• 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
Soupnazi630 said:
We had a civilized society before most forms of taxation.

In fact we get nothing of value in return and they are nothing more than stolen wealth.

Yes it is also correct one is punished with greater taxes when one has more to be taxed.

All pay too many taxes rich or poor.
Click to expand...

You cannot have a modernized society without taxes. No country can achieve and sustain this modernly.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
You cannot have a modernized society without taxes. No country can achieve and sustain this modernly.
Click to expand...

Yes you can and yes they can.

There is not a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise.

The evidence is that you are wrong is the constant increases in taxes combined with absolute failure in government services.
 
TurtleDude said:
OH THE DRAMA.

its fun watching you claim the rich should pay more as some sort of formula so that the middle class wages go up

hint-that is a disconnect and stupid
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to show me any nation that has a sizable middle class that doesn't have either a minimum wage by law or one effectively enforced by the unions.

Just one - that's all I ask. And btw...don't even try to mention Singapore - instead of a minimum wage, their government spends billions of dollars subsidizing the paychecks of the workers.
 
Soupnazi630 said:
Yes you can and yes they can.

There is not a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise.

The evidence is that you are wrong is the constant increases in taxes combined with absolute failure in government services.
Click to expand...

No public roads, no programs for the poor, no funding for military, no funding for law enforcement, no funding for health services, no funding for governmental research. I mean hell! What could go wrong!?!?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
You cannot have a modernized society without taxes. No country can achieve and sustain this modernly.
Click to expand...
He didnt say cut off all taxes, he said people are paying too much in taxes. Stop putting words in people's mouth that they didnt say.
 
PoS said:
He didnt say cut off all taxes, he said people are paying too much in taxes. Stop putting words in people's mouth that they didnt say.
Click to expand...

Im guessing when someone says this: "In fact we get nothing of value in return and they are nothing more than stolen wealth." They probably are in favor of 0 taxes...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Im guessing when someone says this: "In fact we get nothing of value in return and they are nothing more than stolen wealth." They probably are in favor of 0 taxes...
Click to expand...
I would think that even the most hardcore libertarian will tell you that while taxes are evil, they are a necessary evil. The goal therefore is not to eliminate taxes but to reduce them to the point of having a minimal impact on one's daily life. Since I own land I have no problem paying property tax, if there was a tax strictly for the implementation and construction of infrastructure projects such as roads and bridges I probably wouldnt mind paying that too but I am against any form of income tax that relies on government discretion to spend on where they please, such as entitlements.
 
PoS said:
I would think that even the most hardcore libertarian will tell you that while taxes are evil, they are a necessary evil. The goal therefore is not to eliminate taxes but to reduce them to the point of having a minimal impact on one's daily life. Since I own land I have no problem paying property tax, if there was a tax strictly for the implementation and construction of infrastructure projects such as roads and bridges I probably wouldnt mind paying that too but I am against any form of income tax that relies on government discretion to spend on where they please, such as entitlements.
Click to expand...

Sure but such a strong statement as this says something.. And we dont know until he/she replies.
 
Gipper said:
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.
Click to expand...

You must worship Robert Nozick, Gipper

Anarchy, State, and Utopia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The book also contains a vigorous defense of minarchist libertarianism against more extreme views, such as anarcho-capitalism (in which there is no state and individuals must contract with private companies for all social services). Nozick argues that anarcho-capitalism would inevitably transform into a minarchist state, even without violating any of its own non-aggression principles, through the eventual emergence of a single locally dominant private defense and judicial agency that it is in everyone's interests to align with, because other agencies are unable to effectively compete against the advantages of the agency with majority coverage. Therefore, he felt that, even to the extent that the anarcho-capitalist theory is correct, it results in a single, private, protective agency which is itself a de facto "state." Thus anarcho-capitalism may only exist for a limited period before a minimalist state emerges".

Paul
 
I don't have a major issue with the progressive tax rates, but I do object to the income tax rate starting at 0%. The minimum tax should be whatever the smallest legal tender unit is at the time. If it is a penny, then pony up and pay your penny. That should be the price of living in a modern society. If there are 80 million people that pay no federal income tax, then that would bring in $800,000
 
vasuderatorrent said:
The same people that want lower taxes are the same people that want the government to be fiscally responsible. You don't find that too be funny?

It's like a household that makes $20,000 who lives on $40,000 and tries to cut their expenses to make up the $20,000 difference. It's very funny.
Click to expand...
It may be funny, but not sustainable.
Our government can sustain deficit spending when we are growing at a fast pace.
Over our first 200 years, the Government averaged an 8% annual raise.
They still get raises, but not like in the first two centuries.
The practice of base line budgeting, needs to stop.
Spending does not need to be cut, frozen would work almost as well.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I don't have a major issue with the progressive tax rates, but I do object to the income tax rate starting at 0%. The minimum tax should be whatever the smallest legal tender unit is at the time. If it is a penny, then pony up and pay your penny. That should be the price of living in a modern society. If there are 80 million people that pay no federal income tax, then that would bring in $800,000
Click to expand...

According to an article in The Economist this week the rich work more than the poor.
Free exchange: Nice work if you can get out | The Economist
 
Morality Games said:
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.
Click to expand...

Great - more "you didn't create that, I did" Obama blowjob talk.

Mediocre people have that mentality.
 
gunner said:
You must worship Robert Nozick, Gipper

Anarchy, State, and Utopia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The book also contains a vigorous defense of minarchist libertarianism against more extreme views, such as anarcho-capitalism (in which there is no state and individuals must contract with private companies for all social services). Nozick argues that anarcho-capitalism would inevitably transform into a minarchist state, even without violating any of its own non-aggression principles, through the eventual emergence of a single locally dominant private defense and judicial agency that it is in everyone's interests to align with, because other agencies are unable to effectively compete against the advantages of the agency with majority coverage. Therefore, he felt that, even to the extent that the anarcho-capitalist theory is correct, it results in a single, private, protective agency which is itself a de facto "state." Thus anarcho-capitalism may only exist for a limited period before a minimalist state emerges".

Paul
Click to expand...

He sounds pretty wise, although I'm not sure that a brief period of anarcho-capitalism would cause a proper "night-watchman" minarchist state to emerge. The system of corruption that would come about could be too well financed to allow for a proper government to take limited necessary power. Any kook who thinks America is a "corpocracy" would agree with that.

I think an-caps are nutjobs, as are people who want to completely abolish taxes.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
No public roads, no programs for the poor, no funding for military, no funding for law enforcement, no funding for health services, no funding for governmental research. I mean hell! What could go wrong!?!?
Click to expand...

Nothing that does not go wrong already.
 
Gipper said:
We do need taxes for infrastructure, defense, and other public market failures. They just don't have to be near what they are now.
Click to expand...

Why do those things need to be force monopolized and funded through extortion?
 
TurtleDude said:
what does that have to do with tax rates
Click to expand...

As I pointed out to you earlier - make sure all entry-level workers are paid a living wage, and THEN we can talk about raising their tax rates so those poor, poor, rich people (whose wealth is still growing by leaps and bounds) don't have to shoulder as great a percentage of the taxes.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
As I pointed out to you earlier - make sure all entry-level workers are paid a living wage, and THEN we can talk about raising their tax rates so those poor, poor, rich people (whose wealth is still growing by leaps and bounds) don't have to shoulder as great a percentage of the taxes.
Click to expand...

How much is a "living wage" in your opinion Glen?
 
polgara said:
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:
Click to expand...

Happy Thursday polgara! :D

If you can find someone to define the concept of "fair" in terms of payscales, please let me know. People insist on it, but nobody seems to be able to articulate it.

Life isn't "fair" and as much as the government tries to equalize everyone, we aren't all equal. Cindy Crawford is more beautiful than I could ever hope to be, Tina Turner is a better singer than I could ever hope to be, Angelina Jolie is married to Brad Pitt and I will never be......but I don't whine about these things. People need to make the best of what they have and stop worrying about what others have/earn etc. The green eyed monster is alive and well in some.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom