• 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!

Why does the middle class pay the most crippling amount of income tax?

Why is the middle class the most crippled by income tax? Select all that apply

  • Allowing many people to have a shot at being uber-wealthy is dangerous

    Votes: 1 3.1%
  • Making the uber-wealthy share the load would be bad for the economy

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The middle class do not have as much of an influence on politics as the wealthy do

    Votes: 24 75.0%
  • The idea that the middle class pay the most crippling amount of income tax is a myth

    Votes: 9 28.1%
  • A few wealthy, a few more middle class and many lower class citizens is best

    Votes: 2 6.3%

  • Total voters
    32
you are being dishonest now.

the bottom 50% make about 12.5% of the income

they sure use far more than 12,5% of the government services.

uh how has the government coddled me? I pay far more than I use.

and where does the nonsense that if you cannot afford something you should be able to get it without paying for it come from?

This is what I found .. let me know if you find something substantially different:

wealth distribution.jpg

Lee Gaddies: Wealth inequality as it stands today welcome to the new gilded age.

That's the 2.5% I was talking about
 
Last edited:
that makes no sense-or I should say even less sense.

I don't want more government. You do. I don't need more government because I am neither dependent nor parasitic.

If it weren't for our government, we wouldn't enjoy the wealth we do, simple
 
If it weren't for our government, we wouldn't enjoy the wealth we do, simple

ok so what--that is not an argument that one percent should pay 40% of the income taxes and 47% pay nothing

everyone benefits about the same from government. everyone ought to pay about the same for that benefit. Now I realize many cannot, but that does not cut against the fact that they SHOULD
 
wrong

progressive income tax is a politically sound strategy

it allows politicians to buy the votes of the many with the wealth of a minority voting bloc.


it also gave congress a ton of power.

so your claim is without any rational basis

I will quote what others have said before me that verify my point:

"It is a natural process for the wealthiest individuals and firms in a society to become disproportionately wealthier over time. In order to prevent the political instability resulting from the natural stratification of the populace into an ever smaller and wealthier aristocracy or moneyed class, and an ever larger working class, all free market democracies engage in progressive taxation and programs to enhance economic opportunity for the lower and middle classes"

Oh .. let me guess .. you really don't want anyone to have a chance at bettering themselves do you? If you support a flat tax, you clearly do not. This has been proven time and time again .. look back at some of the examples I spelled out .. look at the above quote which is a sound argument devoid of holes .. just face it, you just want more for YOU, it doesn't seem like you care about your country or anyone else that lives in it, at least not if you maintain you position on this
 
ok so what--that is not an argument that one percent should pay 40% of the income taxes and 47% pay nothing

everyone benefits about the same from government. everyone ought to pay about the same for that benefit. Now I realize many cannot, but that does not cut against the fact that they SHOULD

Why don't you understand that one cannot get blood from a turnip?

All that creates is bad debt - i.e. bad for the economy
 
I should probably ask .. are you proposing cutting out welfare programs as well, or just instituting a flat 20% tax rate?

I am not opposed to all welfare programs. There are definitely some programs that should be cut due to duplication of efforts and lack of significant results. I just think 20% over $20K is easy, fair, and will likely raise revenues, and require more people to have some skin in the game. I'm also for getting rid of several loopholes and tax credits.
 
I will quote what others have said before me that verify my point:

"It is a natural process for the wealthiest individuals and firms in a society to become disproportionately wealthier over time. In order to prevent the political instability resulting from the natural stratification of the populace into an ever smaller and wealthier aristocracy or moneyed class, and an ever larger working class, all free market democracies engage in progressive taxation and programs to enhance economic opportunity for the lower and middle classes"

Oh .. let me guess .. you really don't want anyone to have a chance at bettering themselves do you? If you support a flat tax, you clearly do not. This has been proven time and time again .. look back at some of the examples I spelled out .. look at the above quote which is a sound argument devoid of holes .. just face it, you just want more for YOU, it doesn't seem like you care about your country or anyone else that lives in it, at least not if you maintain you position on this

that is an opinion--it says nothing as to your point that the reason why there is a progressive income tax.

I support a flat tax because it prevents the many from voting up taxes on others.

right now there is absolutely no bar against the bottom 95% voting up the taxes on the top 5% up and up and up

a flat tax would cause pain for everyone when taxes are raised I want that . Pain is a good teacher. those who want more government need to suffer pain when government grows.
 
Why don't you understand that one cannot get blood from a turnip?

All that creates is bad debt - i.e. bad for the economy

I keep hearing that crap while seeing tons of poor people with color tv's, cell phones, cars etc.

I believe people are lying when they say that 47% are all poor and can pay no income taxes.

I see lots of people on minimum wage buying lottery tickets.
 
you seem to think that I find income inequality to be a problem. I don't. many of those who are "poor" are poor due to their own poor choices

You missed the point again .. this kind of inequality is indicative of a lack of equal opportunity and a need for more severe progressive taxation. We should not all make the same amount of money, but we certainly should not have these kinds of disparities. Ask a poor person sometime if they are their because they want to be .. I don't think the majority will exclaim .. why yes, yes I do

The main point is that the top percentiles make so much that it wouldn't hurt to increase progressive taxation on them - they wouldn't feel it, no skin off their back .. however, increasing taxes on any other group would be tyrannical

Again, if progressive taxation did not exist, you and I would both be in the poor house as essentially all of the income eventually end up in the hands of only one very small group of people .. that would exclude those who are not currently billionaires - how is that so hard to understand?
 
Are you saying my proposal of 20% above $20K is unfair? Explain how and why it is unfair.

Because it is not progressive taxation please read the following which I already posted (and have others)

"It is a natural process for the wealthiest individuals and firms in a society to become disproportionately wealthier over time. In order to prevent the political instability resulting from the natural stratification of the populace into an ever smaller and wealthier aristocracy or moneyed class, and an ever larger working class, all free market democracies engage in progressive taxation and programs to enhance economic opportunity for the lower and middle classes"

Not to mention the relative burden on the lower income individuals and families would be much more severe .. while the wealthiest hand out chump change .. you have to look at tax paid in as it compares to living expenses
 
progressive income tax is a politically sound strategy

Politically sound strategies are relative. Talk of a flat tax often rouses popular sympathy. I'd say supporting a flat tax has been a politically sound strategy for a lot of people.

it allows politicians to buy the votes of the many with the wealth of a minority voting bloc.

Taking too much money from the wealthy would result in economic implosion. Economic implosions result in conditions hazardous to a political career (see Tea Party), so politicians have strong incentives to avoid them.

Furthermore, the lower income brackets are spread unevenly across geo-political lines and the ideological spectrum; regardless of dependency on welfare, they don't aggregate into a cohesive voting bloc that supports Democrats and opposes Republicans, partially because the Republicans aren't really a serious threat to welfare (in many historical cases post-New Deal, the opposite has been true).

it also gave congress a ton of power.

Certainly, to meet the domestic and foreign challenges of the 20th century, including two world wars, nuclear power, the Cold War, globalization, and the Information Age. The administration of these events required vast sums of capital; more than a flat tax could have provided.

so your claim is without any rational basis

It's pretty intuitive. The wealthy don't create jobs that don't have a high probability of making a profit, they don't raise salaries when they have a global economy as a labor resource, and, in an economy like that, bonuses are becoming a quaint notion. Ironically, much like any policy that empowers a few at the expense of the many, the prosperity these practices create is a fragile, artificial thing. Rapid industrialization and agitation for more rights in foreign countries (see contemporary Middle East as an example) will lead to increasingly chaotic local politics, endangering the stability of the global economy, and, spurred by their citizens, foreign governments will become increasingly protectionist (which, in comparison to the United States, they already are -- but they will get worse). They will not allow American companies to provide products or services to their populations (aka, closed markets), meaning that America's wealthy will be restricted solely to their country for consumers. Problem is, by that time the middle class will have shrank to a size that no longer supports economies anywhere near the size or productivity of what we currently enjoy.

Consequently, the wealthy, though they will probably remain wealthy, will certainly enjoy far less capital (relative to what they possess now), and certainly far less than if they had been more cooperative in securing America's collective economic well being.
 
Last edited:
so you buy into the bs that the MC pays "crippling income tax levels"

I am sitting for the cpa and I have worked in tax. I have seen a lot of middle income taxpayers struggling to pay their IRS debts off. Getting out of IRS debt can be really hard because the interest adds up ****ing fast. It's also not difficult for middle income and lower income taxpayers to get into IRS debt in this economy. Simply cashing out a retirement early because you're unemployed, can end up getting you hit with all kinds of taxes and fines.

Calling it crippling is hyperbole, but it's also true in some cases...
 
Also, if you pay off certain debts too fast, that's possibly another tax you pay. The middle class can rack that tax up fast without knowing it, and they are trying to do the best thing... pay off their debt asap. It's not hard to get into credit card debt in this economy either.
 
. you have to look at tax paid in as it compares to living expenses

some poor person pays 0 federal income tax and earns $20,000. living expenses $20,000 and most likely qualifies for some assistance program.

some rich person pays 25% ($75000) federal income tax and earns $300,000. living expenses $225.000 and qualifies for no assistance program.

In this fake example one person pays no federal income tax, another payed 25% of what they earn. Both spent all they make. Different lifestyles for sure.
Here is a clue. Life is not fair. Some people will have more than others, some will have the same and some less.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone believe that all of the 47% who pay no income tax cannot pay any income tax?

LOL... according to the tax code they can't, because they have no taxable income. Once they get the same standard deduction that rich people get, they are in the negatives.
 
I am sitting for the cpa and I have worked in tax. I have seen a lot of middle income taxpayers struggling to pay their IRS debts off. Getting out of IRS debt can be really hard because the interest adds up ****ing fast. It's also not difficult for middle income and lower income taxpayers to get into IRS debt in this economy. Simply cashing out a retirement early because you're unemployed, can end up getting you hit with all kinds of taxes and fines.

Calling it crippling is hyperbole, but it's also true in some cases...

...and I sat for the CPA years ago.... you are wise beyond your years.
 
some poor person pays 0 federal income tax and earns $20,000. living expenses $20,000 and most likely qualifies for some assistance program.

some rich person pays 25% ($75000) federal income tax and earns $300,000. living expenses $225.000 and qualifies for no assistance program.

In this fake example one person pays no federal income tax, another payed 25% of what they earn. Both spent all they make. Different lifestyles for sure.
Here is a clue. Life is not fair. Some people will have more than others, some will have the same and some less.

Again, people fail to understand that our income tax system is not targeting income, but discretionary income (income after basic necessities). This is why it has exemptions, child credits and standard deductions. The fact of the matter is that most people have no discretionary income, but live hand to mouth. As they have no discretionary income, they pay no income tax.
 
some poor person pays 0 federal income tax and earns $20,000. living expenses $20,000 and most likely qualifies for some assistance program.

some rich person pays 25% ($75000) federal income tax and earns $300,000. living expenses $225.000 and qualifies for no assistance program.

In this fake example one person pays no federal income tax, another payed 25% of what they earn. Both spent all they make. Different lifestyles for sure.
Here is a clue. Life is not fair. Some people will have more than others, some will have the same and some less.

Your not helping your case .. you have ignored all the moral imperatives and economic logic and substituted your own down-home logic

You aren't impressing anyone by saying "life isn't fair" .. we all know this .. we are just trying to make it so everyone has equal opportunity and so that our government is financially sound, nothing more nothing less - and the arguments and policies we support would do this

I don't care how you want to spend your money .. but when comparing tax to the lowest average living expenses, we see that progressive taxation is the only solution .. what you do with your money after you pay your taxes is your business .. this way the uber-wealthy stay uber wealthy and can move higher, the wealthy stay wealthy and can move higher, the middle class keep middles class status and can move higher, the poor aren't made poorer and can move higher .. what's wrong with that?

Sorry if I have no tolerance for those who wish to see a tyranny of the wealthy over the poor
 
Again, people fail to understand that our income tax system is not targeting income, but discretionary income (income after basic necessities). This is why it has exemptions, child credits and standard deductions. The fact of the matter is that most people have no discretionary income, but live hand to mouth. As they have no discretionary income, they pay no income tax.

You hit the nail on the head! Great post :)

Some people just don't seem to understand these facts ... its scary that they are out there spreading their infectious propaganda to the less well intellectually endowed
 
Again, people fail to understand that our income tax system is not targeting income, but discretionary income (income after basic necessities). This is why it has exemptions, child credits and standard deductions. The fact of the matter is that most people have no discretionary income, but live hand to mouth. As they have no discretionary income, they pay no income tax.

And the standard deduction of course. We could lower the standard deduction to hit lower income earners with a tax, but that means rich people would also owe more... and that would make TurtleDude cry.
 
Back
Top Bottom