• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes in the United States?

Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

  • Yes

    Votes: 58 48.3%

  • No

    Votes: 62 51.7%
  • Total voters
    120
TurtleDude said:
Its more complicated than that. If you demand X amount of government services or use X amount of government services but someone else has to pay more taxes than you do so you can enjoy that x amount of government services than they are giving you money
Click to expand...
What government services do I use? You can keep the military. My little kingdom isn't worth spending $2000/year to have the government defend it. (I still left $2000/year for escort duty but by all rights business ought to pay for that!!!) I don't give a **** about airports, either, so you can scrape the FAA and that whole system, what do I care? I seldom use the freeway, it's mostly local streets and highway paid for by local taxes. Uncle Sam pays damn little to my school system - we can make up for that easily. Unless you've got some Big Ticket item up you sleeve that I missed most of my Fed tax money isn't used for me or mine. Get a clue, you're not the only one that "pays for nothing" selfish --- the only difference is I don't bitch about it everyday because I think it's necessary for society.
 
MoSurveyor said:
What government services do I use? You can keep the military. My little kingdom isn't worth spending $2000/year to have the government defend it. (I still left $2000/year for escort duty but by all rights business ought to pay for that!!!) I don't give a **** about airports, either, so you can scrape the FAA and that whole system, what do I care? I seldom use the freeway, it's mostly local streets and highway paid for by local taxes. Uncle Sam pays damn little to my school system - we can make up for that easily. Unless you've got some Big Ticket item up you sleeve that I missed most of my Fed tax money isn't used for me or mine. Get a clue, you're not the only one that "pays for nothing" selfish --- the only difference is I don't bitch about it everyday because I think it's necessary for society.
Click to expand...

in other words your claim that everything you have you earned is not accurate. The military protects everyone. You cannot say your life is worth less than someone else's. Do you know what income level is normally the break between being a net federal tax payer vs a net tax consumer? I have heard several numbers but all of them end up being around 115K of earned income a year-slightly more if its only investment income
 
TurtleDude said:
capital gains are also subject to much more risk than salary which is another reason why they are taxed lower. dividends are taxed lower because the same pile of money has already suffered a massive government grab before they are distributed
Click to expand...
Risk?!? Please. You and I are both well aware of the risk. Sell that to someone else, don't push it here.
 
TurtleDude said:
in other words your claim that everything you have you earned is not accurate. The military protects everyone. You cannot say your life is worth less than someone else's. Do you know what income level is normally the break between being a net federal tax payer vs a net tax consumer? I have heard several numbers but all of them end up being around 115K of earned income a year-slightly more if its only investment income
Click to expand...
I certainly can say my life is worth less if I'm willing to give it up. Would you FORCE ME to buy life insurance?!? In essence that's what you're saying here.

I'm a simple person so I don't care what other people need, or rather think they need, in their day-to-day lives or what other things are going on out there in Lala Land beyond my limited, little world - so why should I be required to pay for it?!? For example, as noted earlier they can trash the entire airline industry and I wouldn't care. In fact, I want my breathable and quiet air back from those stinking and noisy aircraft!

So your "numbers" are worthless to me because they're no doubt based on assumptions that I need this and I need that when, in fact, I don't need all that crap!
 
MoSurveyor said:
What government services do I use? You can keep the military. My little kingdom isn't worth spending $2000/year to have the government defend it. (I still left $2000/year for escort duty but by all rights business ought to pay for that!!!) I don't give a **** about airports, either, so you can scrape the FAA and that whole system, what do I care? I seldom use the freeway, it's mostly local streets and highway paid for by local taxes. Uncle Sam pays damn little to my school system - we can make up for that easily. Unless you've got some Big Ticket item up you sleeve that I missed most of my Fed tax money isn't used for me or mine. Get a clue, you're not the only one that "pays for nothing" selfish --- the only difference is I don't bitch about it everyday because I think it's necessary for society.
Click to expand...

