• 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!

Does the average citizen harbor envy/jealousy, hatred for the extremely wealthy?

Does the average citizen harbor envy/jealousy, hatred for the extremely wealthy?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 33.3%
  • No

    Votes: 24 66.7%

  • Total voters
    36
what do you consider to be the fair share of a group that makes 22% of the income yet pays 40% of the income tax and all the death tax? Is there any other group that has such a high differential between their share of the income vs their share of the income tax burden? TO say the middle class is paying the most is not accurate unless you use a rather liquid definition of middle class and per capita the top one percent are paying far far more than any other group

No, you're just looking at income taxes. Those are progressive. The rest are regressive- sales, property, FICA, vehicle registration, unemployment insurance, disability, etc. When you total everything up- all sources of income vs all taxes- the top 1% pays a significantly lower percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class does.
 
BTW why is the only basis for tax based on "the from each according to their ability" rather than use? or value received? no other transaction in life is based on the system the left seems to think is the only factor that matters

Your definition of "use" ignores a large number of real economic factors, such as government-enforced tort-liability shields. Use of government services is not a simple question of dollars spent, but also personal assets that would otherwise have been available to satisfy business debts that have been preserved by government coercion of the creditors who hold (or could have held in the case of tort judgments) those debts.
 
No, you're just looking at income taxes. Those are progressive. The rest are regressive- sales, property, FICA, vehicle registration, unemployment insurance, disability, etc. When you total everything up- all sources of income vs all taxes- the top 1% pays a significantly lower percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class does.

that again is not true. Catawba posted an article from the NYT that noted those in the top one percent (the vast majority who made between a million and five million a year) paid the highest effective income tax rates and Oldreliable67 posted evidence that the top one percent had the highest overall federal (all federal) tax rates.

what is wrong with regressive? especially since the rich pay far more ACTUAL tax dollars. Life is regressive. Do you believe in FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITY
 
Your definition of "use" ignores a large number of real economic factors, such as government-enforced tort-liability shields. Use of government services is not a simple question of dollars spent, but also personal assets that would otherwise have been available to satisfy business debts that have been preserved by government coercion of the creditors who hold (or could have held in the case of tort judgments) those debts.

Feel free to show how that directly benefits the rich in actual dollars

I think that is a made up claim trying to substitute for actual proof
 
I responded with a yes, but, again I say but, to what degree of envy and hatred??
Has this question ever been on a national poll ?
As to the taxes, yes, these should be fair/balanced.
Right now, I do not know...there are so many loopholes, some are justified, some are not.
Our nation may need reform in this area....note the may....
I probably am envious of the rich, to an extent.
 
Feel free to show how that directly benefits the rich in actual dollars

It's an indirect benefit, but it is a benefit that accrues every time a shareholder of a corporation is protected from a lawsuit by a creditor, or whenever a tort victim of a corporate tortfeasor doesn't even get the chance to sue the shareholders and achieve creditor status to begin with. The simple fact is that anyone who holds stock is benefitting from government coercion all the time, because without the government-backed protection agreement that is a corporation they would be liable at common law jointly and severally, for their personal assets. Under the corporate-protection agreement, only their stake in the corporation is at risk; under common law, they are jointly and severally liable for their company's debts.

I think that is a made up claim trying to substitute for actual proof

You're a lawyer, you should be able to follow this.
 
It's an indirect benefit, but it is a benefit that accrues every time a shareholder of a corporation is protected from a lawsuit by a creditor, or whenever a tort victim of a corporate tortfeasor doesn't even get the chance to sue the shareholders and achieve creditor status to begin with. The simple fact is that anyone who holds stock is benefitting from government coercion all the time, because without the government-backed protection agreement that is a corporation they would be liable at common law jointly and severally, for their personal assets. Under the corporate-protection agreement, only their stake in the corporation is at risk; under common law, they are jointly and severally liable.



You're a lawyer, you should be able to follow this.

as a lawyer I know what you have posted has no use as proof. Shareholders include union pension beneficiaries, most company workers who have a 401K and the endowments of almost every college or university. Protecting peoples' property is one of the few real legitimate functions of government -you being a libertarian should understand that. and there is no way you can HONESTLY justify 5% of the people paying most of the government funding and claiming they use more than the other 95%
 
as a lawyer I know what you have posted has no use as proof. Shareholders include union pension beneficiaries, most company workers who have a 401K and the endowments of almost every college or university. Protecting peoples' property is one of the few real legitimate functions of government -you being a libertarian should understand that. and there is no way you can HONESTLY justify 5% of the people paying most of the government funding and claiming they use more than the other 95%

As a libertarian I understand the primacy of the right to contract, and the inalienability of rights.

When a person is the victim of a tort, they gain rights as against the tortfeasor. When the tortfeasor is a partner is a business, the partners are jointly and severally liable, up to and including their personal assets. When those same people sign up for a protection agreement with the government, the right of the third-party victim are waived as a result of an agreement between the businesspeople and the government. This amounts to a unilateral removal of rights from the tort victim. It is unlibertarian to remove the rights of a third party in this manner, when the third party is in no way consenting to the removal of rights. It is also quite a boon for the stockholders in the corporation.
 
Last edited:
that again is not true. Catawba posted an article from the NYT that noted those in the top one percent (the vast majority who made between a million and five million a year) paid the highest effective income tax rates and Oldreliable67 posted evidence that the top one percent had the highest overall federal (all federal) tax rates.

I don't think you're reading what I am saying carefully because that does not contradict what I am saying.

what is wrong with regressive? especially since the rich pay far more ACTUAL tax dollars. Life is regressive. Do you believe in FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITY

Regressive taxes are pretty much unsupportable from any perspective. Some of the many reasons progressive taxes are better:

1) Diminishing marginal utility of wealth. The more money somebody has, the less utility it has. Every economist in the world would agree with this. If you have $100, you spend it on the $100 worth of items you want the very most. If you have $200, you spend it on the $100 worth of items you want the most and then the $100 worth of items you want slightly less than the first ones. So, letting all the money accumulate in the pockets of very few is extremely wasteful.
2) Too much concentration of wealth undermines consumption and productivity. The economy relies on having a large middle class that is educated and prosperous enough to be productive at work in an information economy and to buy the products they create. When too much wealth gets soaked up by too few, the middle class's ability to play those roles falls apart.
3) Too much concentration of wealth undermines the incentive to work hard. As the wealth gets more and more concentrated it becomes harder and harder to cross the gulf between regular people and rich people. For example, the difference between the type of education a regular person can get and the education a rich person can get becomes so wide that a regular person would really struggle to perform as well at a job as a person born rich. In particular, with regressive taxation, it becomes harder and harder for a middle class person to save up any money, so starting a business if you were not born rich becomes very hard. All these effects make it futile to work hard if you aren't born rich. We aren't at that point, but we're heading in that direction. When somebody works 80 hours a week and brings in some big customer and delivers a service to them or invents something or whatever, and some rich dude they never met gets 95% of the profit generated, they aren't going to work so hard the next day.
4) Society has expenses that need to be paid. Maintaining the foundations of our society cost money. Most the money is in the hands of the very rich. If we don't tax the very rich adequately we inevitably get big deficits, which is bad for everybody.
5) Morally it just plain isn't right to give special advantages to people who already have a lot at the expense of the well being of people who are having a harder time. This is one of those things that just seems to inherently obvious to me, but I guess some on the right don't share that basic moral belief...
6) Poverty is inefficient. The average American generates almost $3 million worth of GDP in their lifetime. Even somebody who works at McDonalds for their whole career generates almost $2 million in GDP. Somebody who spends their whole life in poverty may generate $0 GDP. That is an enormous waste. If we can help a person get out of poverty with progressive taxation and safety net spending, that is almost always a hugely rewarding investment economically.
7) The rich benefit way, way, more from government. For example, if the federal government spends $1 trillion on bailouts, that may have a very small effect on the average person. Maybe they get rehired 2 weeks earlier or something. But for somebody with a $10 billion stock portfolio, their net worth may go up 20% or $2 billion. Likewise, an individual only benefits from their own education, where somebody who owns a company benefits from the educations of every single employee. A rich person has more to defend, so national defense benefits them more. And so on.
 
what do you consider to be the fair share of a group that makes 22% of the income yet pays 40% of the income tax and all the death tax? Is there any other group that has such a high differential between their share of the income vs their share of the income tax burden? TO say the middle class is paying the most is not accurate unless you use a rather liquid definition of middle class and per capita the top one percent are paying far far more than any other group

In 1995, the effective tax rate for the 400 richest Americans was 29.9% and they earned 8% of the income made in that year.

By 2007, the effective tax rate had lessened to 16.6% and they were now earning 23% of all the income earned in America that year.

The reason their collective tax burden is rising is because they keep getting a larger and larger share of the national income. If the middle class were making a larger share of income, their share of taxes would rise.

The tax burden on the wealthy as a part of the overall tax pool is only increasing because their income is increasing.

Even though the effective tax rate on this is the same as it is on a single individual making $30,000, their tax bill is going to go up because their income has increased 3-fold since 2005, according to Forbes Magazine.

Your constant use of their share of the overall burden only proves that it's due to the rapidly increasing income inequality. You can't hoard all the money and then complain about all the taxes that come with it. Well, in the topsy-turvy world where billionaires are victims and working people are lazy whiners, I suppose you can.
 
As a libertarian I understand the primacy of the right to contract, and the inalienability of rights.

When a person is the victim of a tort, they gain rights as against the tortfeasor. When the tortfeasor is a partner is a business, the partners are jointly and severally liable, up to and including their personal assets. When those same people sign up for a protection agreement with the government, the right of the third-party victim are waived as a result of an agreement between the businesspeople and the government. This amounts to a unilateral removal of rights from the tort victim. It is unlibertarian to remove the rights of a third party in this manner, when the third party is in no way consenting to the removal of rights. It is also quite a boon for the stockholders in the corporation.

If you did not have corporate liability shields you wouldn't have corporations and everyone would be much poorer. and if you set up a fraudulent corporation to avoid liability the courts can pierce that "corporate veil" but everyone with a job or a pension is benefitted.

you might also claim that it is unlibertarian to remvove vendetta or vigilante justice as well
 
Ah, I think I get the confusion. Actual income taxes- the thing that caps out at 35%- DO include short term capital gains. If you buy stock and sell it in less than a year, your profits are treated as income. But, if you hold it longer than a year, then it is NOT reported as income. It falls under the long term capital gains tax instead, which caps out at 15%. Short term capital gains, being counted as regular income, is very possibly included in that chart, but long term capital gains would not be.

Closer, but still not there. Long term capital gains are not reported as "ordinary" income. Long term capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than short-term capital gains...but both of those fall under the broad umbrella of "Federal Income Tax". Just because it's under a different rate, doesn't mean it's not a federal income tax.



As long as you agree we need to raise the taxes of the rich and close out loopholes, we're all good, but the way you're framing things is confusing to me. The middle class is like from the 20th percentile to the 98th or something like that. The upper middle class is lets say from the 85th percentile to the 98th or something like that. We are saying that the rich do not pay their fair share, which I would take to mean the people in the top 1%, or maybe the top 0.5%. So I don't think anybody was claiming that the middle class isn't paying their fair share. They're paying the most of anybody.

To me, a "rich" person is not just 1%. That would be a very rich person. Being in the 99th percentile of wealth in the richest country in the world doesn't make you "rich." It makes you...well...a much stronger word for rich. I don't think 20th to 98th is a fair assessment of "middle class" at all.

Well, those aren't parallel numbers. They have 43% of the wealth, not 43% of the income. Their share of the income is a bit lower. But, that is the one progressive tax- income taxes. If you include all taxes- property, sales, etc- then they pay a much smaller portion.

Well, I mean, the share of total federal taxes paid for the top 1% has historically been on or around par with income received. Your objection is noted, but I seriously doubt the inclusion of state taxes significantly alters that percentage...especially since the wealthiest counties often have exorbitantly highly property taxes and such.

Case in point: Westchester.
 
In 1995, the effective tax rate for the 400 richest Americans was 29.9% and they earned 8% of the income made in that year.

By 2007, the effective tax rate had lessened to 16.6% and they were now earning 23% of all the income earned in America that year.

The reason their collective tax burden is rising is because they keep getting a larger and larger share of the national income. If the middle class were making a larger share of income, their share of taxes would rise.

The tax burden on the wealthy as a part of the overall tax pool is only increasing because their income is increasing.

Even though the effective tax rate on this is the same as it is on a single individual making $30,000, their tax bill is going to go up because their income has increased 3-fold since 2005, according to Forbes Magazine.

Your constant use of their share of the overall burden only proves that it's due to the rapidly increasing income inequality. You can't hoard all the money and then complain about all the taxes that come with it. Well, in the topsy-turvy world where billionaires are victims and working people are lazy whiners, I suppose you can.

if you want to talk about billionaires fine but stop using them as an excuse to jack up the taxes of millions of people who are not those 400 billionaires

a flat tax or a consumption tax will increase the take from the top 400 without allowing the masses to only make them pay more and more (or make anyone who is richer than the majority of voters pay more and more)
 
If you did not have corporate liability shields you wouldn't have corporations and everyone would be much poorer.

Non sequitur. It does not follow that the absence of corporations would make anyone "poorer." Moreover, as a libertarian, I am opposed to government handouts to help people achieve economic success. That's parasite talk.

and if you set up a fraudulent corporation to avoid liability the courts can pierce that "corporate veil" but everyone with a job or a pension is benefitted.

The point is that the corporate veil, even when licitly implemented, deprives third parties of their rights without their consent.

you might also claim that it is unlibertarian to remvove vendetta or vigilante justice as well

Not at all. Justice goes through the court systems, whether it is torts or criminal. The victims ought to be compensated. With the corporate tort-liability shield, the government is removing the rights of victims to be compensated. Self help has already rightfully been removed from the equation, so there is no redress for the victims whatsoever if the corporation itself hasn't got assets to satisfy its creditors.

If a creditor has been given an opportunity to contract for limited liability, it is perfectly fine from a libertarian standpoint. But when the government deprives a third party creditor of its rights for the sake of promoting business, it is nothing more than a government handout, and unlibertarian in the extreme.

What kind of parasite wants the government to step in and force their third party creditors not to collect on their debts?
 
Last edited:
Since I am WELL above average, I cannot participate in this poll. Sorry.
But if I WERE average, I would answer no.

Dear CC,
I am suffering poll-taking remorse, after seeing you identify the trick of admitting being average, I now feel I have sold myself short.
Is this permanent? Is there something I can take for this? Sincerely, below average.
 
There seems to be an ongoing theme set by some that generally, those who care about the greater good of society and propose that a fair share of taxes be imposed on the extremely wealthy, are actually extremely envious/jealous and harbor hatred for the extremely wealthy. Supposedly, this is the reason these humanitarians propose a fair tax on the extremely wealthy. So let’s see what everyone thinks. :lol:

I personally dont give a flying **** how much money a person has. I care about what is in that persons heart and mind. I have family members that have many millions and to me they are some of the biggest losers I know because they have crap personalities.
 
Closer, but still not there. Long term capital gains are not reported as "ordinary" income. Long term capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than short-term capital gains...but both of those fall under the broad umbrella of "Federal Income Tax". Just because it's under a different rate, doesn't mean it's not a federal income tax.

Well, I'm still not buying that, but whatever.

To me, a "rich" person is not just 1%. That would be a very rich person. Being in the 99th percentile of wealth in the richest country in the world doesn't make you "rich." It makes you...well...a much stronger word for rich. I don't think 20th to 98th is a fair assessment of "middle class" at all.

It doesn't really matter how we define the classes.

Well, I mean, the share of total federal taxes paid for the top 1% has historically been on or around par with income received. Your objection is noted, but I seriously doubt the inclusion of state taxes significantly alters that percentage...especially since the wealthiest counties often have exorbitantly highly property taxes and such.

Case in point: Westchester.

It makes a massive difference. First off, state and local taxes are about 2/3 of total taxes. Local taxes are actually the biggest of the three. Secondly, local taxes especially tend to be regressive- sales tax and property taxes especially. State taxes tend to be either flat or very slightly progressive, although some states have more progressive schemes. Federal taxes are, by far, the most progressive. So, just looking at federal taxes is extremely misleading.

For example, 47% of households pay no federal income taxes at all, but those same households absolutely pay sales and property taxes. On the other hand, somebody who makes $1 million per year may only spend 1% of their income on taxable goods or services, so they pay very nearly 0% on sales taxes.
 
Upper Class Tax Cuts Would Leave Middle Class Bleeding


"Republican griping about income taxes seems odd, if only because today's top tax rate is close to an all-time low. In fact, since 1917, the highest bracket has only been lower two times: from 1925-1931, it hovered between 24% and 25%, and from 1988-1992 it fell to between 28% and 31%. But for the majority of the 20th century, the top rate was 50% or higher. In fact, during World War II, it hit a high of 94%.
Capital Gains and Dividend Taxes

In addition to a surprisingly low top tax rate, America's wealthiest citizens can take advantage of a variety of loopholes, deductions and incentives that further slash their payments into the public coffers. In fact, according to the IRS, the 400 richest people in America paid -- on average -- only 18.11% of their income in taxes in 2008. By comparison, people who make $34,500 pay a comparatively hefty 25% of their income in taxes before deductions.

One way that the ultra-wealthy can cut their tax burden is by taking advantage of incredibly low capital gains and dividend taxes, which enable them to pay a mere 15% of their profits from stock holdings. A look at the finances of Ralph Lauren, CEO of Polo Ralph Lauren (RL), offer a good example of how this works: Listed as the sixth-highest paid CEO by Forbes, Lauren made $43 million in base pay in 2010. Before deductions, this would be taxed at 35%, the same rate paid by someone who brought home a comparatively paltry $374,000. In other words, Lauren probably paid the same tax rate as his dermatologist.

But base pay is only a fraction of Lauren's income. He also owns about $3.42 billion worth of stock in his company. In 2003, President Bush lowered the top capital gains rate to 15%, meaning that, if Lauren were to sell shares that he had held for at least a year, he would pay taxes on his profits at the same rate as someone who makes $8,400 per year. In 2010, he did just that, selling $850 million in shares -- and paying just 15% on the proceeds.

Lauren's company also pays dividends on its stock: In 2011, they are expected to reach 80¢ per share. For the famed designer's 25.9 million shares, this could come to as much as $20,720,000, which would also be taxed at 15%. The same, incidentally, goes for every other investor -- from Warren Buffett to Bill Gates -- who has held a share of stock for more than 60 days.

The Rich Get Richer and the Middle Class ...

The Bush-era tax cuts are now set to expire in 2013, but -- as the December 2010 budget battle showed -- they could be extended indefinitely. In the meantime, many of the country's richest citizens are paying a smaller tax rate than its poorest, and programs that are designed to keep the middle class from slipping into poverty are coming under withering attack from the right.

With federal finances stretched to the breaking point, belt-tightening sounds like a great idea. The trouble is, Republican proposals basically demand that only the bottom 98.2% of Americans need to cinch their bellies, while letting the top 1.8% -- those who make more than $250,000 -- take a bigger bite from an ever-shrinking pie. Critics of capital gains and dividend taxes argue that these levies force the country's richest citizens to pay taxes twice on the same profits -- once when they earn the money that they invest, and once again when they sell their stock or receive dividends from it.

Then again, with millions struggling to make ends meet, it's hard to find tears for America's wealthiest stockholders."



Read more: Upper Class Tax Cuts Would Leave Middle Class Bleeding - FoxBusiness.com
 
$1 million per year may only spend 1% of their income on taxable goods or services, so they pay very nearly 0% on sales taxes.

Be careful in such assumption. I encourage you to find and post data from CBO on this, before claiming it. I suspect you're off by a factor of 10.
 
Well, I'm still not buying that, but whatever.

It's written into the Federal Income Tax code. You don't have to buy it.

It doesn't really matter how we define the classes.

...which didn't stop you.

It makes a massive difference. First off, state and local taxes are about 2/3 of total taxes. Local taxes are actually the biggest of the three. Secondly, local taxes especially tend to be regressive- sales tax and property taxes especially. State taxes tend to be either flat or very slightly progressive, although some states have more progressive schemes. Federal taxes are, by far, the most progressive. So, just looking at federal taxes is extremely misleading.

For example, 47% of households pay no federal income taxes at all, but those same households absolutely pay sales and property taxes. On the other hand, somebody who makes $1 million per year may only spend 1% of their income on taxable goods or services, so they pay very nearly 0% on sales taxes.

Okay, but sales and excise taxes tend to be naturally regressive because they exist in the form of general rates and that's it. I mean...that's just the nature.

Besides, even though rich people's shopping habits tend to be a smaller percentage of income, their purchases are generally more exorbitant, so I can forgive that.

Property taxes are progressive because the rate goes up in proportion to the assessed value of the property....not to mention property tax homestead exemptions.

It's important to note that some states do have a separate state income tax to pay, and some don't. For those that do, the rates are often graduated and therefore progressive.

It's ALSO important that sales/excise taxes do not constitute the majority of revenue for certain states. Especially if a progressive income tax exists, because that combined with a property tax is always > sales/excise tax. :shrug: If I remember correctly, most states are more reliant on sales/excise taxes for revenue....just because they're easier to collect and involve less bureaucracy. But who can you hold accountable for that, besides your own state?
 
Last edited:
Be careful in such assumption. I encourage you to find and post data from CBO on this, before claiming it. I suspect you're off by a factor of 10.

I don't know of data on that. If you do, please post it. But even if I were off by a factor of 10 and somebody with a $1m/year income spent 10% of their income on taxable goods and services, that would still be extraordinarily regressive, right?
 
I personally dont give a flying **** how much money a person has. I care about what is in that persons heart and mind. I have family members that have many millions and to me they are some of the biggest losers I know because they have crap personalities.

does that color your advocacy of taxing all those who make more than 200K a year more?
 
Okay, but sales and excise taxes tend to be naturally regressive because they exist in the form of general rates and that's it. I mean...that's just the nature.

Exactly. So there you go. That's a big part of our nation's tax scheme that is regressive.

Property taxes are progressive because the rate goes up in proportion to the assessed value of the property....not to mention property tax homestead exemptions.

No, that's not true. Yes, the rate goes up in some states, but even in those states that would make it progressive relative to the value of the property, not relative to the income of the owner. Regressive means relative to the income of the owner, and it still is. The percentage of somebody's income that goes to housing drops off rapidly as income goes up.

As for the homestead exemption, that actually makes it more regressive. It means that rental properties pay higher property taxes than homes the owner lives in. They pass that on to the renter and renters tend to be poorer than owners.

It's important to note that some states do have a separate state income tax to pay, and some don't. For those that do, the rates are often graduated and therefore progressive.

We don't need to guess about these things. The numbers are well known. The average American pays 27% in taxes total. The top 1% pays 18%. The upper middle class pays as high as 43%.
 
Since I am WELL above average, I cannot participate in this poll. Sorry.

But if I WERE average, I would answer no.

Your extrapolated answer is invalid, since not trend can be inferred from you well above averageness. A Yes answer is just as likely.
 
Back
Top Bottom