• 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 Too Much Federal Income Taxes

Do The Rich Pay Too Much Income Taxes


  • Total voters
    90
Answers:

Yes

No

I don't Know

The 2013 tax tables are below:

Married Taxpayers Filing Jointly

Head of Household

Individual Taxpayers



Married Taxpayers Filing Separate

National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?

National Taxpayers UnionTax Basics‎National Taxpayers Union


... Who Pays Income Taxes? Are You Paying Too Much in Taxes? Taxes ... Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid. Top 1%. $343,927. 36.73. Top 5%.

The wealthy pay at least their fair share.:peace

Tax Year 2009
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%​
$343,927​
36.73​
Top 5%​
$154,643​
58.66​
Top 10%​
$112,124​
70.47​
Top 25%​
$66,193​
87.30​
Top 50%​
$32,396​
97.75​
Bottom 50%​
<$32,396​
2.25​
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service
 
why do your posts constantly and dishonestly confuse an opinion with a fact? I argue that the tax system should be based on the same principles of most everything else in life-if you want something, you pay for it.

and its dishonest for your posts to assume I don't know how the present system works

I am well aware it is your opinion. And your opinion is based on falsehoods.
 
I am well aware it is your opinion. And your opinion is based on falsehoods.

what falsehoods? I argue that we should change the system and make people pay for what they use

you want to be able to buy the votes of the many with the money of the few

I think you are fibbing out my points
 
what falsehoods? I argue that we should change the system and make people pay for what they use

you want to be able to buy the votes of the many with the money of the few

I think you are fibbing out my points

The falsehood is that paying ones taxes has a direct and equal relationship with the personal benefits one receives from those same taxes. Such a system is simply impossible in the real world to institute as there is simply no way such a calculation could be made for 315 million people. But feel free to show I am wrong and show us how those calculations would be made.

In previous discussions we have had on this same subject, you are not even able to show us how much one person should pay based on the so called benefit they reap let alone 315 million.

An opinion based on a falsehood and an impossibility is still an opinion in error.
 
How much is too much in your world? I was never scared by someone else having more than me when growing up...

Greetings, AP. :2wave: Good to see you!

In today's world, anger and envy have replaced fear in those who have been encouraged to feel they are being shortchanged if they don't have what others have - and we now have an entitlement society who constantly expects more and more to be content. I guess that when nobody has much of anything, they will finally be happy? I doubt it, but who knows.
 
Greetings, AP. :2wave: Good to see you!

In today's world, anger and envy have replaced fear in those who have been encouraged to feel they are being shortchanged if they don't have what others have - and we now have an entitlement society who constantly expects more and more to be content. I guess that when nobody has much of anything, they will finally be happy? I doubt it, but who knows.

Good evening pg, good to see you're still here. What has been created is a situation where if people begin earning more income (e.g. productive output) the effective tax burden created by lost government benefits destroys any incentive to do so. Therefore, we now have a self-perpetuating situation where it becomes as beneficial to not achieve to the best of one's potential unless that potential outweighs lost government benefits, which most will not know, or care, that they are capable of doing so...
 
My father was the CFO of a Fortune 50 company. I know what he made - it was a lot. I know how hard he worked - it was a lot more than I do.

$500,000 a year isn't really that much money. What should a payroll clerk in a company make if the CEO is only making $500,000? Half of that?

Maybe I missed it, but I have yet to see anyone come up with an explanation of what is considered "fair." I don't feel a payroll clerk is ever worth half of what a CEO is paid! Most companies compete with each other to gain and retain good employees, and wages and benefits are a large part of that decision. Everyone is not equal in talent or schooling, or work ethic, and usually the best make more, or they leave for a better opportunity. That's life, whether some like it or not!

Greetings, tres borrachos. :2wave:
 
National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?

National Taxpayers UnionTax Basics‎National Taxpayers Union


... Who Pays Income Taxes? Are You Paying Too Much in Taxes? Taxes ... Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid. Top 1%. $343,927. 36.73. Top 5%.

The wealthy pay at least their fair share.:peace

Tax Year 2009
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%​
$343,927​
36.73​
Top 5%​
$154,643​
58.66​
Top 10%​
$112,124​
70.47​
Top 25%​
$66,193​
87.30​
Top 50%​
$32,396​
97.75​
Bottom 50%​
<$32,396​
2.25​
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service

Breaking the tax roles by percentages is very misleading.
 
Breaking the tax roles by percentages is very misleading.

It's not misleading at all, just a consequence of taxing income and believing it will ever be considered "fair"...
 
It's not misleading at all, just a consequence of taxing income and believing it will ever be considered "fair"...
You're wrong, the very top .1% make billions per year.
 
The falsehood is that paying ones taxes has a direct and equal relationship with the personal benefits one receives from those same taxes. Such a system is simply impossible in the real world to institute as there is simply no way such a calculation could be made for 315 million people. But feel free to show I am wrong and show us how those calculations would be made.

In previous discussions we have had on this same subject, you are not even able to show us how much one person should pay based on the so called benefit they reap let alone 315 million.

An opinion based on a falsehood and an impossibility is still an opinion in error.

again you have failed miserably. you claim that failure to calculate means a falsehood that is bogus. we can charge everyone equally for the cost of citizenship. Country clubs do that. you pay say 10K a year in dues whether you come 18 times a month or once a month. Other charges are a la carte such as drinks and meals

so everyone pays a flat fee for citizenship That is truly fair. ability to pay has little relevance in other transactions. You pay the same for a car as I do even if a 50K car might be half your yearly salary but might be what I make in 2 weeks
 
Good evening pg, good to see you're still here. What has been created is a situation where if people begin earning more income (e.g. productive output) the effective tax burden created by lost government benefits destroys any incentive to do so. Therefore, we now have a self-perpetuating situation where it becomes as beneficial to not achieve to the best of one's potential unless that potential outweighs lost government benefits, which most will not know, or care, that they are capable of doing so...

:agree: I've never been in that position, but encouraging slothfulness can't be the best route we can take as a country, can it? What will happen when everyone is expected to carry their own share if they expect to survive, and they won't know how? :scared:
 
:agree: I've never been in that position, but encouraging slothfulness can't be the best route we can take as a country, can it? What will happen when everyone is expected to carry their own share if they expect to survive, and they won't know how? :scared:

No, it's never the best route, but it is one neither party will destroy. They will just manipulate it differently...
 
again you have failed miserably. you claim that failure to calculate means a falsehood that is bogus. we can charge everyone equally for the cost of citizenship. Country clubs do that. you pay say 10K a year in dues whether you come 18 times a month or once a month. Other charges are a la carte such as drinks and meals

so everyone pays a flat fee for citizenship That is truly fair. ability to pay has little relevance in other transactions. You pay the same for a car as I do even if a 50K car might be half your yearly salary but might be what I make in 2 weeks

That proposal violates completely the very principle you claim you support - every citizen should pay for the benefits they receive. Why would you say one thing and then advocate a system that does the complete opposite?

btw - America IS NOT a country club and there are no fees or dues for citizenship.
 
Are you serious?

Making your OWN money makes the state a dependent by default? Hell, why not just rob everyone's paycheck and just trust the "state" to do the right thing?

I can't believe so many people think liberty is a sin.

Opportunities to create wealth draw on common resources. Public space and services and private goods whose quality and protection are ensured by the state.

"Making your own money" is an oxymoron. The enforcement of the laws makes an individual's money as much as any effort they put into it.
 
Last edited:
That proposal violates completely the very principle you claim you support - every citizen should pay for the benefits they receive. Why would you say one thing and then advocate a system that does the complete opposite?

btw - America IS NOT a country club and there are no fees or dues for citizenship.

there should be. there shouldn't be representation without taxation. people who don't contribute to the public treasury shouldn't be voting how it is spent
 
And why, exactly, are your panties twisting into a knot about that fact?

oftentimes its because those with the knotted knickers believe they are smarter and more worthy than the wealthy and if they cannot be rich, those who are, shouldn't be
 
Opportunities to create wealth draw on common resources. Public space and services and private goods whose quality and protection are ensured by the state.

"Making your own money" is an oxymoron. The enforcement of the laws makes an individual's money as much as any effort they put into it.

The glue in your argument is that when one uses public resources for some form of private gain, then the public deserves the right to share in that private gain.

So, when a man meets a woman in a public park and a romance begins, then all members of the public may line up outside their bedroom and also partake of the hot kinky sex that is taking place because, after all, the only way that these two lovers could realize their passion was by first using public resources, the park, the sidewalk to walk to their car, the roads to drive to a nice restaurant, which also sits on a public street, etc.
 
How much is too much in your world? I was never scared by someone else having more than me when growing up...

My world is THE world. I am not sure where you get scared from... maybe supressed anxiety for opposing ideas?

So I am scared... a Marxist... what's next? This is getting good.
 
Back
Top Bottom