LOL. Much of what you claim not to need or want is benefitting you whether you see that or not. Let me attempt to respond, point by point, to your posted points. National defense preserves ALL of your rights by assuring that no other nation can take advantage of you; that includes not only your personal safety but all trade agreements that you benefit from. You may not care about air travel, for your own use, but certainly don't want aircraft buzzing your home or dropping on it from lack of regulation. You may not wish to use large freeways, but certainly enjoy the benefits of them for getting goods trucked in to that local store that you shop in and keeping heavy truck traffic off of many of your local roadways. Education, I will grant you, is not a federal responsibility but your state will not turn down that "free"" federal money offered to it, and your state/local taxes are thus kept artificially low. I agree that many federal expenses are out of control, especially social services that are basically simply income redistribution and that many federal programs are loaded with inefficiency, fraud and serve little purpose other than to perpetuate a permanently gov't dependent underclass. You must remember that YOUR representatives in DC depend on your vote, as well as your tax money, to keep this nonsense going. Vote early and vote often to attempt to change this madness.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
LOL. Much of what you claim not to need or want is benefitting you whether you see that or not. Let me attempt to respond, point by point, to your posted points. National defense preserves ALL of your rights by assuring that no other nation can take advantage of you; that includes not only your personal safety but all trade agreements that you benefit from. You may not care about air travel, for your own use, but certainly don't want aircraft buzzing your home or dropping on it from lack of regulation. You may not wish to use large freeways, but certainly enjoy the benefits of them for getting goods trucked in to that local store that you shop in and keeping heavy truck traffic off of many of your local roadways. Education, I will grant you, is not a federal responsibility but your state will not turn down that "free"" federal money offered to it, and your state/local taxes are thus kept artificially low. I agree that many federal expenses are out of control, especially social services that are basically simply income redistribution and that many federal programs are loaded with inefficiency, fraud and serve little purpose other than to perpetuate a permanently gov't dependent underclass. You must remember that YOUR representatives in DC depend on your vote, as well as your tax money, to keep this nonsense going. Vote early and vote often to attempt to change this madness.
Click to expand...
Most of it doesn't benefit me at all! That's the point. YOU may think it does because YOU need it - but I don't need it, so it doesn't benefit me.

I allocated $2000/year for the military to provide trade route protection, which by all rights should be paid for with company money. So that's fine, I'll switch that $2000/year to personal protection. The thing is, even if the military were only 1/5th it's size - that's a whopping $800/year for my wife and I - it would still be the biggest gorilla in the cage. Besides, push comes to shove I've got the Constitution and Missouri National Guard for protection. Lot's of woods and hills around here, not easy to capture. Good luck, Mexico.

Planes should be shot down, we don't need them except the Militia for combat use.
In fact, I should sue every airline for disturbing the peace and endangering my health.

Let businesses pay for the freeways. You're taxing and charging for consumption anyway. Let's make sure the cost of something actually equals what it costs!

I can make up the education differences. I already addressed this issue. Lame. NEXT!

Oh, you're out of issues and not one of which isn't better covered in another way. Let the companies pay for it all and increase their product costs likewise. That way when I buy a local tomato I'm not paying for a patch of freeway in BFE that I never use or a carrier guarding a shipping lane I don't need.
 
Last edited:
:soap
molten_dragon said:
This is the problem right here. Yes, anyone can do it. Not everyone can do it. Yes, maybe the janitor will end up owning the janitorial company, and maybe the burger flipper will end up being the store manager someday. But that doesn't reduce the need for janitors and burger flippers. There are always going to be some doing the menial unskilled labor in this country, and unless we decide to pay those people more, those people are always going to be relatively poor.
Click to expand...
My bad I did not make my point well enough. Those people are NOT for the most part going to be Janitors ect. for the REST of their lives unless they actively choose to. Most people with any common sense move up and beyond simply because they have increased their salable skills themselves or found another opportunity. To be honest with you anybody that is a janitor after 20 years and not own there own company, is either A. a goverment employee, B. unmotivated C. a speacial needs case. In either case it not my responability or the responsibility of government to cater to them.(cases A and B.) Case C speacial needs is just that. Thats why we have charitable orginizations. Those menial jobs you keep talking about are not ment as careers they are stepping stones. If they are looked at as other well I cant help stupid, and I aint about to try. I used to do janitorial work, and made pizzas and did a lot of menial manual labor when I was younger, I dont anymore. As do MOST of my contemporaies. I still do a bit of manual labor on occasion, but I get triple digit hourly pay for it. (I hate doing it and I try to discorage it by charging utterly ridiculus amounts to do it, but some people have more money than sense. ;) ) If you are 40 and have only made minimum wage for your life and have a familiy to boot, then I can say with absolute surity you are a unmotivated fool. To be honest I cant think of too many jobs where someone with the least amount of motivation cannot move up in position responsibility and pay. I am acually finding it hard now that I really think about it. In my opinion the whole notion of the working poor is complete and utter BS now that I really think about it. If you lose your job and got to work at Mcdonalds or else where I really doubt you are going to be stuck doing that for the rest of your life with out at least attempting to do something about it. This is really starting to T me off.:mad::censored
 
MoSurveyor said:
Let's review. Capital gains taxes are lower because, in theory, if it's taxed less then people will invest more.

Now you want to tax consumption, which by the same principle means you want to discourage consumption.
In other words, you believe there is too much consumer demand right now, which is why you want to tax it.

LOL! Who are you trying to kid?!?
Click to expand...
Dude you need to read the rest of my tread. Really.:)
 
Keridan said:
Okay, you do have a point, so I will retract my use of the word "ridiculous". However, I still think it's overstated. You can find more benefits and do have some additional control, but to be fair, medical costs are deductible from regular income taxes. In most cases where you either take a draw or spend on something personal, you still end up paying income taxes on that. As for the GE issue, the shareholders still pay income taxes even though corporate taxes were evaded. When the money ends up being income for someone, the taxes are still paid.

I'm structured S-Corp which has benefits, but if I put any money in my pocket or spend it on my family, I still pay some sort of taxes. I do get to choose between CG and income, though. At my current earnings, FIT is cheaper.
Click to expand...
I hear you. I would like to point out, that the IRS code, if you printed it on standard paper and in fine print, would kill a large mammal if dropped from a height of 10ft. So my unsolicited advice would be not to stand under a printed copy of the IRS code, it may be hazardous to your health. :eek::twisted::allhail
 
Last edited:
PirateMk1 said:
Dude you need to read the rest of my tread. Really.:)
Click to expand...
No, not really. You've made your opinion all too clear.

The problem is the same as it's always been. The rich want one standard for themselves and another for everyone else. Nothing new to see here ...
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
No, that would mena poorer people pay more, carry more of the burden.
Click to expand...
The OP didn't ask about practicality or doing the least harm. It asked about fairness, and I gave the obvious answer.
 
MoSurveyor said:
No, not really. You've made your opinion all too clear.

The problem is the same as it's always been. The rich want one standard for themselves and another for everyone else. Nothing new to see here ...
Click to expand...

As if you don't? You simply think a fair system leaves the "poor" untaxed, the "middle" moderately taxed and the "rich" to be severely taxed to make it "fair". You seem to think that a (flat) single tax RATE is "unfair" even if it has a "standard" deduction of $10K.
 
Last edited:
PirateMk1 said:
I guess nobody wants to answer so I will post anyhow. If you are offended, too bad. :2razz: First of all I asked the question how many of you own a business or run one because I wanted to know if any of you have any true idea of the tax code is and why it is so convoluted, to use a mild term. If you are employed you are being taxed the highest, by PAYING your taxes FIRST then SPENDING what is left over SECOND. Businesses on the other hand SPEND their money FIRST, then PAY taxes on the leftovers SECOND. Most people who are in congress are fairly wealthy, and they wish to keep it. Most congressmen did NOT make their money being EMPLOYED. They did it though investing, or owning a buisness, or inherintence. Hence the laws are going to be such that they will be able to keep and make more wealth. If you are employed you will most likely NEVER gain any appreaciable wealth. To gain wealth requires calculated risk by investment, in youself, or others. Thats just the way things are rigged in this country. I am the owner of a corporation, I pay as little tax as I possibly can leagaly. Most of my money that I spend is BEFORE it is taxed. This gives me a huge advantage over someone who is just employed as I reduce my gross income down to a fraction of that of the employed person, with that spending. The courts say I have absolutely no obligation to pay more. I will not. I would rather spend my money on assets or with other people, then spend it on the goverment. I consider my self taxed too much because I have to spend so much time considering the Tax ramifications of anything I do. I have to employ accountants and lawers to make help me take advantage of every tax loophole or exculsion I can. This is money I can use otherwise to upgrade equipment, employ people and sponser more charities. This is time and effort that could be used to be more productive and take advantage of more opportunities.

If I am going to be miserable, I d rather be wealthy. I dont know anyone who does not want to be wealthy. Wealth is FREEDOM. The goal of every American ought to be Finacially independent and then free. Wealth allows you the freendom to stand up for yourself, your priciples.

Taxes in my opinion should be no more then 10% total all inclusive on your SPENDING. That includes state and local taxes. If its good enough for god, its good enough for goverment. The locals would collect it and keep 40% and pass the rest to the state. The state would then keep 50% and give 50% to the feds. The totals would break down this way Locals get 40%, state and feds get 30% each, for a total of 100%. The tax would be on all NEW goods and on services. No exemptions. No other tax or fee or other goverment revenue collection would be allowed. The locals would have their state by the short and curlies, and the states would have the feds by the short and curlys as well. This would apply to everyone and every business. Sweet and simple, and equitable.

Thats my take. Cheers.:)
Click to expand...

MoSurveyor said:
No, not really. You've made your opinion all too clear.

The problem is the same as it's always been. The rich want one standard for themselves and another for everyone else. Nothing new to see here ...
Click to expand...
Wrong. :eek:uch::smash: Again. I prefer freedom. For me, for you, for everyone else. What you do is your business so long as you dont interfear with mine. You set YOUR standards however you like. I could really care less. I want to be left alone, to pursue what makes me happy. If I dont interfear with you and your happiness what do you care about what I do or how much I make? Taxes should be applied equally. You get taxed 10%, I get taxed 10%. Thats what I want. I prefer the sales tax simply because it affords people the freedom to not pay those taxes if they desire. The government does not steal directly from your paycheck. Which as far as I am concerned is a huge plus. Income taxes can only be avoided by not having an income. By the way I am not "rich", I am wealthy. There is a difference. I EARNED EVERY penny I have, by busting my butt. This is why I despise thieves. The only good ones are hanging from trees.:twisted:
 
ttwtt78640 said:
As if you don't? You simply think a fair system leaves the "poor" untaxed, the "middle" moderately taxed and the "rich" to be severely taxed to make it "fair". You seem to think that a (flat) single tax RATE is "unfair" even if it has a "standard" deduction of $10K.
Click to expand...
I don't believe you will find anywhere that I said that. If so please show post#, otherwise, please stick to the facts instead of making crap up.
 
MoSurveyor said:
The rich want one standard for themselves and another for everyone else. Nothing new to see here ...
Click to expand...

Not true at all. I simply wish to be left the **** alone, but since I'm in a certain tax bracket, some people just won't rest until every dime my family has belongs to the government. Those people can eat a bowl of dicks.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Wrong. Again. I prefer freedom. For me, for you, for everyone else. What you do is your business so long as you dont interfear with mine. You set YOUR standards however you like. I could really care less. I want to be left alone, to pursue what makes me happy. If I dont interfear with you and your happiness what do you care about what I do or how much I make? Taxes should be applied equally. You get taxed 10%, I get taxed 10%. Thats what I want. I prefer the sales tax simply because it affords people the freedom to not pay those taxes if they desire. The government does not steal directly from your paycheck. Which as far as I am concerned is a huge plus. Income taxes can only be avoided by not having an income. By the way I am not "rich", I am wealthy. There is a difference. I EARNED EVERY penny I have, by busting my butt. This is why I despise thieves. The only good ones are hanging from trees.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

Read: "If you don't want to pay taxes then don't buy anything!"

Exactly what I said earlier, discourage people from buying.


A long-ass paragraph with pretty graphics (gee, did the wife 'pic' those for you?) to say exactly the same thing over, and over, and over. Are you going to do it again?!?!? I'll paste and copy my response next time. :yawn:
 
PirateMk1 said:
Its not a lottery in this country. It is a fallacy to presume that every one that is a janitor or a store clerk is going to remain so for the rest of their lives. That is the furthest thing from the truth. Yes we need janitors and et all, but what makes you think that they will not eventualy own they own janitorial service, or retail store, or burger joint? You think all those businesses are owned by the "rich". The biggest business in America today is Small business. Mom and pop business. Owning gas stations, and stores, and janitorial services.
Not everyone wants to be a doctor or lawyer. By the way out of all the doctors and lawyers you have met, how many were truly wealthy? News flash most people in business dont work 40 hours a week. If they did they wouldnt be in business long. They routinely work 80 hrs a week or more. In other words they bust their butts to get ahead. If you cant make it in this country you cant make it anywhere. All it requires in this country is the willingness to bust your ass. Period. You dont need special knowledge or a even a degree. Hell you dont even have to finish high school. Its a matter of making reasonably decent choices and comiting yourself to a course of action. That is it. Anybody can make money in this country. Will you have as much as Bill Gates probably not. Will you be able to be finacially free? Hell Yea. ANYONE CAN DO IT IF THEY PUT THEIR MIND TO IT. :soap:ranton::twocents:
Click to expand...
So we have to sacrifice our personal lives and personalities to become workoholic zombies, or else we deserve to be dissatisfied economically? The grind creates greedhead monsters, who become a danger to society, their neglected heirs, and themselves. In order to win a rat race, you have to become a rat. Why become road kill for these racing rodents, who think of themselves as high achievers as they go faster and faster when their obsessive greed grows larger and larger and can never satisfy them? They and the economies they run ragged finally crack up and drain an exhausted national spirit.
 
Lokiate said:
I'm not going to flee in the face of adversity. I'm also not going to give in to the demands of the self entitled generation.
Click to expand...
Then you obviously prefer conflict over tranquility.

I have no clue what this "self-entitled" thing is you're going on about, though.
 
Lokiate said:
Sounds more like an incentive to move up in the world, to me.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to be getting it either. I'm not sure why, since the concept is fairly simple. Not everyone can move up in the world. Not everyone can become wealthy, or even middle class. There will always be someone at the base of the totem pole, and those people don't get paid much. It may not be the same people all the time, but it's always going to be roughly the same number.

Lokiate said:
Plus, janitorial work can actually pay pretty well. I made more as a janitor, than I did as a Soldier.
Click to expand...

Okay, then that was a bad example. I've never done janitorial work, so I don't know what it pays. Just insert some menial job that doesn't pay much instead.
 
TurtleDude said:
the top one percent should not be paying more than 22% of the income tax if they receive 22% of the income.
Click to expand...

I wonder what percentage of the discretionary income those people receive? If we take away the income necessary to just buy the basics. Subtract what it costs to buy enough simple food to live on, a cheap apartment, basic clothes, care for your kids (if you have them), transportation to and from work from everyone's salary and call the rest discretionary income. I wonder what percentage the top one percent would receive then?
 
TurtleDude said:
you could have different tax rates on different items but that really wouldn't achieve what you want. and its rather silly to determine what is a luxury without knowing why something is being bought. For some guy on welfare-a wide screen TV is a luxury. For someone whose business is a sports bar not so much. For a suburban housewife, a big diesel truck is a luxury-for a contractor hauling lots of tools-nope.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it could be done though. You could make taxes higher on items that cost more than a certain fraction of your annual salary. Or you could do some research and discover what sorts of items people in the top 1% often buy that others don't, and tax those items more heavily.

Again, I'm not saying it's a good idea. And you may be right that it's a little more difficult to figure out exactly how to do it with a sales tax than an income tax. My point is just that it could be done, so a sales tax won't necessarily guarantee that the majority can't vote for higher taxes on the minority, which is the goal you seem to have in mind. So what if it's more complicated? Having a complicated tax code has never seemed to bother politicians up to this point, I don't see why it would in the future if it served their goals.
 
molten_dragon said:
I wonder what percentage of the discretionary income those people receive? If we take away the income necessary to just buy the basics. Subtract what it costs to buy enough simple food to live on, a cheap apartment, basic clothes, care for your kids (if you have them), transportation to and from work from everyone's salary and call the rest discretionary income. I wonder what percentage the top one percent would receive then?
Click to expand...

The simple and effective way to deal with that is by using the "standard" deduction; by exempting the first $10K from FIT and applying a single rate of taxation to all income above that point you get a "fair" yet "progressive" basis for taxation. Using a 20% taxation rate and $10K standard deduction consider the following example: Citizen A makes $20K/year, while citizen B makes $100K/year; Citizen A pays $2K in taxes or 10% of their gross income, citizen B pays $18K in taxes or 18% of their gross income. Wasn't that easy and "fair"? A FIT code with only two numbers, won't the lobbyists be mad?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom