• 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!

Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $60k

Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $60k


  • Total voters
    50
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

View attachment 67116010

That's what responsibility is all about. I hope this has cleared things up for you.

Other people pay for me? No. I don't think so. I think I pay for the portion that I use. I am taxed afterall. I didn't get anything from anybody. Society and I have an agreement - we'll all chip in - and have national protection, local protection and roads to drive on. Just another mutually beneficial agreement. Don't act like I get these services without have to put anything towards it. I don't owe society thanks for giving them just as much as they gave me.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

Monthly ExpensesGuerrillaStandard of livingNotes
food$440$450450 sounds reasonable if you make all your meals at home and buy in bulk.
childcare$0$200$10/day * 20 days a month
medical $100$200for a family of 2 or more, its at LEAST $200 a month for complete coverage. I pay $282 for myself and wife from a company with outstanding benefits. I don't know how you only pay $100/month for 3-4 people.
mortgage$470$800Low end rental rates are about $800 for 2-3 bedroom. Purchasing a home today even with low interest rates still puts you above $800/month not including insurance, PMI, repairs, etc (150k house, 5.5% rate, 30 years). So i think at LEAST $800 is a more reasonable number for the average American.
transport$71$318$50 to fill tank and fill 2.5 times per month = $150
Registration = $60/12month=$5/month. Car insurance minimum coverage $1/day → $30/month
Car payments = $5000 vehicle with 5 year loan at 0% APR = $83/month
Assume about $50/month for repairs/oil change/maintenance/tires/etc
other$60Other: toiletries, clothes, shoes, phone, tv/internet
utils$200electricity, gas, trash/sewer, water, prop taxes, home owners/renters insurance
Monthly total$1,081$2,228
Yearly total$12,970$26,736


These are just basic necessities.

My mortgage payment includes Principle, Interest, Taxes and Insurance.

The rental prices around here are not $800 a month, not anywhere close.
My townhouse, before I bought this house, was in a nice neighborhood and I paid $625 for it, that was high for my area.
This is literally one of the best times in history to purchase a home, $800 a month is not the gold standard.

My phone is $50 a month, I use a cell instead of a wired line, much more economical.
Tv and internet is $50-60 a month.
Electricity fluctuates but averages to around $150 or so.

The cost of living here is lower than the area you are quoting as average.


If I'm the Queen of England.... you get the picture.

I think you highly over estimate that state of affairs in the US. As indicated by your own spending, you have a significant advantage many others do not with extremely small rent, medical insurance, etc. As the analysis shows, the 25k/year income can only sustain the most basic needs of an American family and that is with no extra money left over whatsoever! These are just basic necessities,

I am completely aware of how much it costs to live.
If you live in an area where you find it to costly to make ends meet, it may be time to move to an area where you can.

That's just basic common sense.




What type of rate and return are you anticipating exactly?


CPI has been about 2-3% inflation per year.

Stock market returns for last 100 years is about 9-10% per year.

Calculate compound interest

Lets assume you work and save from the time you are 25 to a 70 (45 years)
Assume a yield of 7%. And monthly contribution of $200.
You will have $760,000 in saving for retirement. How many years of living does that provide you if there is no SS or other benefits?


Lets calculate on the very high side:
Lets assume you work and save from the time you are 20 to a 75 (55 years)
Assume a whooping yield of 9%!!! And monthly contribution of $200.
You will have $3,700,000 in saving for retirement. How many years of living does that provide you if there is no SS or other benefits?


So looks like if you can save +$200 a month you will probably be OK.... if you start early.

Whoa, who said anything about having no SS or "other benefits?"

Members of a society both reaps rewards and share the burden of consequences. Everyone is responsible for their fair share, rich or poor.

Rich people already pay taxes.

How does that have anything to with your LUCK being:
1 born intelligent
2 in this country
3 in this time period
4 without cerebral palsy
5 without downs syndrome
6 not orphaned before the age of five
It's all about your response to bad circumstances.
Make the better choice and you can lessen those negative effects.

Just as Sam said, you attempt to claim credit for the above things when you had no hand in their outcome whatsoever!

The vast majority of people are born without serious physical disabilities, not orphaned at 5 and most Americans (since this is a topic about taxation in America) are born in America.
Some of those distinctions are ridiculous and shouldn't have been included.


How did you personally ensure that you were:
1 born intelligent
2 born in this country
3 born in this time period
4 able to avoid cerebral palsy, cancer, etc
5 born without downs syndrome
6 not orphaned before the age of five

According to you happenstance and chance (luck) had nothing to do with it!:roll: No one is trying to take credit where credit its deserved. But its astounding arrogant to take credit where none is earned. And the above things ( among many many many more things) you did not earn!

Luck and chance are two different things.
Luck is based on some quasi religious belief in mystical forces.

Chance is randomness in the universe.

I'm not taking credit for any of those, but your likely to find, as I pointed out with that chart, that most people have problems with money because they handle money like idiots.
These programs are not creating any incentive for people to have personal financial soundness.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

fredmertz said:
That is an excellent point. And if not for the opportunity to buy land yourself, I would have to agree with you. But in the US, so long as you have the opportunity to get a job, the opportunity to save and buy the land, then any shortfall is not that of society's, but of yourself.

This misses the point entirely, for two reasons:

1) If I'm one of the landowners, I'll just agree with the others like me to pay wages such that no one, or hardly anyone, ever has an opportunity in reality to buy any land (land, here, just meaning anything that allows someone to become wealthy purely on their own labor). The opportunity exists, but only on paper. In reality, the opportunity is quite slim.

I happen to know, because I was once one of those who was a "landowner" in this context, and such collusion was commonplace, and completely untraceable. I quit and gave up much of my wealth to do something that would actually help people.

2) In this society, even if someone could buy land, they'd very likely not be solely responsible for whatever we produced from it. We're simply too intertwined and interconnected to think otherwise.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

fredmertz said:
That is an excellent point. And if not for the opportunity to buy land yourself, I would have to agree with you. But in the US, so long as you have the opportunity to get a job, the opportunity to save and buy the land, then any shortfall is not that of society's, but of yourself.

Actually, the more I think about this, the more I think your reply is really just a red herring. The question isn't whether someone has the opportunity to become wealthy themselves (though certainly, my earlier remarks would still apply to that question). The question is whether those who currently are really owe their wealth to their own labor, or to the support system of society. I think both conceptually, and empirically, we could easily say it's rather more to the latter than the former. Just one simple point ought to suffice to show this: are the wealthy people of today any wealthier than the wealthy people of, say, one thousand years ago? I think the clear answer is that they are. The average king in Europe or the Middle East or North Africa lived a lifestyle that would be considered horrid by today's standards. The wealth of someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett couldn't even have been conceived by such as William the First or Ivan the Terrible (who were surely the wealthiest of men for their time).

Now, is it the case that the wealthy have become personally that much better at extracting wealth? If we were to transport Bill Gates or Warren Buffett back to 1000 A.D. would they still enjoy the lifestyle they enjoy today? Obviously not. Why not? Clearly, because the social support systems which enable their lifestyles today weren't present at that time.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

warren is just another pimple on the ass of capitalism

There's a name for the logical fallacy you just used. It's known as an ad hominem attack, which is attacking someone personally rather than addressing the ideas presented. It's often used by people who either can't or don't want to use reason. Read up on it:
Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It doesn't. Everyone uses roads, bridges, etc... not everyone starts up a or keeps a successful business or corporation. The romance with "soak the rich" in taxes while still claiming "everyone must give their fair share" while ignoring 40% of the poplation does pay a cent of income taxes is irony at it's finest.

The point is not that a person doesn't deserve credit for success. He or she does. The point is the government and society create an environment in which that success is possible. We all benefit from services like roads, police, defense, schools, libraries, etc., regardless of what level of success we're at. All are responsible for paying in. And most people are successful to some degree. Someone who builds a multimillion dollar corporation that employs thousands is successful. Someone else who is inspired to join the police force and protect others is also a success. Though less successful financially, this person is highly successful at creating value for society. In both cases, the person is rightfully expected to pay into the system that if we didn't have, we would be screwed. It's not about class warfare. It's about responsibility for all. When we have a system that allows GE to not only pay no taxes, but get corporate welfare, something's screwed up. When some billionaires pay less percentage in taxes than people earning 60K per year, that's a problem. It's not about soaking the rich, but about creating fair shared responsibility. If someone comes in here advocating a 90% tax bracket, I'll join you in opposing that. We have to determine what would be fair. Maybe we can start with proclaiming that GE paying zero percent plus getting money back isn't exactly responsible.

Just another blathering class warfare idiot making yet another excuse for more class warfare.
Another ad hominem attack. See above.


Other people pay for me? No. I don't think so...

Yes, they do. You did not personally pay for all the roads, libraries, schools, fire departments, the military, etc. You paid for a tiny fraction of it, and that's fine. Everyone's responsible for paying their own tiny fraction. I personally am fortunate enough to have never needed to call the fire department, but I'm perfectly fine to pay for that even though it's only helped others directly thus far. I'm glad if I ever need it, it's there. If we had a system where you only paid for your used portion, you would never pay any taxes to a fire department until you needed their services; then if you needed them you would get some ridiculous bill of 200K or however much it costs for a fire department to respond to a call. It's way better to just have everyone consistently pay in some taxes. We all pay in for each other. We're all responsible for each other.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

We should all pay a flat tax on goods and services period. That way even gangsters will be paying their fair share and illegals as well. Just add 10% to any sale in the country on any item or service for the federal government and abolish the IRS. We would save billions a year by eliminating the IRS and the federal government would have to learn to live within a budget. We have to maintain a budget, they should have to as well. It's common sense.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

The point is not that a person doesn't deserve credit for success. He or she does. The point is the government and society create an environment in which that success is possible.
And before government and society created said environment, if a company needed to get from point A to point B to sell their product, they would make a road to do that or travel the shortest distance by the most economical means available at the time. The point you made I understand but don't agree with.

We all benefit from services like roads, police, defense, schools, libraries, etc., regardless of what level of success we're at. All are responsible for paying in. And most people are successful to some degree. Someone who builds a multimillion dollar corporation that employs thousands is successful. Someone else who is inspired to join the police force and protect others is also a success. Though less successful financially, this person is highly successful at creating value for society. In both cases, the person is rightfully expected to pay into the system that if we didn't have, we would be screwed.
Corporations, individuals who created those corporations, the employees, everyone already pays in - so what you identify as everyone's benefit, is therefore already paid for. If we decided that we weren't going to pay into the system the system would change - but a portion of us would not be "screwed" at all. Those who know nothing but dependency on the system would be screwed, those who are a little more creative and individualistic will create a new system or work around the broken system to continue to be successful.

It's not about class warfare. It's about responsibility for all.
Otherwise known as "the common good", and "it takes a village". It very much IS about class warfare when one group is singled out as "fat cats" and then targeted to foot the bill for 40% who pay in $0. If everyone uses the roads, everyone should pay in, including the 40% who currently pay nothing.

When we have a system that allows GE to not only pay no taxes, but get corporate welfare, something's screwed up.
Agreed, and when we have 40% of the populating paying $0 income taxes, something is even MORE screwed up, which is why I like a flat tax. It's the same for everyone, it requires 100% compliance and it's "fair". You believe in "fair" don't you?

When some billionaires pay less percentage in taxes than people earning 60K per year, that's a problem. It's not about soaking the rich, but about creating fair shared responsibility. If someone comes in here advocating a 90% tax bracket, I'll join you in opposing that. We have to determine what would be fair. Maybe we can start with proclaiming that GE paying zero percent plus getting money back isn't exactly responsible.
Then you would agree that the 40% who pay $0 dollars is just as much of a problem yet you don't seem to want to mention that ... how come?


Another ad hominem attack. See above.
Above is where the comment came from in the first place. And sometimes you have to call a duck a duck, even when others don't agree. Nice side step by the way. Primo.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

There's a name for the logical fallacy you just used. It's known as an ad hominem attack, which is attacking someone personally rather than addressing the ideas presented. It's often used by people who either can't or don't want to use reason. Read up on it:
Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The point is not that a person doesn't deserve credit for success. He or she does. The point is the government and society create an environment in which that success is possible. We all benefit from services like roads, police, defense, schools, libraries, etc., regardless of what level of success we're at. All are responsible for paying in. And most people are successful to some degree. Someone who builds a multimillion dollar corporation that employs thousands is successful. Someone else who is inspired to join the police force and protect others is also a success. Though less successful financially, this person is highly successful at creating value for society. In both cases, the person is rightfully expected to pay into the system that if we didn't have, we would be screwed. It's not about class warfare. It's about responsibility for all. When we have a system that allows GE to not only pay no taxes, but get corporate welfare, something's screwed up. When some billionaires pay less percentage in taxes than people earning 60K per year, that's a problem. It's not about soaking the rich, but about creating fair shared responsibility. If someone comes in here advocating a 90% tax bracket, I'll join you in opposing that. We have to determine what would be fair. Maybe we can start with proclaiming that GE paying zero percent plus getting money back isn't exactly responsible.


Another ad hominem attack. See above.




Yes, they do. You did not personally pay for all the roads, libraries, schools, fire departments, the military, etc. You paid for a tiny fraction of it, and that's fine. Everyone's responsible for paying their own tiny fraction. I personally am fortunate enough to have never needed to call the fire department, but I'm perfectly fine to pay for that even though it's only helped others directly thus far. I'm glad if I ever need it, it's there. If we had a system where you only paid for your used portion, you would never pay any taxes to a fire department until you needed their services; then if you needed them you would get some ridiculous bill of 200K or however much it costs for a fire department to respond to a call. It's way better to just have everyone consistently pay in some taxes. We all pay in for each other. We're all responsible for each other.

there are several obvious problems with your rant. First of all many do NOT pay for others. Many use more in government services than they pay in total taxes. . Fire Department, police etc are mainly from local taxes such as property taxes. and those of us who pay higher state taxes cover the costs of those who don't pay much state taxes.

The rich tend to be rich because they do stuff others value. In fact the rich benefit society greatly. They also don't use near as many government services as they pay in federal taxes.

Warren is scum. another rich elitist power hungry turd who panders to people like you and engages in class warfare so she can become even richer. She seduces suckers who think she really cares about the untalented.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

It's funny to me, the idea of "they deserve" vs. "they're lucky" or whatever. I think we should start considering taking people's kids if they have extra to give to those who don't have any. Maybe we could cut some height off of anyone who's over 5'10" and give it to people who are 5'6" or less. How about limit the amount of time "the rich" can spend outdoors? Afterall, they have money, why should they have sunlight, too? I think if you live too long, someone should injure you severely - I mean, what's the deal with being soooo healthy when I've been sick a lot in my life? I'd like to limit the amount of time people can exercise because I'm out of shape and it makes me feel bad.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

Taxed more in quantity? Yes. Taxes at a higher rate? No.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

Ockham said:
Agreed, and when we have 40% of the populating paying $0 income taxes, something is even MORE screwed up

Yes, what's screwed up is that that 40% can't afford to pay income taxes. GE, on the other hand, and the average billionaire, certainly can afford it.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

Yes, what's screwed up is that that 40% can't afford to pay income taxes. GE, on the other hand, and the average billionaire, certainly can afford it.

where do you get off claiming 40% cannot pay any income tax?
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

No, people should pay the same flat rate.
I voted no. Someone who makes a billion dollars should pay just as much in taxes on income as much as everybody else does.No more no less.
This is academic, because they do pay more.
Flat tax is the only "fair" option.
I’m sorry but just because the percentage is equal for two tax rates does not mean it’s “fair.” Such thoughts ignore the inverse relationship between effort and income. There is decaying effort to make a buck – the more discretionary money you have, the easier it is to make more money. Lots of people would love to be making enough money in interest alone to live on. With easier money should come higher tax rates to compensate. And save your “hard work” arguments here. Nobody is ever going to convince me that one man is capable of working hundreds or thousands of times harder than the average man.


if a billionaire does not receive any additional value he really should not have to pay anymore…
It doesn't. Everyone uses roads, bridges, etc... not everyone starts up a or keeps a successful business or corporation
These don’t make any sense. A billionaire absolutely uses more of these resources. Not only does he need them for himself, but now his wealth depends on all of his employees, contractors, suppliers, etc using these resources as well. Maybe China will invade us some day – maybe then we’ll see what a billionaire thinks of his “fair share” of the military.


There should be no tax on income but on consumption.
Good luck passing that regressive nightmare. The only people a consumption tax is favorable to is the children of the wealthy, and their children’s children, and……ah crap does that mean that luck of birth argument is shot too?


though I understand reality and some additional taxes will be taken from the successful and productive to make up for the untalented and unproductive
For every story of “success” or hard work, I’ll give you 10 of luck, right place, right time, or even morally or criminally questionable.


the lengths people go through to justify confiscating wealth they had nothing to do with creating.
Kinda tends to go along with the lengths other people go thru to convince that the following aren’t true:
1) Progressive taxes are a solid part, the larger part, and the better part of American history.
2) One good idea or business move should not be enough to set generations of a family up forever.
3) The world is chaos – a person’s place in life is much more than just a factor of choice – even for those that don’t believe that.


The rental prices around here are not $800 a month, not anywhere close.
My townhouse, before I bought this house, was in a nice neighborhood and I paid $625 for it, that was high for my area.
How lucky for …uh I mean how strategic for you. $625 would get a two bedroom apartment in a reasonable area for me. $450 would barely get me a house with bars and a crack-addict neighbor.
That said, good for you for making a good life for yourself. But under most progressives’ plan, we would chose an increased chance of success for your children and mine, over the increased success of a man being able to buy a 7th home (not the 5th or the 6th mind you, just the 7th).
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

can you prove a billionaire uses more than he pays in taxes while the poor do not?

a billionaire pays more income taxes than 80 million Americans combined. So it is your position a billionaire uses more direct government services than those 80 million?
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

can you prove a billionaire uses more than he pays in taxes while the poor do not?

a billionaire pays more income taxes than 80 million Americans combined. So it is your position a billionaire uses more direct government services than those 80 million?

Taxes are not based on use of government services. To pretend that such a standard is applicable is a fallacy and to engage in intellectual fraud.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

Taxes are not based on use of government services. To pretend that such a standard is applicable is a fallacy and to engage in intellectual fraud.

That is a more honest way of allocating taxes than the marxist standard of FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITY that most of the left adopts
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

Common sense reasoning: It's ethical and moral to steal from someone who has a lot of money. It's immoral to charge someone for services they use if they don't have much money. It's ok to steal from the company you work for, but it's much more ethical to steal from someone else's company. Everyone knows these things.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

That is a more honest way of allocating taxes than the marxist standard of FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITY that most of the left adopts

It is the most impractical way to structure a tax system by your own previous admission that such a scheme would not work.

Would you like me to provide a link to your own thoughts on the impracticality of this taxation as retail shopping model? I would be glad to.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

It is the most impractical way to structure a tax system by your own previous admission that such a scheme would not work.

Would you like me to provide a link to your own thoughts on the impracticality of this taxation as retail shopping model? I would be glad to.

I also noted that we could divide the expenses up and allocate an equal bill to each person. that would be easy to do. and we could easily figure who is a net tax payer and who is a net tax consumer

and why do so many of the welfare socialists pretend the rich use more if they are not engaging in the similar analysis that I do?
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

I also noted that we could divide the expenses up and allocate an equal bill to each person. that would be easy to do. and we could easily figure who is a net tax payer and who is a net tax consumer

Yes Turtle, I understand you did advocate for that. You have changed your position on taxation many times giving us many different stances and defending many different - sometimes opposite - tax policies. I have those at had to present to you if you need them.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

Yes Turtle, I understand you did advocate for that. You have changed your position on taxation many times giving us many different stances and defending many different - sometimes opposite - tax policies. I have those at had to present to you if you need them.

You are being dishonest about my position

I have always supported as the best practical solution a consumption tax first and a flat tax second

Theoretically I support a flat even charge for everyone with increased benefits for those who pay more than their share of that flat fee. But the two practical approaches prevent the masses from voting up the rates of others pain free. that is the goal-to prevent the masses from being seduced to vote for your party based on promises that your party will take money from the wealthy to buy the loyalty of the masses
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

can you prove a billionaire uses more than he pays in taxes while the poor do not?
Can you prove that he doesn't? Who does an earthquake effect more, the employee that can't get to work, or the business owner who's business grinds to a halt because nobody can get to his business?

a billionaire pays more income taxes than 80 million Americans combined. So it is your position a billionaire uses more direct government services than those 80 million?

Can you prove the effort required to make a billionth dollar is the same as the effort to make the first dollar?
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

pdog said:
Can you prove that he doesn't? Who does an earthquake effect more, the employee that can't get to work, or the business owner who's business grinds to a halt because nobody can get to his business?

Can you prove the effort required to make a billionth dollar is the same as the effort to make the first dollar?

I think you like strawmen more than Frank Baum. Marginal income has absolutely no basis in this argument.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

Being a proponent of flat taxes I would say yes but I believe that flat taxes should be broken down into different percentages based on income.

The flat part comes from there not being any deductions etc. no one however should be taxed more than 25% and that would be for people who earn in the Millions. Most people should pay less than half that, and those just above and below the poverty line should pay nothing at all.

We should have a small Federal sales tax not to exceed 5% on anything including Gasoline, but not including food, drugs, and rent.
 
Re: Should someone who earns $1 billion a year be taxed more than someone who makes $

I voted no on this poll, but I assure I am far from rich. To tax one person more than the other is unfair. To try to tax the rich more is theft. If a homeless person came to you and said, "You look like you're more well-off than I am, can I have half the money on your wallet?" You'd probably at the very least give him an earful.

No one is entitled to another's earnings. Self-reliance is key.
 
Back
Top Bottom