• 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
The richest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per*cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes.
 
The richest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per*cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes.

And your point is ... ?
 
That's what Obama is asking them to do, yes...and by "ask" I mean "force".

OK, why all the misinformation? Why do you think a democrat is forcing the lower middle class to shoulder the tax burden .. last I checked, he stood for for the working family .. that would mean higher taxes for the wealthy, not the middle class .. please provide direct support for this claim as it seems to sound a whole lot like propaganda - you as usual, have made a claim without siting a source .. how can people trust that?
 
Because you libs have to lie to get your way. I wish you folks could start being honest, and put down the racism also, but that's not likely to happen.

Put down the racism? It was Reagan that preached "state right's" at the Neshoba County Fair and attacked a black welfare Caddilac mother that turned out to be complete hogwash. Ever since then, Republicans have been trying to create a socio-economic class that only benefits the selects few, which happen to be white.

I'll take Goldwater over you charlatans anyday. He voted against the CRA, but was honest about it. He also did much to mitigate racism in his home state; more than any modern liberal could hope for.

Unfortunately, modern day Republicans love to attack the poor. They view them as a disease on society and that disease is mostly colored folk.
 
Last edited:
Put down the racism? It was Reagan that preached "state right's" at the Neshoba County Fair and attacked a black welfare Caddilac mother that turned out to be complete hogwash. Ever since then, Republicans have been trying to create a socio-economic class that only benefits the selects few, which happen to be white.

I'll take Goldwater over you charlatans anyday. He voted against the CRA, but was honest about it. He also did much to mitigate racism in his home state; more than any modern liberal could hope for.

Unfortunately, modern day Republicans love to attack the poor. They view them as a disease on society and that disease is mostly colored folk.

Nonsense. And modern day republicans don't push programs designed to keep people addicted to poverty.
 
Put down the racism?

Yes, your liberal social policies have don more to destroy the Black family then slavery ever did. Such social policies are food-stamps, HEAP and Title19; you reward people for having broken homes.

Whenever liberals are called to account for their damaging and anti-social programs, you harp on your intentions as though that justifies the consequences. Then, after undermining the family, you have the balls to turn to Conservatives and use the divorce rate YOU made to try and tell US that WE don't care about the sanctity of marriage.

Liberals are racists. No exceptions. I wish nothing but pain and suffering on each and every one of you, personally, until you convert or die.
 
Last edited:
Nonsense. And modern day republicans don't push programs designed to keep people addicted to poverty.

I've come to regard Obama'Care as the "Democrat Incumbent Forever Act".
 
The richest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per*cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes.

That's because we have a progressive tax system, which is based largely on the idea that people of higher income levels can give a greater % of their income without affecting their quality of life, while lower income people can only afford to give a very small % of their income and still get by.

Those in poverty often need almost all of their income, every month, to pay rent, buy food, ect (get by, ie live paycheck to paycheck) while those who make say $1 million can comfortably give 20-30% to taxes and not see any changes to their quality of life.

That's the idea behind it and why a "flat tax" will not be much of a benefit to those of lower income levels.

As for whether or not the government is effective at using the revenue... that's a whole other debate.
 
Last edited:
Yes, your liberal social policies have don more to destroy the Black family then slavery ever did. Such social policies are food-stamps, HEAP and Title19; you reward people for having broken homes.

Whenever liberals are called to account for their damaging and anti-social programs, you harp on your intentions as though that justifies the consequences. Then, after undermining the family, you have the balls to turn to Conservatives and use the divorce rate YOU made to try and tell US that WE don't care about the sanctity of marriage.

Liberals are racists. No exceptions. I wish nothing but pain and suffering on each and every one of you, personally, until you convert or die.

The programs aren't perfect, I agree, and need to be heavily reformed, but you need to realize that Liberals (at least the ones I know) generally have good intentions when they want to help those less fortunate. And by less fortunate this includes people who are disabled, who have mental issues, who grew up with no education, ect.

Why don't you try to work with them towards a solution instead of attack, where does that get us? Also, with the issue of the CURRENT folks in heavy poverty in our country, would you rather do nothing than do something? And if your answer is what we're doing is not helping, then what would be your solution?
 
Last edited:
The programs aren't perfect, I agree, and need to be heavily reformed, but you need to realize that Liberals (at least the ones I know) generally have good intentions when they want to help those less fortunate. And by less fortunate this includes people who are disabled, who have mental issues, who grew up with no education, ect.

Why don't you try to work with them towards a solution instead of attack, where does that get us? Also, with the issue of the CURRENT folks in heavy poverty in our country, would you rather do nothing than do something? And if your answer is what we're doing is not helping, then what would be your solution?

No that's ok, I'm more then happy to let you use me to springboard yourself into a posture which seems more reasonable. I'll be the fat-friend, no problem, I'm here for you bro.

Compromising with a liberal is exactly, literally like compromising with a pedophile...oh, excuse me, the new liberal term for pedophile is "Minor-Attracted"...link....(thank you gays, we told you this was the next step but you accused us of a slippery slop..well now haha we told you so, so stfu no SSM)


Sure, the "minor-attracted" (aka liberal) would like to have ruff anal sex with your 7 year old. I would rather put a gun in his face and escort him to my incinerator downstairs.

According to you, I should compromise, however.

So, according to you, a 7 y/o giving said "minor-attracted" a blow job is an acceptable compromise.


***
There will be no compromise with Liberals from me. They are on the level of pedophiles, no exceptions. Liberals are wrong on every issue. Even when they pay lip-service to a policy their back-room deals betray their face. It takes more then mere 'intentions' to do right, so intentions mean dick.
 
Last edited:
That's what Obama is asking them to do, yes...and by "ask" I mean "force".

Personally, I would allow all of the Bush tax cuts to expire, leading some members of this group to pay higher income taxes than currently. Obama, however, has called for keeping the cuts for the lower income tiers, so I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.
 
Personally, I would allow all of the Bush tax cuts to expire, leading some members of this group to pay higher income taxes than currently. Obama, however, has called for keeping the cuts for the lower income tiers, so I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

Bush was one of the biggest fiscal liberal around. He started TARP, so using him as an example doesn't do you any favors.

Eliminate the tax code in toto. 15-20% consumption tax across the board, no exemptions, no write-offs. Never make another tax law for as long as this country lives.

/problem
 
The richest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per*cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes.

Those figures seem accurate, but I don't consider that injustice. Nevermind that all taxation combined achieves equilibrium, despite the progressivity of the FIT. If I make $10K this year and $80K next, I'm taxed accordingly. Any American is welcome to take advantage of the tax benefits of relative poverty.
 
Those figures seem accurate, but I don't consider that injustice. Nevermind that all taxation combined achieves equilibrium, despite the progressivity of the FIT. If I make $10K this year and $80K next, I'm taxed accordingly. Any American is welcome to take advantage of the tax benefits of relative poverty.

You can't support charging one economic class more than another while pretending to be for equality, and expect anyone to actually believe you have integrity.

Equality demands that the rich not be taxed a greater % then the poor.
 
Bush was one of the biggest fiscal liberal around. He started TARP, so using him as an example doesn't do you any favors.

Eliminate the tax code in toto. 15-20% consumption tax across the board, no exemptions, no write-offs. Never make another tax law for as long as this country lives.

/problem

I wonder, does your proposal include stock transactions?

Regardless, I'm no proponent of a flat tax. You sacrifice the mathematical leverage of progressivity for the perception of "fairness." But in practice, it truly would be crippling to the poor, considering the level of American debt. Unless, of course, you're also proposing a more robust welfare system to offset those extra costs.
 
You can't support charging one economic class more than another while pretending to be for equality, and expect anyone to actually believe you have integrity.

Equality demands that the rich not be taxed a greater % then the poor.

What sort of equality are you after, exactly? Equality under the law exists in the progressive tax code -- people who make x income pay x rate, regardless of what they made in previous years. Equality of outcome is, essentially, the goal of communism. I doubt you're a communist. Equality of opportunity is the American ideal and one of the compelling reasons for a progressive tax code. We need people to be participants in society, so we lower their burden as they approach the fringe and raise it as they gain self-sufficiency.
 
What sort of equality are you after, exactly? Equality under the law exists in the progressive tax code -- people who make x income pay x rate, regardless of what they made in previous years. Equality of outcome is, essentially, the goal of communism. I doubt you're a communist. Equality of opportunity is the American ideal and one of the compelling reasons for a progressive tax code. We need people to be participants in society, so we lower their burden as they approach the fringe and raise it as they gain self-sufficiency.

I agree with you GhostlyJoe. What do you think about this:

How about 0% tax on everyone's first $20,000 of income, 20% on the next $40,000 (for everyone), and 30% on the next $60,000 (for everyone) and a rate of 35% on anything beyond that?

Everyone taxed in the same exact way. Total equality.
 
No that's ok, I'm more then happy to let you use me to springboard yourself into a posture which seems more reasonable. I'll be the fat-friend, no problem, I'm here for you bro.

Compromising with a liberal is exactly, literally like compromising with a pedophile...oh, excuse me, the new liberal term for pedophile is "Minor-Attracted"...link....(thank you gays, we told you this was the next step but you accused us of a slippery slop..well now haha we told you so, so stfu no SSM)


Sure, the "minor-attracted" (aka liberal) would like to have ruff anal sex with your 7 year old. I would rather put a gun in his face and escort him to my incinerator downstairs.

According to you, I should compromise, however.

So, according to you, a 7 y/o giving said "minor-attracted" a blow job is an acceptable compromise.


***
There will be no compromise with Liberals from me. They are on the level of pedophiles, no exceptions. Liberals are wrong on every issue. Even when they pay lip-service to a policy their back-room deals betray their face. It takes more then mere 'intentions' to do right, so intentions mean dick.


 
I wonder, does your proposal include stock transactions?

Regardless, I'm no proponent of a flat tax. You sacrifice the mathematical leverage of progressivity for the perception of "fairness." But in practice, it truly would be crippling to the poor, considering the level of American debt. Unless, of course, you're also proposing a more robust welfare system to offset those extra costs.

Equality demands that we tax the poor as much as the rich, and the rich as little as the poor. Anything else is discrimination, thus unconstitutional.
 
I agree with you GhostlyJoe. What do you think about this:

How about 0% tax on everyone's first $20,000 of income, 20% on the next $40,000 (for everyone), and 30% on the next $60,000 (for everyone) and a rate of 35% on anything beyond that?

Everyone taxed in the same exact way. Total equality.

Your plan doesn't tax everyone "the exact same way".

Can you even see the words you posted? Giving your intelligence and reading comprehension a civil benefit of the doubt, there must be something wrong with your web browser, or mine, because your post, as it appears on my screen, just clearly summarized an unequal progressive taxation plan.

Equality demands that if incomes of less than $20K are taxed at 0%, that incomes greater than $60K are also taxed at 0%.

Equality demands that if incomes greater than $60K are taxed at 35%, that incomes less than $20K are also taxed at 35%.

Otherwise you are punishing people for being successful, while rewarding people for remaining failures; which is the result and perhaps the expressed intent of Liberal fiscal policy.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you GhostlyJoe. What do you think about this:

How about 0% tax on everyone's first $20,000 of income, 20% on the next $40,000 (for everyone), and 30% on the next $60,000 (for everyone) and a rate of 35% on anything beyond that?

Everyone taxed in the same exact way. Total equality.

Interesting proposal .. it would put the median household's tax burden at about $6K, or a bit over 10 percent, and combined with all other forms of taxation, would definitely hit the middle class a little harder than the current tax code, but I could live with that necessary evil if only because of the sheer size of our debt and national responsibilities. It's going to be painful no matter what.

Personally, I would advocate for a more progressive system than your proposal, but I agree that it's fair. Over the long term, I would like to see all the rates come down to more sustainable levels.
 
Equality demands that we tax the poor as much as the rich, and the rich as little as the poor. Anything else is discrimination, thus unconstitutional.

There is no discrimination. Your membership in a class is determined by your actions, not by immutable qualities, and those actions in turn determine how the law treats you. For the tax code, your bracket status changes as soon as your income-level changes, and most people move up and down in brackets as they move through life. I've personally been taxed at many different rates over the course of life.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by equality ... perhaps you're just trolling?
 
There is no discrimination.

Except that which DavidD succinctly outlined in his post #268.

Your membership in a class is determined by your actions, not by immutable qualities, and those actions in turn determine how the law treats you.

Religion is more a choice then the economic class you were born in.

For the tax code, your bracket status changes as soon as your income-level changes....

One's tax bracket should only change when their Citizen status changes, not their income. Otherwise you're saying some people are more equal than others, which is another reoccurring theme within Liberal circles, ie; Hate-Crime legislation et-al.
 
Except that which DavidD succinctly outlined in his post #268.

For the man who makes $40 a month, that $40 is extraordinarily valuable to him. Without it, he will have no food, he will be unable to pay the rent and maintain a home, he may even not survive.

As for the man who makes $100,000 a month, $40 is practically nothing to him. If he looses that same $40 that the first man has, it will no impact at all on his life.

Income in the form of money does not necessarily carry the same value from person to person. Many people have a hard time grasping this subject, but trust me understanding this is the key to understanding a progressive tax system.

Perhaps one day, you will understand too.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom