• 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
An increase from $10 an hour to $15 an hour, in your estimate, was a good increase because it's a 50% increase.

I showed you that the percentage of increase is irrelevant.

"Living wage" sounds good, Glen, but in reality, you really can't define it, and apply it.

Again, you're essentially saying that a difference in molehills makes the difference in mountains irrelevant. And I never claimed to define a living wage - I'm not an economist. But I do know that such can be done - just because America hasn't done something before doesn't mean that it can't be done or shouldn't be done.
 
True. The only reason I was leaving out the number of dependents is to simplify things - that would open up a whole new can of worms...and I ain't enough of a fisherman to have any use for all those worms.

The "living wage", as opposed to a minimum wage, is a can of worms anyway. Its biggest problem is that a "living wage" violates the equal pay for equal work idea. If an employer has two qualified applicants (for a single position) but must pay one more then who would be more likely to get the job?
 
Again, you're essentially saying that a difference in molehills makes the difference in mountains irrelevant. And I never claimed to define a living wage - I'm not an economist. But I do know that such can be done - just because America hasn't done something before doesn't mean that it can't be done or shouldn't be done.

Well, Glen, you posted more than once that people should be paid a "living wage". If you don't know in your mind what exactly it is, how can you ask for it?
 
The "living wage", as opposed to a minimum wage, is a can of worms anyway. Its biggest problem is that a "living wage" violates the equal pay for equal work idea. If an employer has two qualified applicants (for a single position) but must pay one more then who would be more likely to get the job?

Pick me! Can I answer this one??
 
The "living wage", as opposed to a minimum wage, is a can of worms anyway. Its biggest problem is that a "living wage" violates the equal pay for equal work idea. If an employer has two qualified applicants (for a single position) but must pay one more then who would be more likely to get the job?

Earlier in the conversation I pointed out that IMO a living wage should be defined as the amount it takes to feed, clothe, and shelter four people - an adult couple with two children. One could say that this is in effect a minimum wage that would be set for local conditions. This would not violate 'equal pay for equal work'.
 
Well, Glen, you posted more than once that people should be paid a "living wage". If you don't know in your mind what exactly it is, how can you ask for it?

I think my oldest son needs to lose weight to decrease his risk from diabetes, but since I don't know the best way for him to do so due to his history with rheumatic fever, does that mean that I shouldn't say he should lose weight?

Just because we can't answer specific details about what we think that a thing needs to be done, does not negate our moral right - and often, our duty - to say that thing needs to be done.
 
Haha. Sounds familiar...

We do need taxes for infrastructure, defense, and other public market failures. They just don't have to be near what they are now.

Roads and other PUBLIC GOODS account for about 7% of Federal Government spending.

where-did-your-tax-dollar-go-560_zpsac76cd54.jpg
 
Roads and other PUBLIC GOODS account for about 7% of Federal Government spending.

where-did-your-tax-dollar-go-560_zpsac76cd54.jpg

Don't forget defense and other things too. But still, way too much in taxes.

I'd like to have a flat tax of around 20%, exemption on the first 20k income (30k MFJ) and no deductions for children. Slash enough entitlement and leech crap, and you have a good system.
 
Earlier in the conversation I pointed out that IMO a living wage should be defined as the amount it takes to feed, clothe, and shelter four people - an adult couple with two children. One could say that this is in effect a minimum wage that would be set for local conditions. This would not violate 'equal pay for equal work'.

Raising the minimum wage to about $11.50/hour might accomplish that, yielding 100% of the federal poverty level for four people (with one woirking full-time at that rate) but likely at the cost of many jobs.
 
I think my oldest son needs to lose weight to decrease his risk from diabetes, but since I don't know the best way for him to do so due to his history with rheumatic fever, does that mean that I shouldn't say he should lose weight?

Just because we can't answer specific details about what we think that a thing needs to be done, does not negate our moral right - and often, our duty - to say that thing needs to be done.

Wow. Talk about a...I don't even know what to call that first sentence.

You have a right to chant for a "living wage". And I have a right to call you out for chanting about something that you don't even know what you're chanting about.
 
Raising the minimum wage to about $11.50/hour might accomplish that, yielding 100% of the federal poverty level for four people (with one woirking full-time at that rate) but likely at the cost of many jobs.

Can you show where a significant hike in the minimum wage in the past has resulted in a loss of many jobs?
 
Wow. Talk about a...I don't even know what to call that first sentence.

You have a right to chant for a "living wage". And I have a right to call you out for chanting about something that you don't even know what you're chanting about.

Hey - YOU are the one saying that if we can't list all the details involved in something, that we can't ask for that something. I simply showed you an example of how silly your reply was.
 
discretionary-desk.png

This is how President Obama proposes allocating $1.16 trillion in discretionary spending in fiscal year 2015. Discretionary spending, which accounts for 29 percent of the president's proposed 2015 budget, does not include earned-benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare. Rather, it includes programs whose funding levels are set each year by lawmakers during the appropriations process, including the military, education, job training, and the environment.
http://static.natprior.org/images/charts/2015/discretionary-desk.png
 
Great - more "you didn't create that, I did" Obama blowjob talk.

Mediocre people have that mentality.

If there is some obvious reason why I should change my mind, feel free to mention it.
 
If there is some obvious reason why I should change my mind, feel free to mention it.

You shouldn't. Socialists and statists like yourself recognize their own inadequacies, so this mentality creates a de facto excuse.

Tah-dah! Now it's not your fault.
 
You shouldn't. Socialists and statists like yourself recognize their own inadequacies, so this mentality creates a de facto excuse.

Tah-dah! Now it's not your fault.

You don't know me, so there's no way to know if your projections of me fit the truth.

Regardless, the matter seems straightforward. Opportunity only exists because of the effort that goes into securing it through the implementation of government and the law.

The more dependent you are on opportunity, the greater your obligation to protect it.

Why should a man who exists in the margins of society -- who stands to lose nothing if it fails, since he lives by the law of nature anyway -- be expected to contribute more than someone who depends on an intricate web of treaties, courts, and public resources in order to meet their personal economic goals?

Large corporations devour the energies and attentions of the courts of the United States of America far more than the common man. They receive more recognition from congressmen, senators, and presidents.
 
Last edited:
You don't know me, so there's no way to know if your projections of me fit the truth.

Regardless, the matter seems straightforward. Opportunity only exists because of the effort that goes into securing it through the implementation of government and the law.

The more dependent you are on opportunity, the greater your obligation to protect it.

Why should a man who exists in the margins of society -- who stands to lose nothing if it fails, since he lives by the law of nature anyway -- be expected to contribute more than someone who depends on an intricate web of treaties, courts, and public resources in order to meet their personal economic goals?

Large corporations devour the energies and attentions of the courts of the United States of America far more than the common man. They receive more recognition from congressmen, senators, and presidents.

Yeah yeah, I get it. Government determines winners and losers. Blah blah blah.

It's a defeatist attitude. Anyone who is successful by going out and staking his claim would find your opinion deplorable. However, it's a mantra for the unskilled, uneducated, and unremarkable because it creates a situation where failure is shirked.
 
Haha. Sounds familiar...

We do need taxes for infrastructure, defense, and other public market failures. They just don't have to be near what they are now.

Can we raise everybody else's and lower yours to pay the debts of the past 237 years? Would that be fine? They can raise my taxes to 50% but that probably wouldn't be enough to pay for all of our debts and the government services to which Americans have become accustomed.

I don't see how we can cut our way out of the problem. I really don't.
 
Yeah yeah, I get it. Government determines winners and losers. Blah blah blah.

It's a defeatist attitude. Anyone who is successful by going out and staking his claim would find your opinion deplorable. However, it's a mantra for the unskilled, uneducated, and unremarkable because it creates a situation where failure is shirked.

It doesn't matter whether I am a defeatist or an optimist. In all other economic arrangements, people pay more based on their reliance on a good or service.

If rich people depend on ordered society, law, and government more than the common man, then they should pay more in taxes than the common man.

That's how value-for-dollar arrangements work.

If the United States government fails, then the treaties that limit the development of foreign pharmaceuticals or the copyrights or the ownership of foreign property by American corporations go up in smoke.

The very rich stand to lose more money than me.
 
Why do those things need to be force monopolized and funded through extortion?

We should fund them with donations.

Anybody want to pitch in $1 to fund infrastructure, defense, other public market failures, public roads, programs for the poor, funding for military, funding for law enforcement, funding for health services and funding for governmental research?

We might raise enough. How many Americans are there? 350,000,000 or something like that? $350,000,000 should be enough.
 
It doesn't matter whether I am a defeatist or an optimist. In all other economic arrangements, people pay more based on their reliance on a good or service.

If rich people depend on ordered society, law, and government more than the common man, then they should pay more in taxes than the common man.

That's how value-for-dollar arrangements work.

Why would you see a difference?
 
what does that have to do with tax rates
those poor, poor, rich people

I am poor as s***. Let them rich people know I will buy them a loaf of bread if they ever get hungry. They have it pretty tough sometime but somehow they do manage to get by. I think it is their business savvy that allows them to stretch their meager existence in order to survive.
 
I am poor as s***. Let them rich people know I will buy them a loaf of bread if they ever get hungry. They have it pretty tough sometime but somehow they do manage to get by. I think it is their business savvy that allows them to stretch their meager existence in order to survive.

business savvy...and being born rich and having lots of corporate welfare helps.
 
Back
Top Bottom