• 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

Regressive is a semantic. In this case it conveys the meaning. The final impact is far greater for te lower income vs. the higher income. I do realize that the term can be used in other ways.

Others might just call it "unfair" but I don't subscribe to the fairness doctrine. I'm a member of The Logical Party, not the Fairness Party. Life isn't fair but we humans have some control over this. It's easier for me to empathize with someone trying to make ends meet on $9K and not so much on $900K.


jonny5 said:
Flat tax is not regressive by definition. Look it up.
Click to expand...
 
j-mac said:
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?
Click to expand...

Capital gains does not tax the capital invested as, as you point out, it has already been taxed. Capital gains tax is a tax on the profit earned on the invested capital.

By example, if you invest $100 today and sell that investment for $1000 one year from now, the tax would be $135... ($1000-100=900; 900*.15=$135)
 
Last edited:
specklebang said:
Regressive is a semantic. In this case it conveys the meaning. The final impact is far greater for te lower income vs. the higher income. I do realize that the term can be used in other ways.

Others might just call it "unfair" but I don't subscribe to the fairness doctrine. I'm a member of The Logical Party, not the Fairness Party. Life isn't fair but we humans have some control over this. It's easier for me to empathize with someone trying to make ends meet on $9K and not so much on $900K.
Click to expand...

Impact is a subjective term. But I dont empathize with either. The purpose of taxation is not to distribute the burden according to need. Its to pay for services. And everyone should pay the same for the same services. That is fair. The only reason its progressive is because spending is so high that the only way its affordable is if the richest subsidize it.

For example, alternative energy is the same way. Its not affordable, but rather than simply not doing it, we redistribute wealth to subsidize it. From those with ability to those with need. Its wrong.
 
j-mac said:
Why should capital gains be taxed at all? Hasn't the money being invested already been taxed at the normal rates?
Click to expand...
Why should purchases be taxed at all? Hasn't the money being spent / received already been taxed at the normal rates?
Money is subject not just to double taxation, it's subject to indefinite taxation.
A dollar gets taxed every time it changes hands.
If I took the dollar directly from the mint and spent it, it could be taxed when I spent it. Then it could be taxed as the income of the seller. Then if the seller pays a wage with it, that dollar is taxed yet again. Then if the wage earner spends the dollar, it gets taxed again and the cycle continues.
It's almost as if transactions are taxed not the money itself.
hmmm...
 
jonny5 said:
Not true. Tax is imposed whenever the law says it is. For example, if you dont have health insurance, you pay a tax.
Click to expand...

I'm speaking of underlying tax theory. Exemptions are granted by law for economic benefit. My point is, if you want all the benefits of corporate personhood, you have to accept the drawbacks as well. There is no reasonable economic benefit from forgiving the taxes between corporations and the recipients of their distributions.
 
j-mac said:
Absolutely, so when you take that which has already been taxed many times over, and tax it again because you think that any gain made from the risk of investing that money is due the government, then you effectively tamp down levels of investment.
Click to expand...
What if it gets taxed for some other reason?
Does it have the same effect?
 
Very few things in life are "fair". I can understand your desire for fairness but our entire society is not structured that way.

You could say that it would be fair that an hour of labor is an hour of your life and fairness would dictate that every hour be of equal value. So, if I make $20 an hoiur, so should you. But that's not how it works. Everything is subject to re-evaluation to achieve balance.

Alternative energy is almost a separate topic. It's expensive and inefficient but if we don't address it, we imperil our future.


jonny5 said:
Impact is a subjective term. But I dont empathize with either. The purpose of taxation is not to distribute the burden according to need. Its to pay for services. And everyone should pay the same for the same services. That is fair. The only reason its progressive is because spending is so high that the only way its affordable is if the richest subsidize it.

For example, alternative energy is the same way. Its not affordable, but rather than simply not doing it, we redistribute wealth to subsidize it. From those with ability to those with need. Its wrong.
Click to expand...
 
JRog said:
I'm speaking of underlying tax theory. Exemptions are granted by law for economic benefit. My point is, if you want all the benefits of corporate personhood, you have to accept the drawbacks as well. There is no reasonable economic benefit from forgiving the taxes between corporations and the recipients of their distributions.
Click to expand...

The economic benefit is to encourage economic activity. When you tax something you get less of it.
 
specklebang said:
Very few things in life are "fair". I can understand your desire for fairness but our entire society is not structured that way.

You could say that it would be fair that an hour of labor is an hour of your life and fairness would dictate that every hour be of equal value. So, if I make $20 an hoiur, so should you. But that's not how it works. Everything is subject to re-evaluation to achieve balance.

Alternative energy is almost a separate topic. It's expensive and inefficient but if we don't address it, we imperil our future.
Click to expand...

But if we agree on a trade of labor for money, whatever that may be, its fair because we both accepted it. The same can go for taxation. If we agree with govt on a tax for service trade, then thats fair. But we dont have that choice. Govt simply does whatever it wants and send some people the bill.
 
jonny5 said:
The economic benefit is to encourage economic activity. When you tax something you get less of it.
Click to expand...

Except that the last 30 years has shown this not to be true. The only benefit from reduced taxes on investment income is potentially an increase in capital for investment. An important fact is that capital for investment is NOT revenue. It does NOT stimulate economic growth. The benefit of capital is that it provides the funding for growth, similar to a loan, but it does not provide a reason for growth. Companies grow with increased demand, not with available capital.
 
Depends on "who" you are. If you tax something and are a taker from society you get more of it. Ultimately the tax debate is all about taking from the few and giving to the many so the political power of the giver is paid for and their future is delightful - just like another round of golf.


jonny5 said:
The economic benefit is to encourage economic activity. When you tax something you get less of it.
Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
Ultimately the tax debate is all about taking from the few and giving to the many so the political power of the giver is paid for and their future is delightful - just like another round of golf.
Click to expand...

Maybe from your perspective, but not among economists.
 
JRog said:
Except that the last 30 years has shown this not to be true. The only benefit from reduced taxes on investment income is potentially an increase in capital for investment. An important fact is that capital for investment is NOT revenue. It does NOT stimulate economic growth. The benefit of capital is that it provides the funding for growth, similar to a loan, but it does not provide a reason for growth. Companies grow with increased demand, not with available capital.
Click to expand...

The 80s-00s when capital gains taxes have gone down has indeed show a higher rate of economic growth.
 
CalGun said:
Depends on "who" you are. If you tax something and are a taker from society you get more of it. Ultimately the tax debate is all about taking from the few and giving to the many so the political power of the giver is paid for and their future is delightful - just like another round of golf.
Click to expand...

The it I was referring to was the thing that is being taxed. If you tax tanning beds, people will tan less. If you tax cigarettes, people will buy less cigaraettes.
 
jonny5 said:
The 80s-00s when capital gains taxes have gone down has indeed show a higher rate of economic growth.
Click to expand...

As a result of technological breakthroughs, the addition of women in the workplace, and extension and regularity of credit. The decreases in capital gains taxes followed the growth of consumerism to provide the capital for growth, not the demand required for it.
 
Yuup I understand and the takers will get more, and those giving to them will get more votes, and another round of golf :)


jonny5 said:
The it I was referring to was the thing that is being taxed. If you tax tanning beds, people will tan less. If you tax cigarettes, people will buy less cigaraettes.
Click to expand...
 
We can not expect universal agreement on anything.

When we vote, we are choosing the ones who make these decisions on our behalf. Some will agree and some won't. There are many high income people who are comfortable with higher taxes and some who are vehemently opposed. By having a "government" we have delegated this authority, for better or worse. We can only hope that these powers will be used wisely. Definitely, they are usually used unwisely as far as I'm concerned but our social contract compels me to comply with these decisions.

In the case of the proposed tax modifications, I think you'll be surprised at the substantial percentage that will agree. INHO, the amounts involved can be described as unfortunate, but not catastrophic.




jonny5 said:
But if we agree on a trade of labor for money, whatever that may be, its fair because we both accepted it. The same can go for taxation. If we agree with govt on a tax for service trade, then thats fair. But we dont have that choice. Govt simply does whatever it wants and send some people the bill.
Click to expand...
 
JRog said:
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.
Click to expand...


Ah, so progressives use the tax code to punish success....
 
specklebang said:
We can not expect universal agreement on anything.
Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth....Lately I think if not only for the contrarian value of it.

When we vote, we are choosing the ones who make these decisions on our behalf. Some will agree and some won't.
Click to expand...

Really? Why that's brilliant....I had no Idea....:lol:

There are many high income people who are comfortable with higher taxes and some who are vehemently opposed.
Click to expand...

Well, let the high income people so willing to give others money away, stroke that check themselves...They can do so now you know....

By having a "government" we have delegated this authority, for better or worse.
Click to expand...

Yep, and they are supposed to answer to us, not the highest bidder.

We can only hope that these powers will be used wisely.
Click to expand...

You mean like when they ram through a trillion dollar stimulus that gets wasted on crony's and green energy pipe dreams, then laughed about later?

Definitely, they are usually used unwisely as far as I'm concerned but our social contract compels me to comply with these decisions.
Click to expand...

No, there are remedies, but the most recent one, the stupidity won over the rational.

n the case of the proposed tax modifications, I think you'll be surprised at the substantial percentage that will agree. INHO, the amounts involved can be described as unfortunate, but not catastrophic.
Click to expand...

The level of catastrophe will be in the eye of the beholder....
 
j-mac said:
Ah, so progressives use the tax code to punish success....
Click to expand...

It's called tax theory. Maybe you should learn a little about it rather than regurgitating talking points.
 
JRog said:
It's called tax theory. Maybe you should learn a little about it rather than regurgitating talking points.
Click to expand...

go back and read your quote that I responded to, and tell me where I am wrong.
 
j-mac said:
Ah, so progressives use the tax code to punish success....
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the tired mantra from the right that the rich are getting punished. Yep, they sure look like they are SOOOO punished. :roll:


Seems you like using class warfare for the rich. And before you try another tired post suggesting I don't pay my fair share, I pay more than that but I'm not complaining like some whining ass baby like the right are.

We live in the greatest country in the world, even with the tax rates the way they are now, if you feel otherwise maybe you and others should consider moving to a more "fair" country. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!
 
j-mac said:
go back and read your quote that I responded to, and tell me where I am wrong.
Click to expand...
You're assigning motives you imagine to people you have not met?

What did I win?
 
When the IRS gives money back to investors for capital losses, then we'll negotiate.

Look at it like this: capital gains are essentially taxed at 15%, and capital losses are taxed at 100% rate.

Seems fair to me. Anyone against that has probably never heard of the term "risk assessment".
 
Simon W. Moon said:
You're assigning motives you imagine to people you have not met?

What did I win?
Click to expand...


Nothing yet, but at least you tried....Look, what would you ascribe to this statement...

...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.
Click to expand...

What's fair is fair, we are supposed to be "equal under the law".... A progressive taxation system doesn't do this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom