• 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!

Should the Wealthy Pay a Higher Percentage in Taxes?

jimbo said:
That's like saying because I make a million a year and you make a hundred thousand a year, my hamburger should cost 10 times yours.

There's a similar political theory.

"To each from his own means, to each to his own needs"
Click to expand...
I see that this discussion is pointless since you are totally lost in nominal levels. You don't pay a nominal amount of taxes, you pay a PERCENTAGE of your INCOME in taxes. If you cannot deal in discussing percentages of taxes and incomes, I suggest the CT forum.
 
jimbo said:
2nd link is WaPo. WaPo thinks their garbage is worth paying for. I don't. Did you read it?
Click to expand...
Of course I read it, I would not link to it if it did not support my point. It is ironic you suggested that search.
 
Last edited:
jimbo said:
That's like saying because I make a million a year and you make a hundred thousand a year, my hamburger should cost 10 times yours.

There's a similar political theory.

"To each from his own means, to each to his own needs"
Click to expand...

modern leftist thought is a never ending quest to justify others paying for your existence
 
Bullseye said:
NO, YOU need to read what I wrote.
You still don't seem to grasp that THE ECONOMIC GROWTH after the tax cuts WERE CAUSED BY those cuts - they WOULDN'T NOT HAVE HAPPENED if the law hadn't been passed. Those millions of wage hikes and bonuses would not have happened with out the cuts - employers told us as much. Between those cuts and additional money in people's paychecks because of reduced withholdings increased consumer spending AND confidence You are essentially arguing that tax policy has no effective on economic activity. I just showed where your logic is flawed.
Click to expand...

Yeah no. As I pointed out the economic growth in your business was expected because it had already been growing. Its a false to assume that all growth was due to those cuts.

here is forbes on it:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2018/05/02/has-the-tcja-supercharged-the-economy-the-data-dont-show-it/#3e52f5cb2549

Basically the data did not show an increase or little increase in growth after the months after the tax cuts.

Here is another analysis.. that shows that the best one can say is that any effect of the tax cuts were "subtle"... in other words.. there is no clear evidence that the growth experienced was due to the tax cuts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/07/how-economy-has-fared-since-trumps-tax-cuts-were-passed/?utm_term=.e653c91a5d4c

See the facts are.. there is little evidence to suggest that there was much growth that was attributed to the tax cuts.

You are essentially arguing that tax policy has no effective on economic activity. I just showed where your logic is flawed.
Click to expand...
Actually no.. I am not essentially arguing that. I am arguing that there might be some growth from lowered taxes.. but this that growth has not made up for the decrease in tax.

In my example:

Lowered prices Did cause a slight increase in sales.. BUT that increase in sales was not enough to make up for the decrease in price. So.. if you had left prices alone.. you would have brought in EVEN MORE revenue..
Click to expand...

What you are arguing is that tax cuts are the ONLY reason for economic growth.. and that's just simply not supported by the facts. In fact.. its kind of funny that you would as a libertarian argue that. Basically you are arguing that when my business grew last year.. it was not because of me.. it was only because of the government. That the government is the only way to grow an economy.

Sorry.. but the facts just blew a giant hole in your theory.
 
jimbo said:
Here, try this free one. Not an opinion piece. Just charts and facts.

In FY 2019 total US government spending on welfare — federal, state, and local — is “guesstimated” to be $1,179 billion, including $721 billion for Medicaid, and $458 billion in other welfare.
Click to expand...
You are including categories of spending NOT considered "welfare", including social security and medicaid, both funded by wages of those who paid into them. That is an "entitlement", not "welfare". Read the WP article, you might just understand it....but I have my doubts.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yeah no. As I pointed out the economic growth in your business was expected because it had already been growing. Its a false to assume that all growth was due to those cuts.

here is forbes on it:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2018/05/02/has-the-tcja-supercharged-the-economy-the-data-dont-show-it/#3e52f5cb2549

Basically the data did not show an increase or little increase in growth after the months after the tax cuts.

Here is another analysis.. that shows that the best one can say is that any effect of the tax cuts were "subtle"... in other words.. there is no clear evidence that the growth experienced was due to the tax cuts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/07/how-economy-has-fared-since-trumps-tax-cuts-were-passed/?utm_term=.e653c91a5d4c

See the facts are.. there is little evidence to suggest that there was much growth that was attributed to the tax cuts.

Actually no.. I am not essentially arguing that. I am arguing that there might be some growth from lowered taxes.. but this that growth has not made up for the decrease in tax.

In my example:



What you are arguing is that tax cuts are the ONLY reason for economic growth.. and that's just simply not supported by the facts. In fact.. its kind of funny that you would as a libertarian argue that. Basically you are arguing that when my business grew last year.. it was not because of me.. it was only because of the government. That the government is the only way to grow an economy.

Sorry.. but the facts just blew a giant hole in your theory.
Click to expand...
Ok, I give up, I'm tired of trying to explain to you historically documented economic reality that has proven correct for almost a century. Feel free to continue wallowing in your ignorance. I'm done.
 
TurtleDude said:
you're lying
the rich have more mobility than the poor
more ways to safeguard it

and you cannot possibly claim the government spends more to protect my wealth versus someone worth under 100K

the fact is -the government spends far more on programs for the middle class and those below it than for the top 5 percent even though the top five percent pays more federal income tax than the middle class and those under it combined.
Click to expand...

Sure.. I can make that argument. Did your family ever make money because of the patent protection afforded to it by the government?

How many poor people use the patent protection?

Just one of multiple ways wealth is protected by government. You certainly benefit more from the government than almost any poor person. Its just a fact. You have more to lose.

In fact.. the government spent tons of money bailing out banks to help stabilize the stock markets, housing markets.. etc. The average poor person did not benefit from this directly... While I bet your investments most certainly did.

Come on.. man... At least be objective about this.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You are including categories of spending NOT considered "welfare", including social security and medicaid, both funded by wages of those who paid into them. That is an "entitlement", not "welfare". Read the WP article, you might just understand it....but I have my doubts.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. In the provided link, welfare is printed in red. SS, Medicare, Workman's comp, etc in blue.

SS and Medicare alone total 1.7 trillion.
 
jaeger19 said:
Sure.. I can make that argument. Did your family ever make money because of the patent protection afforded to it by the government?

How many poor people use the patent protection?

Just one of multiple ways wealth is protected by government. You certainly benefit more from the government than almost any poor person. Its just a fact. You have more to lose.

In fact.. the government spent tons of money bailing out banks to help stabilize the stock markets, housing markets.. etc. The average poor person did not benefit from this directly... While I bet your investments most certainly did.

Come on.. man... At least be objective about this.
Click to expand...
prove patent protection actually results in a benefit to me
what if a poor person works for the patent holder?
if the patent has never been infringed?

you're grasping at broom straws
you are pretending benefit=government spending which is false
 
digitusmedius said:
Are you under the misapprehension that real estate is the only way rich people can shelter their fortunes from taxes.
Click to expand...
Nope, since property taxes are assessed annually, that would be a pretty dumb way to "shelter" wealth, wouldn't it?

digitusmedius said:
The inheritance tax alone allows them to give over $11M to their do-nothing heirs, which by the way is how the vast majority of the super-rich in this country got their wealth, like Donald Scumbag did (most of it through tax evasion it turns out) from Fred Scumbag.
Click to expand...
Pure class warfare BS.

digitmedius said:
It's the epitome of fairness for the people who've benefitted most from a stable society that protects their businesses and allows them unfettered access to the political powers to be expected to pay taxes in proportion (as your own stats prove) to their wealth and income.
Click to expand...
LOL, "fairness" the classic loony left red herring translated as "I'm jealous those people have been more successful than me". As I mentioned earlier the highest earning people, e.g. the top 5% pay a disproportionate share of income taxes, they pay property taxes, they pay capital gains on realized gains.


digitmedius said:
I think it was "you're soaking in it."
Click to expand...
YOU certainly are!
 
Bullseye said:
Ok, I give up, I'm tired of trying to explain to you historically documented economic reality that has proven correct for almost a century. Feel free to continue wallowing in your ignorance. I'm done.
Click to expand...

Sir.. the historical documented history is that economies grow even when taxes are raised... economy can grow when there is no tax cuts... and history has shown little to no evidence that the growth from tax cuts ends up paying for themselves.

That's the historically documented economic reality.

as far as wallowing in ignorance? Hmmmm... lets think about this.. so the economy was growing before the tax cut... and yet you are assuming that all growth.. had to come from the tax cut.. after it was passed. Honestly.. that doesn't even make sense.

Perhaps you should be done cuz you need to spend some more time learning about economics
 
Lutherf said:
Basically, nobody really needs more than about $30k/yr to live on so if we want to fix all our problems the simple solution is just to limit incomes to $30k and impose a 100% tax rate on everything above that. Talk about a simple tax code! $1-30k pays nothing. $30k+ pays 100%. You can do taxes on a post card!

The other things we need to do is insure that accumulated wealth is stripped from those who have taken it from others. Anybody with a house worth more than $200k gets their house taken. Anyone with a 401(k) more than $100k gets the excess taken. If you car is worth more than $30k you don't need it and can no longer have it. Jewelry, collectibles and other personal valuables need to be restricted to no more than $5k. Everything else will be taken and handed off to those less fortunate.

If we do these things we will be able to achieve peace and equality and a life that is fair for all. It's the only way we can meet the true American spirit of Constitutional Democracy!
Click to expand...

Great Post! I so love reading these Palin like posts.

You grabbed me right out of the box by claiming $30K a year is enough to live on. I roared with laughter....

When I calmed down I though, well, if your parents gifted you a home and you lived where the school system, roads and all state and local services are neglected or absent, it may be possible. Of course we'd all have to move to Alabama to find such conditions.
 
Bullseye said:
As I mentioned earlier the highest earning people, e.g. the top 5% pay a disproportionate share of income taxes, they pay property taxes, they pay capital gains on realized gains.
Click to expand...
False. Time and again you have been shown that all pay nearly an equal share of taxes as compared to their income share.
 
jaeger19 said:
Sure.. I can make that argument. Did your family ever make money because of the patent protection afforded to it by the government?

How many poor people use the patent protection?

(2) Just one of multiple ways wealth is protected by government. You certainly benefit more from the government than almost any poor person. Its just a fact. You have more to lose.

(3) In fact.. the government spent tons of money bailing out banks to help stabilize the stock markets, housing markets.. etc. The average poor person did not benefit from this directly... While I bet your investments most certainly did.

Come on.. man... At least be objective about this.
Click to expand...

Everyone benefits from patent protection. Without patent protection no company would do research to find a cure for various medical problems.

(2) Not actually. Take away a few hundred thousand from the uber rich, they might have to move down from the new Rolls to a Cadillac, but they'll still drive. Take away $100,000 from a government dependent person, they might not.

(3) Government bails out banks because government insures bank accounts. Funded by the banks themselves. The majority of the account holders are directly or indirectly the little people. The little people certainly benefited. I'm not aware the government bails out the stock market or the housing market. They weren't at my door when the market tanked.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
False. Time and again you have been shown that all pay nearly an equal share of taxes as compared to their income share.
Click to expand...
So - the top 50% pay nearly 98% Does that sound like a share of tax proportionate to their share of income? I don't know where you think you've EVER shown me wrong on any topic. And that includes your alter-egos.
 
Media_Truth said:
Note the historical tax chart. In US History, the Top Tier Tax rate was typically much higher than it is today. Since the 1980s, with a few yearly exceptions the Top Tier Tax Rate has been dropping sharply. This is about the same time that the deficit started rising sharply.

View attachment 67243170

Most would not dispute these facts. Some will argue that it's not fair to the wealthy. I believe it is. I believe that the wealthy are more reliant on Government than others. They have much more at stake. As an example - when the Nazis took over countries in Europe, they seized mansions, artwork, and other valuables from the wealthy. They took over their businesses. The poor and the middle class also lose out, but what's the expression - "You can't squeeze blood from a turnip". Besides military security, the wealthy also benefit more from economic governmental entities. In other words - they rely on government more.

Robert Reich analyzes the taxes paid by wealthy in the US, versus other countries.

https://www.newsweek.com/robert-reich-why-rich-and-corporations-should-pay-more-tax-670465

The rich aren’t overtaxed. The wealthiest 1 percent in the U.S. pay the lowest taxes as a percent of their income and total wealth of the top 1 percent in any major country – and far lower than they paid in the U.S. during the first three decades after World War II, when the American economy grew faster than it’s been growing since the Reagan tax cuts.
Click to expand...

Hmmm…let’s look at the facts here.

It is overly simplistic to look at the maximum effective tax rate and surmise that the rich are somehow skating by. For an example, the chart the OP posted, it would look like the most wealthy Americans paid 70% of their income in taxes. Yet today, it looks like they just pay over 40%. While the wealthiest Americans do pay taxes than they did nearly 40 years ago, it certainly isn’t a 30% reduction.

The truth is that in 1979 the effective percentage of income taxes the top 1% paid in 1979 was 22.6%. In 2015 (the last data that I had available), the effective Federal Income Tax rate was nearly 5% more at 27.1%.

But what we have seen is that nearly every other group has had their taxes cut, while taxes on the richest Americans has effectively gone up. For an example, those Americans in the second quintile used to pay 4.1% of their income in Federal Income taxes. In 2014, that effective rate was -1.6% due to programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit. The middle quintile has seen their Federal income tax rates drop from 7.4% to 2.9%.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-average-federal-tax-rates-all-households
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/
 
Last edited:
Bullseye said:
So - the top 50% pay nearly 98% Does that sound like a share of tax proportionate to their share of income? I don't know where you think you've EVER shown me wrong on any topic. And that includes your alter-egos.
Click to expand...
Um, I already posted this just a few pages back, but since ur browsers apparently doesn't allow you to go back...


howprogressiveareourtaxes-figure1-version2.png



....and I guess I shouldn't expect you to remember any previous debates on this exact topic either, I need to remember to allow for your age.
 
noonereal said:
Great Post! I so love reading these Palin like posts.

You grabbed me right out of the box by claiming $30K a year is enough to live on. I roared with laughter....

When I calmed down I though, well, if your parents gifted you a home and you lived where the school system, roads and all state and local services are neglected or absent, it may be possible. Of course we'd all have to move to Alabama to find such conditions.
Click to expand...

OK. How much do you believe people should be allowed to have before it becomes "the people's money"?
 
Lutherf said:
OK. How much do you believe people should be allowed to have before it becomes "the people's money"?
Click to expand...
Any thing they make through honest enterprise is theirs , PERIOD We don't work for the government, they (supposedly) work for us. At least they used to.


If you restrict my earnings to $30k, guess what? I'm going to do $30k's worth of work and quit. And probably spend the rest of my time working to get you voted out of office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom