• 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!

Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

Is it unreasonable to pay a little more?

  • Yes. I'm a greedy bastard!! I need MORE!!!

    Votes: 21 27.6%

  • No. There's comes a point in wealthiness where it just doesn't even matter anymore.

    Votes: 48 63.2%

  • I'm not sure.

    Votes: 7 9.2%
  • Total voters
    76
Laura80L said:
I had posted two government sources that prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

You cover about a decade. We've been around longer that that. And nothing in your data is significant to this question. Percentage of their income.
 
All this "high tax" talk going against American principles or what not is ridiculous.

ev9gt1.png
 
Boo Radley said:
You cover about a decade. We've been around longer that that. And nothing in your data is significant to this question. Percentage of their income.
Click to expand...

What do the tax rates prior to 1979 tell us? I wasn't born until 1980, and according to the sources, tax rates throughout my lifetime have always been progressive. Whatever happened in 1978 doesn't change the fact that my tax burden was far less painful in 2002 than in 2011. I now have a bigger bill and a higher percentage.
 
Arbo said:
Nope. But it's your logic based on what you said elsewhere.
Click to expand...



You are lying or you could provide a quote where I ever said such a thing.
 
iguanaman said:
The rich pay a far lower percentage of their income in taxes when all taxes are figured in. That means they have less "pain" paying them too.. There is no way out of that.
You have it good and still whine. What does that make you?
Click to expand...

you are lying again. That has been debunked hundreds of times on this fourm. They pay far more dollars for one dollar of benefit as well
many of those in the bottom 20% are paying state taxes with money given to them by the federal government
 
Poll is loaded and stupid.

Premise is also incorrect; by virtue of what a percentage ****ing is, the wealthy already paid a ****ton more. Our tax system is not fair; this change makes it less fair.
 
iguanaman said:
Yet you are paying far smaller % of you income in taxes now, when you figure them all. Why is that more painful?
Click to expand...

that is irrelevant. what is relevant is I pay far more dollars for each dollar of value received than you do. sitting back and getting a free ride is less painful than working hard and smart to be wealthy enought to have to fund the slackers
 
Boo Radley said:
Historically, the wealthy are paying a smaller percentage.
Click to expand...

another falsehood because everyone else is paying a smaller percentage of their income but the wealthy are NOW PAYING a far higher SHARE of the federal tax bill than they did prior to the Bush tax rates and with the current tax rates, the top one percent will be paying an even higher share of the federal taxes
 
JayDubya said:
Poll is loaded and stupid.

Premise is also incorrect; by virtue of what a percentage ****ing is, the wealthy already paid a ****ton more. Our tax system is not fair; this change makes it less fair.
Click to expand...
"progressive" taxation is one huge component of "fairness". If one is to tax income, flat tax is the only method that any reasonable person could consider fair. However, there IS the rather large issue of "loopholes". Fair tax would not only be flat tax, but it would have NO exceptions for anyone for any reason. About the only thing I could see modifying that would be a basic personal exemption that would keep the genuinely low income earners still off of the (income) tax role.

Bottom, line, I am sorry to say, is that with fair taxation, wealthy citizens would indeed be paying more tax.

The real issue, though, is that all of the fiddling with the tax side is simply political gesturing. It is the trillion$$ of entitlement shortfalls that have to be fixed to ever hope to balance the budget, or better yet, BEGIN to service the debt.

So, with that all said: if you want to impose a larger, fair tax on high income earners, the first bit of tax reform should be the ultimate in fairness: do NOT allow ANY government to spend money it does not have. Several states have balanced budget constitutions, the Republic needs one too. Now THAT would be fair.
 
Laura80L said:
What do the tax rates prior to 1979 tell us? I wasn't born until 1980, and according to the sources, tax rates throughout my lifetime have always been progressive. Whatever happened in 1978 doesn't change the fact that my tax burden was far less painful in 2002 than in 2011. I now have a bigger bill and a higher percentage.
Click to expand...


History is longer than your life:

This analysis revealed a lot of surprising conclusions, including the following:

Today's government spending levels are indeed too high, at least relative to the average level of tax revenue the government has generated over the past 60 years. Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must be cut.

Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.

Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).

Periods of very low tax rates have been followed by periods with very high tax rates, and vice versa. So history suggests that tax rates will soon start going up.


Read more: THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are - Business Insider
 
TurtleDude said:
so what-"the super rich" but even Buffett pays the top rate on like income

He also pays far more actual tax dollars-something people like you tend to ignore because that way of evaluating "fairness" destroys your argument

one equally valid version of fair is paying the same amount for the same services-just like the price of a car, a burger or a movie ticket
Click to expand...

I'm a big fellow. I can lift a good two hundred lbs easily in the weight room. The weight needs to be moved. My wife is smaller. Do I expected her to carry it? Or do I realize I'm more capable. We've had a progressive tax as long as we've had taxes. And so has most industrialized countries. Just in the past, the wealthy understood why better.
 
TurtleDude said:
another falsehood because everyone else is paying a smaller percentage of their income but the wealthy are NOW PAYING a far higher SHARE of the federal tax bill than they did prior to the Bush tax rates and with the current tax rates, the top one percent will be paying an even higher share of the federal taxes
Click to expand...

You must consider why. It's not that anyone is picking on the wealthy, but more that the policies that have favor them have led to a greater gap, putting more people below the line. You want to change that share? Start rising all ships with that tide, so to speak.
 
TurtleDude said:
that is irrelevant. what is relevant is I pay far more dollars for each dollar of value received than you do. sitting back and getting a free ride is less painful than working hard and smart to be wealthy enought to have to fund the slackers
Click to expand...

Every dollar you receive is made possible by this Govt. that you despise so much. Without it you would get nothing, and have nothing. Someday you will realize this and hate yourself for being such a skinflint.
 
Boo Radley said:
History is longer than your life:

This analysis revealed a lot of surprising conclusions, including the following:

Today's government spending levels are indeed too high, at least relative to the average level of tax revenue the government has generated over the past 60 years. Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must be cut.

Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.

Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).

Periods of very low tax rates have been followed by periods with very high tax rates, and vice versa. So history suggests that tax rates will soon start going up.


Read more: THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are - Business Insider
Click to expand...

I realize history goes back further than my date of birth. My point was that the rich already do in fact pay a higher tax rate (in dollars AND percentages). I just wasn't sure why the proof needed to go back more than 30 years. It was assumed that my tax rate should be lower today than it was when I was making 30K simply because Warren Buffett makes a claim.

Almost Classical: The 90% Tax Rate Myth
"When there was a 94% top rate in 1944-45, there were so many deductions and exclusions that the taxable income was not comparable to someone's entire income. First, the top rate started at $200,000, which today is equal to $2,413,059.90 — so the maximum EMTR would apply only to incomes of $2.5 million. But, that's still taxable income, not earned income.

It's pretty hard to find the "effective" tax rates prior to 1979. I wonder why that is? And I wonder how we get a truer picture of taxation and it's benefits and hinders when we cannot get accurate data.


Why they should continue paying more while the other half see's only a return is another argument altogether.
 
and i am still confused by the people who pay the least crying that those who pay much much more than them are not paying their fair share.
 
Laura80L said:
I realize history goes back further than my date of birth. My point was that the rich already do in fact pay a higher tax rate (in dollars AND percentages). I just wasn't sure why the proof needed to go back more than 30 years. It was assumed that my tax rate should be lower today than it was when I was making 30K simply because Warren Buffett makes a claim.

Almost Classical: The 90% Tax Rate Myth
"When there was a 94% top rate in 1944-45, there were so many deductions and exclusions that the taxable income was not comparable to someone's entire income. First, the top rate started at $200,000, which today is equal to $2,413,059.90 — so the maximum EMTR would apply only to incomes of $2.5 million. But, that's still taxable income, not earned income.

It's pretty hard to find the "effective" tax rates prior to 1979. I wonder why that is? And I wonder how we get a truer picture of taxation and it's benefits and hinders when we cannot get accurate data.


Why they should continue paying more while the other half see's only a return is another argument altogether.
Click to expand...

The why is the argument. Like I said, we've favored the wealthy and business in a lot of ways in recent history, and the gap between the wealthy and poor has grown. This gap has seen more wealthy, but also more below the line on tax rates, with either shrinking wages or stagnation. If the bottom doesn't rise, the wealthy will continue to pay more and more. The why is really the only issue. But, right now, mostly all anyone is seeing is a return to the Clinton tax rate, which was hardly a burden. There should be no reason for any real outrage.
 
Boo Radley said:
The why is the argument. Like I said, we've favored the wealthy and business in a lot of ways in recent history, and the gap between the wealthy and poor has grown. This gap has seen more wealthy, but also more below the line on tax rates, with either shrinking wages or stagnation. If the bottom doesn't rise, the wealthy will continue to pay more and more. The why is really the only issue. But, right now, mostly all anyone is seeing is a return to the Clinton tax rate, which was hardly a burden. There should be no reason for any real outrage.
Click to expand...

i would argue that the gap has grown due to the dumbing down of the american populace. i quit teaching after 11 years in 2004 because every year the kids were getting dumber and their attitudes were getting worse. If you barely make it out of HS (or drop out) and you have no skills, no training, no nothing...it's not some rich guy's fault that you are not successful. and, honestly, the bulk of the poor people fall into this category rather than being highly motivated individuals who just can't catch a break or have had a run of bad luck.

a friend of mine is a recruiter for the army and you would be surprised at the number of people he has to turn away because they don't have a HS diploma or GED or because they are so stupid they can't make the minimum score on the incredibly easy entrance exam. I have known many kids who made a lower score on the entrance exam than you would have if you marked every answer "b" or just made random guesses.

I've been in public schools and i've seen it first hand. You can't place all the blame for a lack of quality education on the school systems. It doesn't matter how good or how bad the school is...if the student doesn't put forth any effort they are going to leave school just as ignorant and uneducated as when they went in.
 
iguanaman said:
Every dollar you receive is made possible by this Govt. that you despise so much. Without it you would get nothing, and have nothing. Someday you will realize this and hate yourself for being such a skinflint.
Click to expand...

This is actually correct. The govt has allowed the Federal Reserve to print money just like that, loan it to the government in exchange for govt bonds and then it is placed in the market, for you to use. Thus, every dollar you have is a dollar of debt to the federal reserve. :)

But you see, if the Federal Reserve would actually be nationalized, and be a national bank, you would get rid of about $8tril and not be subjected to the same debt non-sense. But then, you have other issues to deal with.
 
is it totally unreasonable to expect the rich to pay a little more? not really

is it totally unreasonalbe to expect the poor to do a little more to help themselves? ditto
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, they pay less over all. We're only talking about a return to pre-Bush tax cuts and a few minor adjustments. Not one single wealthy person will trade places with any poor person.
Click to expand...

Well thats not true, but the "no rich person would trade their place with a poor person" like you would trade your place if you were rich.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not over what thy paid in the past, no. And they make more in actual dollars. I'm sorry, but the whining by the wealthy is largely hollow.
Click to expand...

The whining by the rich, more like the whining by Obama he just wants more money to TRY to get the debt problem solved by taxing and not cuting spending and it wont work at all, how much would it help if we tax them more huh tell me?
 
cado20 said:
The whining by the rich, more like the whining by Obama he just wants more money to TRY to get the debt problem solved by taxing and not cuting spending and it wont work at all, how much would it help if we tax them more huh tell me?
Click to expand...

Tax cuts alone? Not much. Same can be said for the cuts most talk about. Only a balanced approach, one that includes both tax increases and spending cuts will have any chance of being successful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom