• 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 This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?


  • Total voters
    28
If you consider the fact they own 75 percent of all "wealth" in the country, then no, the statement might not hold. But since this is about "income", of which they constitute about 48 percent of, then yes, the statement could be considered true.

I still voted "no" however. There are plenty of other factors to consider. There is a reason we have a "progressive" tax system, it helps compensate for the inherent inequalities in a system such as ours. Yes, that would be the "redistribute the wealth" thing.

Taxes....this is about taxes, not income.
 
no income tax-then we have no picking winners or losers. everyone pays for what they use. You are a citizen, you pay the same for your citizenship benefits as I do

just like everything else in life

I suspect if you got your way colleges and other charities would hire a cleaner for you:mrgreen:
If you are replacing the income tax with a regressive tax like a sales tax then yes the govt is picking winners and losers. The wealthy win.
 
And you honestly think that charities will receive the same amount of money if all their contributions are non deductible?

I don't think there was any thinking about what would happen with that
 
And you honestly think that charities will receive the same amount of money if all their contributions are non deductible?

I don't care if they don't.
 
If you are replacing the income tax with a regressive tax like a sales tax then yes the govt is picking winners and losers. The wealthy win.

no, the government doesn't pick who wins. everyone pays the same for what they use-just like at the McDonalds or the car wash. the government shouldn't try to even things up. if you are a failure, the government shouldn't tax the rich more to make your failure less painful
 
I don't care if they don't.

an interesting dichotomy. hate the successful and you hate charities. Perhaps you believe that charities get money you think your beloved Big Brother needs more
 
You are correct the statement is false, however the fact they are in a group is literally meaningless. People pay their taxes as individuals, not as a member of a group.

Can we apply that line of thinkIng to immigration? ' the fact they are in a group is literally meaningless. People broke the law as individuals, not as a member of a group.' The implication being that calls of racism are just as invalid.
 
no, the government doesn't pick who wins. everyone pays the same for what they use-just like at the McDonalds or the car wash. the government shouldn't try to even things up. if you are a failure, the government shouldn't tax the rich more to make your failure less painful

So anyone who isn't wealthy is an automatic failure? That's pretty myopic view.
 
So anyone who isn't wealthy is an automatic failure? That's pretty myopic view.

nope, they just have failed economically. is everyone wealthy a target to you?
 
Okaaaaay...so you don't care if charities don't get enough money to operate?

Let's hope you never get to a position of power.

And what evidence do you have that taxes are the reason people donate to charities?
 
nope, they just have failed economically. is everyone wealthy a target to you?

No. I just believe if you make more you should pay more. Not less which is the case in our current tax code with so many loopholes to exploit.
 
No. I just believe if you make more you should pay more. Not less which is the case in our current tax code with so many loopholes to exploit.

I should pay the same as you. I don't get any more government benefits than you do. why should I subsidize your citizenship benefits when you do nothing beneficial for me?
 
And what evidence do you have that taxes are the reason people donate to charities?

Me...I have given at least slightly more to charity because of the tax deduction.

And I guarantee you I am not the only one...especially for the rich.


Now prove to me using links to unbiased, factual evidence that charities would receive at least as much from donations if the deduction was eliminated?

And besides, why take the chance that Americans might suffer needlessly if people do give less?
 
No. I just believe if you make more you should pay more. Not less which is the case in our current tax code with so many loopholes to exploit.

Do you get more government help if you pay more? Can you drove on more roads or use better public water or get better medicare? No. We all get and have the same opportunity to government services and protections.

I think that, ideally, every citizen of age should have the same tax burden. That would mean roughly $14,000 per citizen over 18 years old. I'm well in the minority on that line of thinking, though.
 
Me...I have given at least slightly more to charity because of the tax deduction.

And I guarantee you I am not the only one...especially for the rich.


Now prove to me using links to unbiased, factual evidence that charities would receive at least as much from donations if the deduction was eliminated?

And besides, why take the chance that Americans might suffer needlessly if people do give less?

I know you understand this so its not directed to you

under the current system, a charitable contribution is cheaper for me because i am going to pay close to 40% on the money if I keep it. So if I give say Columbia U 100K it really only costs me 60K because if I keep the 100K-40K goes to the government. So I can "afford" to give more. If I don't get a deduction it will cost me 140K to give Columbia 100K
 
Do you get more government help if you pay more? Can you drove on more roads or use better public water or get better medicare? No. We all get and have the same opportunity to government services and protections.

I think that, ideally, every citizen of age should have the same tax burden. That would mean roughly $14,000 per citizen over 18 years old. I'm well in the minority on that line of thinking, though.

that's because most people are freeloaders or have their share of their citizenship costs subsidized by people like me who are paying 20 times that amount or more
 
I should pay the same as you. I don't get any more government benefits than you do. why should I subsidize your citizenship benefits when you do nothing beneficial for me?

I probably make more money than you and pay more in taxes than you. And it isn't about govt benefits. The rich probably use as much govt benefit as everyone else.
 
I probably make more money than you and pay more in taxes than you. And it isn't about govt benefits. The rich probably use as much govt benefit as everyone else.

really? you are making over 2.5 million a year and have a net worth north of 50 million dollars?

wow, then why do you call yourself a 99percenter?
 
And what evidence do you have that taxes are the reason people donate to charities?

Additionally:

'Donors have also said it's a vital incentive. According to a 2010 Indiana University survey, more than two-thirds of high-net-worth donors said they would decrease their giving if they did not receive a deduction for donations. In fact, experts estimate that limiting the deduction could reduce available funding by as much as $7 billion next year. If there were no deduction at all, some experts predict giving would decrease by as much as $78 billion per year.'

Should the U.S. End Tax Deductions for Charity? - WSJ.com

https://www.independentsector.org/charitable_deduction_research
 
Last edited:
really? you are making over 2.5 million a year and have a net worth north of 50 million dollars?

wow, then why do you call yourself a 99percenter?

Im sorry but you dont make 2.5 mill a year. If you did you wouldn't be trolling messageboards 24-7. You are probably one of those 47%er's romney talks about. Therefore the taxes i pay subsidize your food stamps, medicare and obamaphone yet here you are bitching about taxes.
 
Im sorry but you dont make 2.5 mill a year. If you did you wouldn't be trolling messageboards 24-7. You are probably one of those 47%er's romney talks about. Therefore the taxes i pay subsidize your food stamps, medicare and obamaphone yet here you are bitching about taxes.

what would you care to bet on that? I'd be happy to prove it if it meant you'd pay a stiff price

I am retired, and I don't need to work. so what do you make a year? I guess you were just lying about what you claimed as to your income
 
its statist horsecrap. the biggest problem is those who want more and more spending don't get hit with tax increases to remind them how expensive the government they want.

You failed to even make an attempt to address what I said "Also very true" about.

Your second bit is incorrect. First off, it's entirely nonspecific and very generalizing. You are attempting to tarnish the stance that the government should increase it's spending on social welfare programs (and other progressive causes) by claiming that those who support such polices don't and will not feel the pinch of the taxes required to carry out such polices. Essentially trying to take the issue down from a simple ideological stance to a more petty self interest stance, which is in and of itself a logical fallacy because it avoids the heart of the argument. Secondly, quite a large number of higher earners support such polices, so it would appear that your claim is not only partially wrong, but mostly wrong. Not to mention that many liberals would agree to pay higher taxes for such polices, though they would of course support the cutting of the standard set of what they consider "wasteful" spending.
 
what would you care to bet on that? I'd be happy to prove it if it meant you'd pay a stiff price

I am retired, and I don't need to work. so what do you make a year? I guess you were just lying about what you claimed as to your income
It doesn't matter what i make because this is a messageboard and we have no way of verifying incomes. I just know that you dont make 2.5mill a year and probably never did in your life.
 
You failed to even make an attempt to address what I said "Also very true" about.

Your second bit is incorrect. First off, it's entirely nonspecific and very generalizing. You are attempting to tarnish the stance that the government should increase it's spending on social welfare programs (and other progressive causes) by claiming that those who support such polices don't and will not feel the pinch of the taxes required to carry out such polices. Essentially trying to take the issue down from a simple ideological stance to a more petty self interest stance, which is in and of itself a logical fallacy because it avoids the heart of the argument. Secondly, quite a large number of higher earners support such polices, so it would appear that your claim is not only partially wrong, but mostly wrong. Not to mention that many liberals would agree to pay higher taxes for such polices, though they would of course support the cutting of the standard set of what they consider "wasteful" spending.

opinion noted and rejected as contrary to known reality. I doubt many liberals would be willing to pay more unless they thought they'd get more from the government. Higher taxes is something rich dems see as a cost of becoming more powerful

when they won't get any benefit from it they won't support it. HOW MANY rich liberals actually give the IRS more than they have to
 
Back
Top Bottom