• 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

sKiTzo

DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
2,671
Reaction score
535
Location
OC California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other


This whole "fiscal cliff" thing, IMO, is really about one thing. GREED. The same people who are pushing to raise the debt ceiling are the same ones who don't want to pay a little more, and being such an elite small sliver, are probably the same ones who have been benefitting from these overexpenditures. If you are one of the small sliver of wealthiest at the top, you make obscene amounts of money. You live vastly beyond comfortably, and anything you want, you can easily afford ten thousandfold. So what's REALLY going on?
 
Is it unreasonable? No
Is it necessary? Yes
Whats gong on? Greed
 
The recent planned tax increases won't even make a dent in our yearly deficit. It was never about reducing it, it's about making it seem like they're doing something by taxing the rich. Spending is bloated and needs to be cut, plain and simple.
 
The recent planned tax increases won't even make a dent in our yearly deficit. It was never about reducing it, it's about making it seem like they're doing something by taxing the rich. Spending is bloated and needs to be cut, plain and simple.

Totally agree, but there's two sides to this equation. We need new sources of revenue and spending cuts at the same time.
 
There is already a progressive tax system. so the poll is silly. The options are silly.
Just curious why do certain people always make extremely biased polls?
This happens on pretty much every side of every issue.

Better poll would be should rates for the highest earners increase and why?
Yes
No
Not sure

Simple unbiased and less likely to start off with personal attacks (though those always seem to come in eventually)
 
And here I thought by the very nature of percentages, the rich WERE paying more than everyone else. Not only is their tax rate typically higher, 20-35% of a million is substantially higher than 0% of $30k. In my opinion, unless you're paying more than the rich are, in either percentage or net value, it's rather hypocritical to say they're not paying "enough". New taxes are always great unless you're the one who has to pay for it, right?
 
Last edited:
The recent planned tax increases won't even make a dent in our yearly deficit. It was never about reducing it, it's about making it seem like they're doing something by taxing the rich. Spending is bloated and needs to be cut, plain and simple.
Of course the higher taxes will "make a dent"....every little bit helps....It angers me that Romney's, or any wealthy man's, real tax percentage was 13%, while mine at one tenth the income was 11%...
Fairness over greed.
The Bush tax cuts should never have been allowed.
I do agree that spending is out of hand...this applies to both private and public sectors, in a great many areas.
Salaries to "bosses" - way out of hand...
Truth over propaganda.
 
Of course the higher taxes will "make a dent"....every little bit helps....It angers me that Romney's, or any wealthy man's, real tax percentage was 13%, while mine at one tenth the income was 11%...
Fairness over greed.
The Bush tax cuts should never have been allowed.
I do agree that spending is out of hand...this applies to both private and public sectors, in a great many areas.
Salaries to "bosses" - way out of hand...
Truth over propaganda.

So Romney pays more than you in both % and total $ and that angers you?
I think I know who the greedy one is and I am not looking at Romney!
 
Of course the higher taxes will "make a dent"....every little bit helps....It angers me that Romney's, or any wealthy man's, real tax percentage was 13%, while mine at one tenth the income was 11%...
Fairness over greed.
The Bush tax cuts should never have been allowed.
I do agree that spending is out of hand...this applies to both private and public sectors, in a great many areas.
Salaries to "bosses" - way out of hand...
Truth over propaganda.
Funny... He paid more than you in % and amount. So if he didn't pay enough, that means you didn't either right?

His percentage was so low because it was mostly capital gains. Capital gains is 15% for everybody, to include you. When you tax capital gains you're taxing money TWICE. So if you go out, work hard, and make money, you have to pay a tax on it. If you then take that after tax money and invest it, the government will come in and tax you again on the same capital.

Romney paid almost 3 million in taxes in 2011. That same year he gave over 3 million dollars to charity, which was tax deductible. That means he would've had more than double the 13% rate. Wouldn't you rather give your money to charity than the bureacrats to blow in about 6 seconds?

So now that you've called him a greedy POS, how much did YOU give to charity last year?
 
Last edited:
everyone needs to pay more, and we need to do a lot less on the global scale and a lot more on the local scale. put simply, the Bush model did not work long term.
 


This whole "fiscal cliff" thing, IMO, is really about one thing. GREED. The same people who are pushing to raise the debt ceiling are the same ones who don't want to pay a little more, and being such an elite small sliver, are probably the same ones who have been benefitting from these overexpenditures. If you are one of the small sliver of wealthiest at the top, you make obscene amounts of money. You live vastly beyond comfortably, and anything you want, you can easily afford ten thousandfold. So what's REALLY going on?

The greed is government greed, they just want more and more money to spend. Taxing the rich a little more won't hurt them but it won't help America, we need to spend less not tax more.
 
I think demanding that the government get serious on spending issues before they go after anybody for tax increases is incredibly reasonable. This "compromise" bill is ridiculously inadequate at addressing spending and instead delays the conversation by a few months.

Taxes are going up on everybody. ACA was already creating a tax increase for the "rich", the 2% payroll tax break is ending, several industries will see tax increases...This bill just piled on top of it. And....what did they do about spending? We're still spending at Iraq/Afghan war levels even though we're all but completely out of Iraq and decreasing our presence in Afghanistan. We're still spending at TARP levels even though it wasn't reauthorized. We're borrowing 33% of our spending, and this "compromise" bill might decrease that to 28%...maybe.
 
Totally agree, but there's two sides to this equation. We need new sources of revenue and spending cuts at the same time.

It would have been nice to see the Senate and Obama accept that and take cuts seriously, instead of creating a bill that does nearly ****-all.
 


