• 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
I certainly don't demand that you pay for what I use.

Bull. You want the rich to pay less taxes, which, assuming the change would be revenue neutral, would mean that the poor and middle class would have to pick up the slack. So you do want others to pay more for what you use, and yourself to pay less. Honestly, that's pretty much what everyone wants.
 
Many see investment as an evil activity of the rich, not as necessary for economic growth.

I don't see it as evil. I just don't see it as more beneficial than actually doing work in the companies that the rich invest in, which is essentially what we're saying by taxing it at a lower rate.
 
Catawba said:
Let's see how your bio stacks up against Bruce Bartlett. Here is his bio:

Bruce Bartlett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your turn now! Let's see your bio.

Yeah, hard to believe that a man twice my age would have a more distinguished working history.

He went to Rutgers and Georgetown. I went to Michigan. If you want to compare academic legitimacy, I defy you to find one credible list of business schools that ranks the Ross School of Business below anything either Rutgers or Georgetown puts out there.

He even grew up in Ann Arbor. He had the chance to get the quality of education I have, and didn't. Instead he settled for lackluster schools.

Am I supposed to be impressed? Sorry, not happenin'.
 
Yeah, hard to believe that a man twice my age would have a more distinguished working history.

He went to Rutgers and Georgetown. I went to Michigan. If you want to compare academic legitimacy, I defy you to find one credible list of business schools that ranks the Ross School of Business below anything either Rutgers or Georgetown puts out there.

He even grew up in Ann Arbor. He had the chance to get the quality of education I have, and didn't. Instead he settled for lackluster schools.

Am I supposed to be impressed? Sorry, not happenin'.


Oh, were you a domestic policy adviser to a President, a Treasury official, and a Congressional Economist?
 
He went to Rutgers and Georgetown. I went to Michigan. If you want to compare academic legitimacy, I defy you to find one credible list of business schools that ranks the Ross School of Business below anything either Rutgers or Georgetown puts out there.

He even grew up in Ann Arbor. He had the chance to get the quality of education I have, and didn't. Instead he settled for lackluster schools.

Michigan is a great school to be sure, but Georgetown is too. For undergrad, Georgetown is 22nd and Michigan is 28th. For graduate programs Michigan probably pulls ahead in general. There are some areas where Georgetown blows Michigan out of the water and some areas where Michigan destroys Georgetown, but overall they're in the same tier. Michigan is about three times as big as Georgetown, so it certainly has a broader focus. The School of Foreign Service is probably Georgetown's crown jewel. If you rank it separately from the rest of the university for undergrad it would come in 3rd or 4th most years.
 
Bull. You want the rich to pay less taxes, which, assuming the change would be revenue neutral, would mean that the poor and middle class would have to pick up the slack. So you do want others to pay more for what you use, and yourself to pay less. Honestly, that's pretty much what everyone wants.


the rich pay far more than their share. If the middle class and the poor continue to want massive government spending its only fair that they shoulder more of the bill.

Its like saying ten people go to a dinner and everyone had a 15 dollar meal and one guy pays 130 dollars and the other 9 pay 20 and the guy paying the most says he wants to only pay 70 dollars. well yes if the rest want 16 dollar meals they are going to have to come up with the 80 bucks.


You labor under the delusion that the current system is fair-where one percent that makes 22% of the income and certainly does not use anywhere NEAR 22% of the government services funded by the income tax, yet pays 40% of the income tax (and then add the estate-death tax surcharge).
 
Yeah, hard to believe that a man twice my age would have a more distinguished working history.

He went to Rutgers and Georgetown. I went to Michigan. If you want to compare academic legitimacy, I defy you to find one credible list of business schools that ranks the Ross School of Business below anything either Rutgers or Georgetown puts out there.

He even grew up in Ann Arbor. He had the chance to get the quality of education I have, and didn't. Instead he settled for lackluster schools.

Am I supposed to be impressed? Sorry, not happenin'.

Georgetown is a not a lackluster school under any evaluation. Now Michigan Law School is a better law school but the average student at G'Town is probably stronger since Michigan has far easier standards for in state students. The students I know who went to Michigan who had no ties to the state were often those who were competitive at places like Columbia, Harvard, Cornell, Duke and NYU. Many of in state acceptances-not quite, The average G-Town student might not get into Harvard or Yale or Stanford but they were close
 
the rich pay far more than their share.

By your definition of fair. Clearly not everyone agrees with you.

If the middle class and the poor continue to want massive government spending its only fair that they shoulder more of the bill. Its like saying ten people go to a dinner and everyone had a 15 dollar meal and one guy pays 130 dollars and the other 9 pay 20 and the guy paying the most says he wants to only pay 70 dollars. well yes if the rest want 16 dollar meals they are going to have to come up with the 80 bucks.

You can justify it however you want, but the fact of the matter is, you want to do the exact same thing that the poor people you villify so much want to do. You want to shift the tax burden off your shoulders and onto the shoulders of someone else. That's just human nature though, I can hardly blame you for it.

You labor under the delusion that the current system is fair-where one percent that makes 22% of the income and certainly does not use anywhere NEAR 22% of the government services funded by the income tax, yet pays 40% of the income tax (and then add the estate-death tax surcharge).

I don't labor under any delusions. The current system sucks, and is unfair in a lot of ways, that's why I want to change it. And I do care about whether the tax system is fair (though that's not my primary concern). I'm simply not willing to let you get away with the hypocrisy of slamming the poor and middle class for wanting to shift their tax burden onto the shoulders of the wealthy when you come in here and want to do the exact same damn thing in reverse.
 
I did use RED as an example earlier but I could just as easily have used "Lucky Lady in the 5th" for betting on a horse and it wouldn't be much different than what you described - past history of both the horse and jockey. :shrug:

Sorry but that still not comparable.
Companies make money, from productive activity, while horse betters make money from the randomness of one horse winning.
Someone else loses in every case of gambling, while with investing, most people can "win."

Sorry, your gambling comparisons fall flat on their ass.

I will give you the last bit, though, your winnings are deferred when you gamble on stocks. If you want a fast return you might consider a savings account. CD's also pay with deferred savings but it's still taxed as regular income. Why is that???

Investing isn't gambling.
You should stop repeating this nonsense, it makes your arguments look silly.

CD's are insured by the government, your principle is guaranteed, if the bank goes under.
Your only losses being interest and time preference.


I'm not sure we should necessarily give people tax breaks for "investing in the economy" when that economy could just as easily be in China or India. Why should we care if money builds a plant in China to make widgets for Germans or other Chinese?

If you would like a break for American investment then I might see it as reasonable. Otherwise it's just an excuse for some to pay less than others.

We live in a global economy, giving tax breaks for Americans only, is just the same old lame protectionism.
 
Last edited:
By your definition of fair. Clearly not everyone agrees with you.



You can justify it however you want, but the fact of the matter is, you want to do the exact same thing that the poor people you villify so much want to do. You want to shift the tax burden off your shoulders and onto the shoulders of someone else. That's just human nature though, I can hardly blame you for it.



I don't labor under any delusions. The current system sucks, and is unfair in a lot of ways, that's why I want to change it. And I do care about whether the tax system is fair (though that's not my primary concern). I'm simply not willing to let you get away with the hypocrisy of slamming the poor and middle class for wanting to shift their tax burden onto the shoulders of the wealthy when you come in here and want to do the exact same damn thing in reverse.


the difference is we can prove that the rich

1) pay far more of the national tax burden than their share of the income. every group other than the top one or two percent pays less. So while "fair share" is a amorphous concept, we do know that the rich pay more than their share of the income-everyone else pays less

2) we also know that the top one percent-when calculating the two progressive federal taxes-income and estate-pay more than 40% of the tax bill. the top 5% pay more than the rest of the country combined. The rich objectivly pay for services that benefit eeryone else. Everyone else is subsidized by the rich

So I am merely advocating people pay their share of what they use or what they want. That is a huge difference from what you want-you want the rich to continue to subsidize your artificially low taxes so you can get stuff you don't pay for
 
It depends on what you consider "fair". is it based on % of their income that goes towards taxes? is it based on the actual dollar amount that they pay? is it based on the amount they pay compared to the amount of govt furnished services they use?

if you consider that every person in the US benefits from things like roads, public education, defense, R&D, etc, then a rich guy who pays a lower % of his income but a much higher actual dollar amount is paying more of his "fair share" than a guy who is living in govt housing and getting food stamps that is only paying sales and other embedded taxes
 
Sorry but that still not comparable.
Companies make money, from productive activity, while horse betters make money from the randomness of one horse winning.
Someone else loses in every case of gambling, while with investing, most people can "win."

Sorry, your gambling comparisons fall flat on their ass.
If you believe horse racing is random chance you'll have to prove it. Many people say otherwise. It's a race, a competition - it's not throwing dice.

Horses make money from running races. The track makes money from holding the races. It's all business and the gamblers contribute to it.

If most people can "win" with investing then where's this risk you talk about?

Investing isn't gambling.
You should stop repeating this nonsense, it makes your arguments look silly.
You haven't shown me compelling evidence to the contrary. I'm willing to be convinced - do your best.

CD's are insured by the government, your principle is guaranteed, if the bank goes under.
Your only losses being interest and time preference.
That's only true if it's FDIC insured - not all banks are.
 
Last edited:
We live in a global economy, giving tax breaks for Americans only, is just the same old lame protectionism.
And until all businesses and people in all countries are living with the same rules it's not the "same old lame protectionism" - it's leveling the playing field. If China wants to waste it's people by burning them out in 5-10 years (maybe less!) that's up to them but I don't expect our companies or our government to be so callous - DO YOU? We can't stop China from abusing it's people or letting it's companies abuse it's people, but we can sure as hell level the playing field by making it more costly for Americans to invest over there and there's not a damn thing wrong with that.
 
Up to $3000, which you can carry the extra over to the next year.
That's so great, when you may lose several thousand, to million dollars.
So, just to be clear, if you have capital gains of $2M but loose $1M you have to pay taxes on $1.997M? Or do you owe taxes on $1M?
 
The rich objectivly pay for services that benefit eeryone else. Everyone else is subsidized by the rich
Nope! Sorry, a lot of that money is protection money in the form of military expenses (and police and firefighters locally). My wealth is nowhere near as much as yours. Shall we base taxes - or at least military expenses - off our insurance coverage? That seems fair. Your life is worth $2M or more, mine's a whole $100k, maybe. Your house is $5M, mine's $150k. Why the hell should I be forced to pay an equal share of protection compared to you???
 
Last edited:
Nope! Sorry, a lot of that money is protection money in the form of military expenses (and police and firefighters locally). My wealth is nowhere near as much as yours. Shall we base taxes - or at least military expenses - off our insurance coverage? That seems fair. Your life is worth $2M or more - mine's a whole $100k, maybe. Your house is $5M, mine's $150k. Why the hell should I be forced to pay an equal share of protection compared to you???

military expenses benefit everyone. if we were to be invaded by hordes of chinese, you will lose everything you have, same as a rich guy. the net worth of "everything you have" is irrelevant.

My kids are home schooled. using your logic I shouldn't have to pay property tax because I don't use the service that those taxes fund.
 
Nope! Sorry, a lot of that money is protection money in the form of military expenses (and police and firefighters locally). My wealth is nowhere near as much as yours. Shall we base taxes - or at least military expenses - off our insurance coverage? That seems fair. Your life is worth $2M or more, mine's a whole $100k, maybe. Your house is $5M, mine's $150k. Why the hell should I be forced to pay an equal share of protection compared to you???

Let's use a simple burglery as an example. Who would lose more, a poor uninsured household or a rich insured household? Even discounting the insurance factor, the rich can easily replace the lost property with little or no effect on their ability to feed and clothe their family or pay their mortgage/rent. ;-)
 
Last edited:
military expenses benefit everyone. if we were to be invaded by hordes of chinese, you will lose everything you have, same as a rich guy. the net worth of "everything you have" is irrelevant.
Of course it's relevant since we're talking about money. Bring a wrongful death suit about a dead millionaire compared to a dead janitor and see what the courts say about what a human life is worth.

My kids are home schooled. using your logic I shouldn't have to pay property tax because I don't use the service that those taxes fund.
No, that would be using TD's logic. I was just applying that logic a little more fairly than he was. ;)
 
who benefits more from a police presence? a rich guy living in a high end neighborhood or a poor guy living in the ghetto?
 
Of course it's relevant since we're talking about money. Bring a wrongful death suit about a dead millionaire compared to a dead janitor and see what the courts say about what a human life is worth.

it is not relevant at all because, after the fact, you both would have NOTHING. preventing that end state is what defense spending is about.
 
So, just to be clear, if you have capital gains of $2M but loose $1M you have to pay taxes on $1.997M? Or do you owe taxes on $1M?

If you buy an asset (say a house), at fair market value, and later sell that assest, at fair market value, did you really make any gain (or loss)? While that asset may have gone up (or down) in dollar value you still have exactly enough pre-tax dollars left to buy only that same asset. Capital gains, if not adjusted for inflation, are basically meaningless "paper" profits/losses.
 
Let's use a simple burglery as an example. Who would lose more, a poor uninsured household or a rich insured household? Even discounting the insurance factor, the rich can easily replace the lost property with little or no effect on their ability to feed and clothe their family or pay their mortgage/rent. ;-)
Insurance seldom covers everything, though the Cadillac policies and people mis-representing values might make the difference. In any event, I have insurance and I still don't have that much to loose compared to Daddy Warbucks.

The poor have almost nothing to loose. They have a $100 wardrobe, a $20 stereo, and if there are holes left in the wall or the door's bashed in, well, it's not their walls or door - it's the landlord's door and wall.
 
it is not relevant at all because, after the fact, you both would have NOTHING. preventing that end state is what defense spending is about.
If we get invaded, win or loose, I most likely won't survive anyway. I'd rather die defending my home than give it up. I'm not sure the rich would be as willing.

Besides, what we're really talking about here isn't full-scale invasion. You want me to pay 2/350,000,000th of the cost to maintain the nuclear arsenal??? I'll do that. If someone invades, nuke the bastards!!

Everything else is an overseas protection racket that I'm not willing to pay for beyond what my life and property are worth, which is as I discussed above.



PS
But keep in mind - this is TDs idea of "taxation" - pay only for what you use. That's NOT my idea.
 
Last edited:
If you buy an asset (say a house), at fair market value, and later sell that assest, at fair market value, did you really make any gain (or loss)? While that asset may have gone up (or down) in dollar value you still have exactly enough pre-tax dollars left to buy only that same asset. Capital gains, if not adjusted for inflation, are basically meaningless "paper" profits/losses.
"Fair market value"? You're kidding, right? Even with cars and real estate it's an illusion - didn't the housing bubble just prove that?



If they're meaningless then why bother with them at all?
 
Back
Top Bottom