• 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!

Do The Rich Need Saving?

Do The Rich Need Saving?


  • Total voters
    54
Do those people really need to pay more? They pay less than I do and you don't see me whining. Frankly, instead of whining, we should seek better ways of moving more of them up, a helping hand that teaches them to fish if you will.

We spend a lot of money "moving them up" right now...and it isn't working. My point, however, was not addressed.
 
many on the left think that those who do well were GIVEN more by the government which is a lie

Can you find me saying that anywhere? I will say for myself that successfor me came with many people helping. Few people actually do everything all by themselves. But they seldom have success without their own effort either. It is foolish to paint things as all one or the other.
 
We spend a lot of money "moving them up" right now...and it isn't working. My point, however, was not addressed.

Comparatively very little. We spend much on corporations.

Not sure what your point was exactly. Can you rephrase?
 
Can you find me saying that anywhere? I will say for myself that successfor me came with many people helping. Few people actually do everything all by themselves. But they seldom have success without their own effort either. It is foolish to paint things as all one or the other.

This sure sounds like you are saying the rich get tons of benefits-more than 40% of the government spending that everyone else

BBL


Hell, they benefit more than that. A good deal more. That's why they are running around bemoaning being rich. No one is saying they rather be poor.

But if you follow tax history in this country, you would know that increase would not be excessive or more than has been paid before.
 
Can you find me saying that anywhere? I will say for myself that successfor me came with many people helping. Few people actually do everything all by themselves. But they seldom have success without their own effort either. It is foolish to paint things as all one or the other.

I think the balance is the problem. We spend a LOT of money on programs designed to aid the poor in "rising up". And we're not seeing a lot of poor "rising up", even in good economic times. Why would we throw more money at the problem, lessen their responsibilities and the expectations we have for them, or encourage them to continue utilizing programs that aren't helping them advance beyond their current station? Why aren't we creating programs that will actually change the status quo, instead of just holding everything in place??? We have major, major spending problems in this country and nobody is touching them...but the quick fix and the first thing I see time after time is to just tax the "rich" more because they aren't paying their "fair share". How about before we ask ANYBODY to contribute more money to a broken system we actually fix it. It's like handing out more buckets on a leaky ship...sure, it'll give you more time..but ultimately the boat's still full of holes.
 
This sure sounds like you are saying the rich get tons of benefits-more than 40% of the government spending that everyone else

BBL

Yes, i am saying they get benefits. And they do. I admit I misread your quote. Sorry. I thought you were saying people got their wealth without work. My bad.

But yes, they do get a lot directly and indirectly from the government. I've listed some links on this thread, and you can find many more if you look.
 
I think the balance is the problem. We spend a LOT of money on programs designed to aid the poor in "rising up". And we're not seeing a lot of poor "rising up", even in good economic times. Why would we throw more money at the problem, lessen their responsibilities and the expectations we have for them, or encourage them to continue utilizing programs that aren't helping them advance beyond their current station? Why aren't we creating programs that will actually change the status quo, instead of just holding everything in place??? We have major, major spending problems in this country and nobody is touching them...but the quick fix and the first thing I see time after time is to just tax the "rich" more because they aren't paying their "fair share". How about before we ask ANYBODY to contribute more money to a broken system we actually fix it. It's like handing out more buckets on a leaky ship...sure, it'll give you more time..but ultimately the boat's still full of holes.

Perhaps rising up is harder than many think. Perhaps we have not created the proper program. But, we really don't invest that much, comparatively. If we gave less to corporations, and more at the bottom, we might do better. Maybe.

As for fixing the ship, while we can do both at the same time, we must first indentify exactly what is broken, the causes of the probelm and then suggest a fix. There is no reason we can't do that while increasing revenue.
 
Perhaps rising up is harder than many think. Perhaps we have not created the proper program. But, we really don't invest that much, comparatively. If we gave less to corporations, and more at the bottom, we might do better. Maybe.

As for fixing the ship, while we can do both at the same time, we must first indentify exactly what is broken, the causes of the probelm and then suggest a fix. There is no reason we can't do that while increasing revenue.

I have a huge problem with punishing those who work, succeed, and already pay taxes for the sake of funneling more money to those who don't....ESPECIALLY if we're still waiting on a "fix" for the programs that are causing these people to fail/stagnate, as well as every other program, department, and organization which receives money from the government. Fix first, charge after...if it's necessary.
 
Well in the end, the extremely rich get enough to their companies and holdings through subsidies, breaks in income tax levels by redefining almost all their income as "capital gains", and enjoy lax laws aimed at their benefit. I think they'll be alright; we don't need to worry too much about them.
 
I have a huge problem with punishing those who work, succeed, and already pay taxes for the sake of funneling more money to those who don't....ESPECIALLY if we're still waiting on a "fix" for the programs that are causing these people to fail/stagnate, as well as every other program, department, and organization which receives money from the government. Fix first, charge after...if it's necessary.

no one is punishing them. You simply have it framed more. They get more so they owe more.


Hidden Truths Of Progressive Taxes
George Lakoff and Bruce Budner
April 16, 2007


George Lakoff is a senior fellow at the Rockridge Institute. Bruce Budner is its executive director.

At this time of year it seems there are only two things certain in life, taxes and anxiety about taxes. Instead of the perennial talk of a simplified tax form, how about a simplified understanding of the progressive values that underlie our tradition of progressive taxation?

Such an understanding won't move the tax deadline. But it might eliminate some of the anxiety. Understanding the hidden truths behind progressive taxation might also lead to more coherent—and more just—tax policies.

Progressive taxation—taxing the wealthy at higher rates than the poor—is a moral issue. Like many moral issues, it sparks heated debate. The debate is borne of conflicting worldviews, values, and understandings of values. But as we at the Rockridge Institute have written, when progressives understand the values and ideas that underlie their positions on issues, they can articulate arguments authentically and with greater persuasive force. These arguments will appeal to those whom we call biconceptuals—the great majority of Americans whose worldviews borrow in various ways from both progressive and conservative values.

America's government has at least two fundamental functions, protection and empowerment. Protection includes the police, firefighters, emergency services, public health, the military, and so on. Empowerment includes the infrastructure needed for business and everyday life: roads, communications systems, water supplies, public education, the banking system for loans and economic stability, the SEC for the stock market, the courts for enforcing contracts, air traffic control, support for basic science, our national parks and public buildings, and more. We are usually aware of protection. But the empowerment infrastructure, provided by taxes, is usually taken for granted, hidden, or ignored. Yet it is absolutely crucial, a fundamental truth about America and why America provides opportunity.

This is a basic truth. That is what framing should be about: revealing truths and allowing us to reason using them.

Taxes are part of our common wealth, what we all share. Protection and empowerment serve the common good. Because of our common wealth, we are all protected and America's empowering infrastructure is available to all. That is a fundamental America value: The common wealth should serve the common good. It benefits everyone.

Citizens are financially responsible to maintain this common wealth. If we shirked this responsibility, we could not maintain our roads, fund our schools, protect ourselves from military threats, enforce our laws, and so on. Equally importantly, we could not create prosperity for ourselves, because we would have no protection of our intellectual property, no oversight of our markets, no means to enforce our contracts, no way to educate most of our children.

Several main progressive values support the idea of progressive taxation. One is the belief that the common wealth should be used for the common good. Another is responsibility, the responsibility that citizens have to pay for the benefits we receive from our common wealth. And still another is fairness. These values intertwine on the question of progressive taxation.

Few people dispute this responsibility at some level. Disagreements generally arise over the amount and the relative apportionment of the responsibility. Differing concepts of fairness drive this debate. While many progressives say it is only fair that those who earn more pay a higher percentage of their earnings as taxes compared to those who have difficulty making ends meet, conservatives respond by asserting that it is unfair to "punish" the financially successful by making them pay more.

An important point often lost in this debate is an appreciation that the common wealth, which our taxes create and sustain, empowers the wealthy in myriad ways to create their wealth. We call this compound empowerment — the compounded use of the common wealth by corporations, their investors, and other wealthy individuals.

Consider Bill Gates. He started Microsoft as a college dropout and has become the world's richest person. Though he has undoubtedly benefited from his unusual intelligence and business acumen, he could not have created or sustained his personal wealth without the common wealth. The legal system protected Microsoft's intellectual property and contracts. The tax-supported financial infrastructure enabled him to access capital markets and trade his stock in a market in which investors have confidence. He built his company with many employees educated in public schools and universities. Tax-funded research helped develop computer science and the internet. Trade laws negotiated and enforced by the government protect his ability to sell his products abroad. These are but a few of the ways in which Mr. Gates' accumulation of wealth was empowered by the common wealth and by taxation.

As Warren Buffet famously observed, he likely couldn't have achieved his financial success had he been born in Bangladesh instead of the United States, because Bangladesh had no banking system and no stock market.

Ordinary people just drive on the highways; corporations send fleets of trucks. Ordinary people may get a bank loan for their mortgage; corporations borrow money to buy whole companies. Ordinary people rarely use the courts; most of the courts are used for corporate law and contract disputes. Corporations and their investors — those who have accumulated enough money beyond basic needs so they can invest — make much more use, compound use, of the empowering infrastructure provided by everybody's tax money.

The wealthy have made greater use of the common good—they have been empowered by it in creating their wealth—and thus they have a greater moral obligation to sustain it. They are merely paying their debt to society in arrears and investing in future empowerment.


TomPaine.com - Hidden Truths Of Progressive Taxes
 
I have a huge problem with punishing those who work, succeed, and already pay taxes for the sake of funneling more money to those who don't....ESPECIALLY if we're still waiting on a "fix" for the programs that are causing these people to fail/stagnate, as well as every other program, department, and organization which receives money from the government. Fix first, charge after...if it's necessary.

The thing is, they don't want to fix it. Fixing it means serious cuts for their voter base, which will cost them elections. They'd rather pretend to fix it, make imaginary cuts and get more money to keep funding the absurd mandates. You just will never see them making serious and immediate cuts to social programs. It's a pipe dream.
 
FWIW, I keep reading the thread title as "Do The Rich Need Shaving?....
 
Of course they dont...they have NONE of the worries that the working class have...they dont worry about their mortgage, food on the table, car insurance, health insurance, they dont have to worry where in the hell they are going to get the tuition to send their kids through college so they can have a better life....their biggest stress is if the bush tax cuts are going to expire and how they are going to convince the rest of us how bad they have it and how good public workers have it.
 
The thing is, they don't want to fix it. Fixing it means serious cuts for their voter base, which will cost them elections. They'd rather pretend to fix it, make imaginary cuts and get more money to keep funding the absurd mandates. You just will never see them making serious and immediate cuts to social programs. It's a pipe dream.

Amnd why haven't republcians fixed it then? There have been times republicans have controlled it all, and somehow during their tenure, not only have things not been fixed, but very little has been doen at all.

This is not a party thing. This is a national issue that both parties should work together on.
 
Consider Bill Gates. He started Microsoft as a college dropout and has become the world's richest person. Though he has undoubtedly benefited from his unusual intelligence and business acumen, he could not have created or sustained his personal wealth without the common wealth. The legal system protected Microsoft's intellectual property and contracts. The tax-supported financial infrastructure enabled him to access capital markets and trade his stock in a market in which investors have confidence. He built his company with many employees educated in public schools and universities. Tax-funded research helped develop computer science and the internet. Trade laws negotiated and enforced by the government protect his ability to sell his products abroad. These are but a few of the ways in which Mr. Gates' accumulation of wealth was empowered by the common wealth and by taxation.

As Warren Buffet famously observed, he likely couldn't have achieved his financial success had he been born in Bangladesh instead of the United States, because Bangladesh had no banking system and no stock market.

The problem for your argument is that these things exist for every American, not just the privileged few. Gates did what he did, using existing publically available resources that *ANYONE* can access. He made his money because of his own skills. The same for Buffet. They had no special access, thus they derived no special benefits. Anyone who had the same skills and the same drive and the same ideas that Gates did in the 70s and 80s could be where Gates is today. Cut Gates out of the equation and we probably wouldn't have a Microsoft analog today.
 
The problem for your argument is that these things exist for every American, not just the privileged few. Gates did what he did, using existing publically available resources that *ANYONE* can access. He made his money because of his own skills. The same for Buffet. They had no special access, thus they derived no special benefits. Anyone who had the same skills and the same drive and the same ideas that Gates did in the 70s and 80s could be where Gates is today. Cut Gates out of the equation and we probably wouldn't have a Microsoft analog today.

Exist? Sure. Use? No. The wealthy use them more, and benefit from them more.



The measure describes how well the wealthy have done lately, citing statistics that say the median income of S&P 500 companies chief financial officers jumped $2.9 million last year alone, even though the "median family income has declined by more than $2,500" in the last 10 years.

The resolution also notes that 20 percent all income goes to the top 1 percent, and 80 percent of the nation's income growth over the last quarter century has also gone to the top 1 percent.

Jeff Sessions: Saying Millionaires Should Share Pain Is 'Rather Pathetic'


The wealthy, he said, ought to pay progressively higher percentages of their incomes in taxes because they benefit more from national security, education and other government services than people with lower wages.

Most of the wealthy would disagree, Kortenhaus acknowledged. “There are too many people who are arrogant. They think they worked hard to get their wealth. In some cases, that is true. But many inherited their wealth or are people who have been fortunate or lucky in business or their inventions,” he said.



Read more: Millionaires and their tax request - San Antonio Express-News
 
Thinks that some people need to look up the definition of “fair” in the dictionary, by definition a progressive tax system is not fair. Being fair is not allowing 47% of the working population to pay no federal income tax, while 10% of the working population pays roughly 45% of all federal income tax … so I guess I need to ask some here what is their meaning … when they say they want someone to pay their “fair” share ??

Then it comes to getting from the government, while those 47 percent that pay nothing, apparently still uses everything the government supplies, and pay nothing …. are they paying their “fair” share?

10 percent of the working pay for 45% of the cost of building and maintaining those same things … now to many percentages don't mean much so lets put actual numbers to this … there are roughly 150 million people in our work force.

47% or 70,500,000 people pay nothing in federal income tax to pay for these things, using 2008 figures 10% of the population or 15 million people paid 45% of 2.5 trillion or or 922 billion dollars

So in all fairness … tell me who paid their fair share

15 million people that paid 922 billion dollars in federal income tax
or
70.5 million people that paid nothing in federal income tax ??
 
No, I think it is fair. Those who get more, should pay more. This is fundamentally fair.

$400 billion in tax breaks seen favoring wealthy
By Ben Rooney and Julianne Pepitone, staff reportersSeptember 22, 2010: 2:37 PM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The United States spent nearly $400 billion last fiscal year to fund tax breaks and programs aimed at helping Americans build wealth, but the majority of that money went to the highest earning taxpayers, according to a report released Wednesday.

Tax policies gave $400 billion to the wealthy - Sep. 22, 2010
 
I have a huge problem with punishing those who work, succeed, and already pay taxes for the sake of funneling more money to those who don't....ESPECIALLY if we're still waiting on a "fix" for the programs that are causing these people to fail/stagnate, as well as every other program, department, and organization which receives money from the government. Fix first, charge after...if it's necessary.

I never understood this mentality that taxes are a punishment. It's not like higher income ever reaches diminishing returns. Or that somehow strengthening the country as a whole by providing more resources for it to accomplish its goals is somehow a punishment. If we all pitch in, the nation becomes stronger, and we all benefit. Even using the term punishment is strange to me. It supposes that government is an authoritarian parent, rather than an organization that exists for no other purpose than to execute our will. It works for us, not the other way around. (Not getting into the issues of how vast corporate wealth makes the government only work for the highest bidder.)

Taxes are just paying the upkeep on the country. That's it. To say that taxes are a punishment would be to say that paying for something you buy is a punishment. No one takes that position, do they? We put money, the fruit of our collective labor, into the coffer, and the government then gives us things in return. It's a business transaction. And to reap the benefits of that government, and the fruits of everyone's collective labor (because absolutely no one only lives off of the fruits of their own labor), and then demand not to pay for them... that's like eating a feast at a restaurant and then skipping out on the bill.
 
No, I think it is fair. Those who get more, should pay more. This is fundamentally fair.

THEY DO PAY MORE???? Do you not understand simple math dealing with total percentages of income?!?!?!
 
THEY DO PAY MORE???? Do you not understand simple math dealing with total percentages of income?!?!?!

Insults aside, where did I say they didn't pay more.

But in stark contrast to, say, social programs, tax breaks vastly favor the rich over the middle class and the poor.

They vastly favor people who own homes (especially expensive homes), can put a lot away for their retirements, have generous health insurance plans and live in high-tax states. Even something as simple as the deduction for charitable donations favors the wealthy: Because they pay higher marginal tax rate, they get a bigger federal subsidy for each dollar they give.

The Top 10 Tax Breaks — And How They Help The Wealthy The Most | CAPITALISM IS OVER IF YOU WANT IT
 
Really? Gates invented computers and software??? They wouldn't have been invented without him or Jobs??? Amazing. Did they invent the internet too? How about Snapple?

And here we all thought the Federal government paid for the research that led to all that, and the universities, and the employees training, protected the markets they're sold in, the shipping lanes, the interstate highways making the markets accessible, patent law protections, etc., etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum that made them possible, or conceivable in the first place.

But, no, it was Bill Gates and Steve Jobs!!!

And Reagan! We wouldn't have a computer industry if the Grenadans hadn't been driven back in the very nick of time.

Thanks Ron, and Bill, and Steve!
What a load of BS. Bill Gates didn't invent computers or software. Gates and his partner, Paul Allen took an existing operating system CPM and converted it to run on IBM's new desktop computer and called it DOS. There were many people involved with creating the computers we know today, not just Gates and Jobs. Much of what Microsoft produces are knockoffs of what others have produced. The internet was once a system for use by the military -ARANET. It was Sen. Al Gore that had the vision to convert it to what was then known as the Information Super Highway.
 
Thinks that some people need to look up the definition of “fair” in the dictionary, by definition a progressive tax system is not fair. Being fair is not allowing 47% of the working population to pay no federal income tax, while 10% of the working population pays roughly 45% of all federal income tax … so I guess I need to ask some here what is their meaning … when they say they want someone to pay their “fair” share ??

Then it comes to getting from the government, while those 47 percent that pay nothing, apparently still uses everything the government supplies, and pay nothing …. are they paying their “fair” share?

10 percent of the working pay for 45% of the cost of building and maintaining those same things … now to many percentages don't mean much so lets put actual numbers to this … there are roughly 150 million people in our work force.

47% or 70,500,000 people pay nothing in federal income tax to pay for these things, using 2008 figures 10% of the population or 15 million people paid 45% of 2.5 trillion or or 922 billion dollars

So in all fairness … tell me who paid their fair share

15 million people that paid 922 billion dollars in federal income tax
or
70.5 million people that paid nothing in federal income tax ??

Why does this 47% statistic always leave out the fact that these people are too poor to pay anything? They have nothing to pay. What would you have them do? Lose their homes? Give up eating for a month? When a family is living paycheck to paycheck, they need every dollar they can get. That cannot be said of any other income level.
 
I never understood this mentality that taxes are a punishment. It's not like higher income ever reaches diminishing returns. Or that somehow strengthening the country as a whole by providing more resources for it to accomplish its goals is somehow a punishment. If we all pitch in, the nation becomes stronger, and we all benefit. Even using the term punishment is strange to me. It supposes that government is an authoritarian parent, rather than an organization that exists for no other purpose than to execute our will. It works for us, not the other way around. (Not getting into the issues of how vast corporate wealth makes the government only work for the highest bidder.)

Taxes are just paying the upkeep on the country. That's it. To say that taxes are a punishment would be to say that paying for something you buy is a punishment. No one takes that position, do they? We put money, the fruit of our collective labor, into the coffer, and the government then gives us things in return. It's a business transaction. And to reap the benefits of that government, and the fruits of everyone's collective labor (because absolutely no one only lives off of the fruits of their own labor), and then demand not to pay for them... that's like eating a feast at a restaurant and then skipping out on the bill.
100% agree with the whole post, especially your comments on tax as "punishment".
 
Back
Top Bottom