This whole "fiscal cliff" thing, IMO, is really about one thing. GREED. The same people who are pushing to raise the debt ceiling are the same ones who don't want to pay a little more, and being such an elite small sliver, are probably the same ones who have been benefitting from these overexpenditures. If you are one of the small sliver of wealthiest at the top, you make obscene amounts of money. You live vastly beyond comfortably, and anything you want, you can easily afford ten thousandfold. So what's REALLY going on?
Actually, the "whole fiscal cliff thing" was a distraction. But now that Obama has gotten his tax increase, the question becomes--now what? He got his tax increase that would insure that the rich are now paying their fair share, but we are still coming up $1,000,000,000,000 short each year. So where, liberals, do we go next?
 
I perceive a difference between the hostility of those whose wealth is created (by themselves and within their own lifetimes), as opposed to those whose wealth is hereditary. Regarding the latter, I have no pity at all. They are bloated and unproductive, offering nothing to their country. As to the former, I can sympathise to a certain extent. Though I recognise the necessity of addressing the imbalance. Arguments for the 'trickle down effect' are stillborn. In practical terms, there is no visible impact for the average joe.

In fairness, we should remind ourselves that being wealthy isn't a crime. Only those with little to nothing would describe it thus. If it is, then we make admission of Capitalism's obsolescence, and that any pursuit tailored towards personal profit is undesirable.

That said, a fundamental redistribution may be the only means of stimulating an economic recovery, that won't take decades to achieve. So, I dunno. I'm in two minds about it, really. One thing I do reject is the good guys and bad guys perspective. It was always nonsensical. Fit only for school children, picking 'sides'. There is only self-interest and competition; those unable to compete tend to a certain belligerence.
 
In some ways, it doesn't matter how much taxes are increased, if spending isn't cut, and I mean cuts effective NOW, not 10 years down the road.

Ever notice, the government will spend whatever it has and then some, no matter how much that is? Until that's changed, and a budget actually put in place, it won't matter who gets to pay more, because it will never be enough.
 
To be honest, I think it depends on your specific income. In general, I dont think everyone should be making the same amount and I think that you should keep what you worked for. However, I agree with a slight tax increase for people making over half a million dollars.
 
In some ways, it doesn't matter how much taxes are increased, if spending isn't cut, and I mean cuts effective NOW, not 10 years down the road.

Ever notice, the government will spend whatever it has and then some, no matter how much that is? Until that's changed, and a budget actually put in place, it won't matter who gets to pay more, because it will never be enough.
It stands to reason and fairness that the tax rate on the wealthy be increase, it should NEVER have been lowered in the first place...
One thing about government spending...as I recall, the departments are encouraged to spend all of their budget, which encourages waste..Also, I think there are automatic budget increases...this must stop...
Greed is a problem....for this there is no solution.
An easy one......all of the representatives and Senators must have their pay cut by 50%...then they might learn how to budget as the working man must.
 
It stands to reason and fairness that the tax rate on the wealthy be increase, it should NEVER have been lowered in the first place...
For the group that pays the most in, dollar for dollar, and uses the least of the services and programs tax revenues fund, I have to disagree.
One thing about government spending...as I recall, the departments are encouraged to spend all of their budget, which encourages waste..Also, I think there are automatic budget increases...this must stop...
Agreed.
Greed is a problem....for this there is no solution.
An easy one......all of the representatives and Senators must have their pay cut by 50%...then they might learn how to budget as the working man must.

The greed is in the government's quarter.

Any representative should make no more than the median income for the area they represent. Any increase should be based on the average increase of the citizen. Term limits. No lifetime benefits. No special benefits, same program that the citizens are on. All laws that are laid upon the citizen, are applicable to them to.
 


This whole "fiscal cliff" thing, IMO, is really about one thing. GREED. If you are one of the small sliver of wealthiest at the top, you make obscene amounts of money. You live vastly beyond comfortably, and anything you want, you can easily afford ten thousandfold. So what's REALLY going on?

How does this translate into you deserve their money or property? It's theirs not yours.
 
Greed? Really? That's all the left has? Not raising taxes on those that pay the VAST MAJORITY of all the taxes the government collects, makes those that pay the VAST MAJORITY of taxes greedy?

An utterly stupid concept right there.

Perhaps people that believe such things should take a step back and realize that at a time when a good bit of the nation is still quite depressed, collecting more revenues for more SPENDING, and raising their own salaries, the 'greed' is centered in DC.
 
The recent planned tax increases won't even make a dent in our yearly deficit. It was never about reducing it, it's about making it seem like they're doing something by taxing the rich. Spending is bloated and needs to be cut, plain and simple.

You still are denying that Govt. revenues of less than 15% of GDP are part of the problem? No Western Govt. has revenues that low. It is unsustainable
 
You still are denying that Govt. revenues of less than 15% of GDP are part of the problem? No Western Govt. has revenues that low. It is unsustainable
No Western government has taxes this low on middle class. The problem is that the middle class wants all sorts of government goodies but wants someone else to pay for them. That is not how things work. If Medicare is bankrupting the system it is because the middle class is not paying enough into it. Those who want big government should be willing to step up and pay for big government.
 
You still are denying that Govt. revenues of less than 15% of GDP are part of the problem? No Western Govt. has revenues that low. It is unsustainable

Actually government revenues are about 35% of GDP, and we are nearly tied with Japan, Switzerland, and Australia.

Try again.
 
Taking a slightly different approach than what the OP intends, but I ask, "Can you define 'more'?"

More in percentage? It could be either reasonable or unreasonable. Manipulating percentages blurs the lines of reasonableness and fairness.

More in dollars? Perfectly reasonable.

Explanation: This is why I am a staunch flat-tax advocate. The percentage for everybody should be the same. Period. No exception, no deductions, no credits. Nada. The rich will end up paying more in dollars because they make more, but the collective burden will be shared relatively equally.
 
Back
Top Bottom