• 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!

Fox News Poll: What bugs voters most about taxes? Rich not paying enough

Conservative said:
This isn't the 50s! Regardless of what the tax rate was what was the effective rate that people actually paid and what were state and local taxes at that time?

There obviously is a reason that you want the rich to pay more taxes but the question is why don't you want the 50% of income earners that aren't paying any federal income tax to pay at least something?
Click to expand...

Because they have lost ground economically since the Reagan administration.
 
Harshaw said:
By what formula do you calculate what one's fair share should be?
Click to expand...

Taxing the rich is not a moral issue; it is a political issue. Most Americans agree with me that the rich should be taxed more heavily. If rich Americans want to move to a country with lower taxes on rich people they will have to choose between third world countries with dirt roads, unsafe drinking water, high murder rates, and corrupt criminal justice systems. In Latin America there is practically a criminal industry of kidnapping the children of rich families. Awhile ago I read about a ransom note that included the finger of the kidnapped child.
 
SmartCat said:
Because they have lost ground economically since the Reagan administration.
Click to expand...
That is your opinion as you continue to show that arguing with you is a waste of time

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
SmartCat said:
Taxing the rich is not a moral issue; it is a political issue. Most Americans agree with me that the rich should be taxed more heavily. If rich Americans want to move to a country with lower taxes on rich people they will have to choose between third world countries with dirt roads, unsafe drinking water, high murder rates, and corrupt criminal justice systems. In Latin America there is practically a criminal industry of kidnapping the children of rich families. Awhile ago I read about a ransom note that included the finger of the kidnapped child.
Click to expand...
Moral issue? By your standards? Taking from others to provide for your personal responsibility issues is moral?

You are a big Gov't liberal who is jealous of what others have

This country was built on neighbor helping neighbors. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn benefits charities and creates help for local communities. Federal bureaucrats aren't neighbors

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
SmartCat said:
Taxing the rich is not a moral issue; it is a political issue. Most Americans agree with me that the rich should be taxed more heavily. If rich Americans want to move to a country with lower taxes on rich people they will have to choose between third world countries with dirt roads, unsafe drinking water, high murder rates, and corrupt criminal justice systems. In Latin America there is practically a criminal industry of kidnapping the children of rich families. Awhile ago I read about a ransom note that included the finger of the kidnapped child.
Click to expand...

That didn't answer the question. By what formula do you calculate what one's fair share should be?

You said the top tax rate of 91% "seems about right" to you. How do you come by that figure being "right"?
 
**** the rich. They have systemically sought to destroy our nation in order to save themselves a few bucks.

99% tax over $1m in income.

No regrets. Tax the **** out of them, reparations for years of wealth theft, privilege protection and denial of necessities to the public.
 
Harshaw said:
That didn't answer the question. By what formula do you calculate what one's fair share should be?

You said the top tax rate of 91% "seems about right" to you. How do you come by that figure being "right"?
Click to expand...

You are never going to get an answer to that question as the left really doesn't answer direct questions. To the left it is always about gov't income tax revenue, never the other sources of revenue nor any state and local revenue as those are irrelevant to people who have no problem with federal taxpayers paying for their own personal responsibility issues. Take that 91% tax rate, tack on the state and local taxes and you have a society totally and completely dependent on federal bureaucrats, a true liberal utopia!
 
Conservative said:
Moral issue? By your standards? Taking from others to provide for your personal responsibility issues is moral?
Click to expand...

The government has the right to tax. I have the right to vote. I choose to vote for politicians who will raise taxes on rich people and corporations. Fortunately, most Americans agree with me that they should pay more. The percentage of people who agree with me is growing. :2razz:
 
Conservative said:
You are a big Gov't liberal who is jealous of what others have
Click to expand...

I shall respond with this argument:

Galbraith-selfishness-wist_info.jpg

and this one:

-------

How to Disagree, by Paul Graham

If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy...

DH1. Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:
Of course he would say that. He's a senator.
This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?

Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.

How to Disagree

PyramidofDisagreement.jpg
 
SmartCat said:
Fairness is a normative issue. I prefer to deal with empirical issues.
Click to expand...

Then it should be really easy to state the empirical case for why a 91% bracket "seems right" to you.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
Neither is big business. Their tax windfall isn’t helping out in my neighborhood.
Click to expand...

Corporations are using their tax cuts to buy back stock. This benefits those who get their incomes from the work of others. It does not benefit the people who do the work. Stock holders are gamblers and and the contemporary equivalent of absentee landlords.
 
Harshaw said:
Then it should be really easy to state the empirical case for why a 91% bracket "seems right" to you.
Click to expand...

I have already pointed out that then the top tax rate from 63% to 94% during the Roosevelt administration the economy grew and unemployment declined.
 
SmartCat said:
I have already pointed out that then the top tax rate from 63% to 94% during the Roosevelt administration the economy grew and unemployment declined.
Click to expand...

And that has happened under all kinds of other, much lower top rates, too. Not sure how you think that makes 91% "about right."
 
SmartCat said:
The government has the right to tax. I have the right to vote. I choose to vote for politicians who will raise taxes on rich people and corporations. Fortunately, most Americans agree with me that they should pay more. The percentage of people who agree with me is growing. :2razz:
Click to expand...

That shows the difference between you and me in that I learned personal responsibility and that it wasn't someone else's responsibility to pay for mine. I celebrate success, you tax it because of jealousy. Seems that all the problems in this world are going to be solved by raising taxes on the rich although you have yet to tell us how much the gov't is going to get out of raising taxes on the rich, what the effective rate should be, and why it is gov't responsibility to take from one class and give it to another? Our country wasn't founded on the principles you want to establish here
 
SmartCat said:
I shall respond with this argument:

View attachment 67253553

and this one:

-------

How to Disagree, by Paul Graham

If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy...

DH1. Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:
Of course he would say that. He's a senator.
This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?

Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.

How to Disagree

View attachment 67253554
Click to expand...

As I continue to point out, liberals today are book smart and street stupid buying that we have a finite economy controlled by the top 1% with no opportunity for anyone else to join that group. Rather sad to see so many people like you jealous of what others have and having the belief that you are entitled to their wealth. Is that the way you were raised?
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
Neither is big business. Their tax windfall isn’t helping out in my neighborhood.
Click to expand...

Where is their money going then? Big business really bothers people like you as again you focus on Federal not state and local taxes. Could be that you live in the wrong state as well as the wrong country, a country that was built on power resting at the state and local communities or with the people, not the federal bureaucrats

what are you doing to get your state legislators to support your cause of higher taxes on the rich and business? States have term limits, federal gov't doesn't so your outrage is directed at the wrong source
 
SmartCat said:
Corporations are using their tax cuts to buy back stock. This benefits those who get their incomes from the work of others. It does not benefit the people who do the work. Stock holders are gamblers and and the contemporary equivalent of absentee landlords.
Click to expand...

And that bothers you why? When you get your first job you may have a 401K that grows based upon stock market performance and buying back stock benefits the shareholders. You don't seem to have a grasp on where the profits of a company go. Your outrage over corporations is just more class envy and class warfare as you totally ignore the wage increases, 401K increases, pension increases, dividends paid to actual shareholders many of whom supplement their SS with that revenue while ignoring that all those benefit and pay increases reduces taxable income

Still waiting for you to explain how you came up with a 91% tax as a fair rate and why you won't answer the question as to why you don't support getting something out of the approximately 50% of income earners who pay zero in federal income taxes?
 
SmartCat said:
Fairness is a normative issue. I prefer to deal with empirical issues.
Click to expand...

So you say, yet you feel entitled to increase the share paid by others while leaving your own share the same (or less).
 
Conservative said:
And that bothers you why? When you get your first job you may have a 401K that grows based upon stock market performance and buying back stock benefits the shareholders. You don't seem to have a grasp on where the profits of a company go. Your outrage over corporations is just more class envy and class warfare as you totally ignore the wage increases, 401K increases, pension increases, dividends paid to actual shareholders many of whom supplement their SS with that revenue while ignoring that all those benefit and pay increases reduces taxable income

Still waiting for you to explain how you came up with a 91% tax as a fair rate and why you won't answer the question as to why you don't support getting something out of the approximately 50% of income earners who pay zero in federal income taxes?
Click to expand...

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder.

The half who do not pay income taxes are in the half who have not received real wage hikes since 1980.
 
SmartCat said:
Fairness is in the eye of the beholder.

The half who do not pay income taxes are in the half who have not received real wage hikes since 1980.
Click to expand...

Do you pull this information out of your ass? You are telling me that almost half of Americans who are earning income cannot pay something in federal income taxes because you claim they haven't received real wage hikes since 1980? Wow, liberal partisanship and ignorance go hand in hand. Where in the hell did you get that gem?
 
Conservative said:
Do you pull this information out of your ass? You are telling me that almost half of Americans who are earning income cannot pay something in federal income taxes because you claim they haven't received real wage hikes since 1980? Wow, liberal partisanship and ignorance go hand in hand. Where in the hell did you get that gem?
Click to expand...

U.S. Household Incomes: A 51-Year Perspective
by Jill Mislinski, 10/16/18

To give us a better idea of the underlying trends in household incomes, we've also prepared a chart of the real percentage growth since 1967. Note in particular the growing spread between the top quintile (and especially the top 5%) and the other four quintiles. The growth spread began in the mid-1980s during the Reagan administration, the era of Supply Side Economics (aka "Reaganomics" and Trickle-Down Economics). As this chart illustrates, tax and other policy changes to benefit the wealthier households didn't have the heavily promoted trickle-down effect.

MedianIncome 3.jpgmedianincome 2.png

https://www.advisorperspectives.com...6/u-s-household-incomes-a-51-year-perspective
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom