• 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!

The Millionaires Who Pay the Highest Tax Rate

Shouldn't we tax capital gains more since they're not working for it? Shouldn't we be rewarding hard work?

We should "reward" hard work in general. However, we shouldn't reward *only* hard work, we shouldn't punish intelligent work, and we shouldn't ignore risk and scope. Not to mention "hard work" is a nebulous idea that has no real honest definition that can be used as an accurate measuring tool. My 6 months working in baggage at TSA felt like "harder" work than the time I spent in the Computer Networking field...and yet I'd absolutely suggest somehow the former needs to be "rewarded" because it's "harder" comparitive to the latter. The level of knowledge, expertise, critical thought involved, and scope for the latter were all far greater despite the work itself perhaps not being as "hard".
 
We should "reward" hard work in general. However, we shouldn't reward *only* hard work, we shouldn't punish intelligent work, and we shouldn't ignore risk and scope. Not to mention "hard work" is a nebulous idea that has no real honest definition that can be used as an accurate measuring tool. My 6 months working in baggage at TSA felt like "harder" work than the time I spent in the Computer Networking field...and yet I'd absolutely suggest somehow the former needs to be "rewarded" because it's "harder" comparitive to the latter. The level of knowledge, expertise, critical thought involved, and scope for the latter were all far greater despite the work itself perhaps not being as "hard".

Intellectually challenging work is still hard, sometimes even harder than physical labor. I just think that working should be rewarded over investing. That's part of what got us the collapse of 2008 - our tax system and government reward producing numbers on a piece of paper more than actually making something or providing a service.
 
We must not just accept the propaganda, and rhetoric that is dominating the conversation today.



It is reported that the increase we have been hearing Obama repeat since Jan 20th, 2009 about "fair share" and "taxing families over $250K per year" would be around $80 billion. That is a drop in the bucket in terms of doing anything concerning Obama's run away spending vision. So what gives? Is this just a 'get even' measure? though up by progressives that are jealous that they didn't become successful? or is it a pillar of communism?

Communist Manifesto 10 Planks

It is a sad time in history we are seeing here folks, hopefully we can endure, and fix what this progressive shift to the planks of Marx is attempting.

This is why I refer to the rich ain't paying their fair share crowd as the Green with Envy crowd.It doesn't have squat to do with paying off debts. If the federal government was that worried about paying off our debt then they would be cutting spending left and right. This is why I believe that the government is intentionally driving us into debt.
 
Here's a perfect example of what the right is always talking about - our system and government do not reward work. What you're basically advocating is for people to sit on their ass and live off of their investments tax free. The government should incentivize hard work for the poor, but not if you're rich?

You've failed in your argument.
First, government is not taking from others, and handing it to the rich therefore enabling them to be "lazy", on the large scale (for military and government funded stuff, it may be the case).The poor on the other hand are actually being handed money that government took from someone else.
So no, they are not equal, it's not a matter of government taking from the poor/middle class and handing to the rich (which it does not), vs. taking form the rich and handing to the poor/middle class (which it does)And the really poor are not the question, it's largely the middle-class that is getting the ride. There is some percentage of the poor who should receive help, and while government may not be the ideal vehicle for that, it may suffice.

Second, government largely should do neither. I should be the that chooses if I spend my short awareness of life, working or enjoying liesure (you call lazy).
You realize that someone who works 2x as much and saves, living below their means, and then early retires, is not the same "laziness" as someone who intetionally chooses not to work, but asks for handouts and lives basically on the efforts of someone else?

You've warped the argument so much it's scary.
 
Last edited:
You are incorrect. MOst of us who have investments have saved and worked hard to have money to invest.

Bull****, you didn't build that.
 
It just again shows how messed up the tax system is. Too few people paying in, using arbitrary rules to tax them, and using the tax code to try and force behavior. Its really not understandable how anyone can like the system and not support a total overhaul.
 
Lets also not forget that millionaires and every one else also paid 7.5% payroll tax on wages, which went into social security and general tax, and govt cut that, reducing the revenue for SS, which was already not taking in enough. That will expire in 30 days.
 
I'm sure there are many others who feel as you do. However, your feelings and reality have taken divergent courses.

Assuming you work, I'm confident that you do pay taxes. If you don't work, I'm (assuming) that you receive free money from the USG. Declaring your independence means nothing.

The progressive tax system has become the default because its the only strategy that has at least some element of fairness to it. You could argue that we have a head tax, a flat tax, or even the brilliant Speckle-tax BUT the fact is, none of these alternate systems have any chance of becoming law.

And yes, your Government does many things that are not outlined in the Constitution. The original Constitution and its subsequent Bill Of Rights and other amendments have long since been modified, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. But trying to use the Constitution as a point of debate, is just hopeless.

So, since the government engages in many activities and maintains the largest military in the world, and you don't have a choice, these activities must be funded some way. Since my idea of no taxes, kust prnt the money, has been met with a deafening silence, the current tax system is the best we have go so far. The major flaw is the thousands of loopholes created by corrupt politicians in collusion with their donor beneficiaries. Just eliminating ALL deductions and loopholes would provide more than enough funding but this peculiar empathy we show to the Daddy Warbucks set and the absence of income from The Little Orphan Annie set, seems to preclude any such logical action. So, taxes will have to increase ands new loopholes will b3 created or discovered to reward certain beneficiaries.

A flat tax is as utterly regressive as the so called "Fair Tax" and I''ve never understood the advocacy for this.



If the choice is honor what elected officials do, or dont. Then I choose dont. It is pretty obvious by now that the Supreme Court, and govt in general can be wrong and abusive. Saying that anything they do must be legal because no one has said otherwise yet is a recipe for disaster.

So if we accept that there is no power in the constitution for the govt to run either a medical insurance program, retirement insurance, nutrition assistance, education loans, or own a auto company, then once you strip the functions of govt down to what is actually in the constitution, the federal cost is significantly lower. If you then further accept that every citizen who is able to pay for these services should at the very least contribute the same share of what they are able to (flat tax), that number is probably 10% or less.
 
It just again shows how messed up the tax system is. Too few people paying in, using arbitrary rules to tax them, and using the tax code to try and force behavior. Its really not understandable how anyone can like the system and not support a total overhaul.

Laziness combined with greed have prevented a overhaul, even though the public seems to want one.
 
Laziness combined with greed have prevented a overhaul, even though the public seems to want one.

The public only thinks they want one, because that is what they see on TV. They really don't as most have no idea what it even means. All they 'know' is the news and Obama says all rich people are paying less taxes than them.
 
Here in cincinnati, many people work their lives with Proctor and Gamble and retire on P&G stock the parasites want those people to suffer huge tax increases on dividends.

That is the ironic part to me. Workers are more likely to need dividends for their retirement than Bill Gates but let's punish everybody with a mutual fund in the name of leveling the playing field against the wealthy. I feel like I am trying to protect democrats from themselves sometimes with this crap because they tow the Obama line without any concept of what it will really mean to them.
 
I'm sure there are many others who feel as you do. However, your feelings and reality have taken divergent courses.

Assuming you work, I'm confident that you do pay taxes. If you don't work, I'm (assuming) that you receive free money from the USG. Declaring your independence means nothing.

The progressive tax system has become the default because its the only strategy that has at least some element of fairness to it. You could argue that we have a head tax, a flat tax, or even the brilliant Speckle-tax BUT the fact is, none of these alternate systems have any chance of becoming law.

And yes, your Government does many things that are not outlined in the Constitution. The original Constitution and its subsequent Bill Of Rights and other amendments have long since been modified, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. But trying to use the Constitution as a point of debate, is just hopeless.

So, since the government engages in many activities and maintains the largest military in the world, and you don't have a choice, these activities must be funded some way. Since my idea of no taxes, kust prnt the money, has been met with a deafening silence, the current tax system is the best we have go so far. The major flaw is the thousands of loopholes created by corrupt politicians in collusion with their donor beneficiaries. Just eliminating ALL deductions and loopholes would provide more than enough funding but this peculiar empathy we show to the Daddy Warbucks set and the absence of income from The Little Orphan Annie set, seems to preclude any such logical action. So, taxes will have to increase ands new loopholes will b3 created or discovered to reward certain beneficiaries.

A flat tax is as utterly regressive as the so called "Fair Tax" and I''ve never understood the advocacy for this.

Its not regressive because the rich still pay more. 10% of a million is more than 10% of 40,000. And we do have a choice. The voters choose to continue punishing a minority of the country for the benefit of the majority. I choose not to, which is why I dont vote, and I avoid the federal govt wherever possible.
 
That is the ironic part to me. Workers are more likely to need dividends for their retirement than Bill Gates but let's punish everybody with a mutual fund in the name of leveling the playing field against the wealthy. I feel like I am trying to protect democrats from themselves sometimes with this crap because they tow the Obama line without any concept of what it will really mean to them.

Which is why we have to stop. Let them hang themselves.
 
It is regressive. I make $10K and pay $1K leaving me with $9K. You make $1M and pay $100K leaving you with $900K. We both need a car. I can't buy one with a year of income, you can buy 20 of them (but you won't).

Nobody advocates total equality. But yes, higher incomes can and should pay a higher percentage. The taxes we have now and are under discussion are not unreasonable.

Its not regressive because the rich still pay more. 10% of a million is more than 10% of 40,000. And we do have a choice. The voters choose to continue punishing a minority of the country for the benefit of the majority. I choose not to, which is why I dont vote, and I avoid the federal govt wherever possible.
 
It is regressive. I make $10K and pay $1K leaving me with $9K. You make $1M and pay $100K leaving you with $900K. We both need a car. I can't buy one with a year of income, you can buy 20 of them (but you won't).

Nobody advocates total equality. But yes, higher incomes can and should pay a higher percentage. The taxes we have now and are under discussion are not unreasonable.

Flat tax is not regressive by definition. Look it up.
 
It is regressive. I make $10K and pay $1K leaving me with $9K. You make $1M and pay $100K leaving you with $900K. We both need a car. I can't buy one with a year of income, you can buy 20 of them (but you won't).

Nobody advocates total equality. But yes, higher incomes can and should pay a higher percentage. The taxes we have now and are under discussion are not unreasonable.

So we are not equal?
 
Why should capital gains be taxed at all? Hasn't the money being invested already been taxed at the normal rates?

Who owns my labor?

Because tax is imposed whenever value changes hands. If we are in agreement that a Corporation is a separate entity, why shouldn't distributions from the corporation be taxed separately on the recipient?
 
Considering the money invested came from work there doesn't appear to be any sort of problem.

Not true. Money comes from many sources. For the wealthy, money comes less from work and more from time. They can afford to be without certain quantities of money for time, and that time pays them.
 
Why should capital gains be taxed at all? Hasn't the money being invested already been taxed at the normal rates?

Who owns my labor?

The government owns your labor, because the government owns YOU, bub.


Doubt me? Then exibit signs of maybe wanting to commit suicide, or publicly harm yourself, etc. See what happens to ya.
 
So we are not equal?

In our tax system, equality is not meaures as a static percentage on income. It's measured by financial hardship imposed. The argument for a progressive tax is that the wealthy suffer less financial hardship from higher rates than the poor do. Remember, dollars and cents are a medium through which we measure value, and value affords a certain standard of living. When you start looking at income and taxes from the point of view of how it affects a person's life rather than a static number of dollars, then you will better understand the tax code.
 
ALL money has already been taxed. Millions of times. Where does money come from?

How does Warren Buffet get paid? By capital gains, almost exclusively. Which is why he pays such a low tax rate, by percentage. Where do those capital gains come from? Investments. What money was used to make those investments? It came from somewhere. And further, when those investments that were made increase in value, thus CREATING said capital gains, what CAUSED them to increase in value? The success of the investment. Success that, in general, depends on the intake of money.

Every dollar in circulation has been taxed, else, it would not be in circulation. I pay an income tax on my paycheck, but get this? That paycheck has already been taxed before I ever even got my hands on it. The company I work for got that money through sales, which is taxed. And the people who spent it at my company got their money through income, which has been taxed. So this claim of "already taxed" is just garbage. It has been taxed no more, or no less, than my paycheck I get and pay taxes on.
 
Because tax is imposed whenever value changes hands. If we are in agreement that a Corporation is a separate entity, why shouldn't distributions from the corporation be taxed separately on the recipient?

Not true. Tax is imposed whenever the law says it is. For example, if you dont have health insurance, you pay a tax.
 
Back
Top Bottom