to see what exactly was being discussed at the time. So please do provide that link.

happy to do so

cpwill said:
and you've still yet to explain to me why - since we are fixing the system anyway - you aren't willing to help our working poor achieve financial independance.

haymarket said:
as to helping the poor and financial independence ---- that is not my fight at this point in time.

Indeed it's not. You have public sector union's ability to extract wealth from their hosts to fight for.
 
Back
Top Bottom