• 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
MoSurveyor said:
"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?
Click to expand...

My point, exactly. If you bought your home in 1980 for $120K and sold it in 2000 for $200K, then you made no "gain" since you can still only afford to buy back that exact same home, not an $80K "better" one.
 
MoSurveyor said:
"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?
Click to expand...

No. The housing bubble did not prove that value is an illusion. It proved value is only momentary. Just like stock, beenie babies and real estate, every fair market value is in flux...it is constantly changing.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
My point, exactly. If you bought your home in 1980 for $120K and sold it in 2000 for $200K, then you made no "gain" since you can still only afford to buy back that exact same home, not an $80K "better" one.
Click to expand...
I'm still not able to connect all the dots here. Either you left one out or I missed it. What's your overall point, again?
 
MoSurveyor said:
I'm still not able to connect all the dots here. Either you left one out or I missed it. What's your overall point, again?
Click to expand...

That capital gains, especially on the sale of your home, are not real income at all, and should not be taxed as such.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That capital gains, especially on the sale of your home, are not real income at all, and should not be taxed as such.
Click to expand...
I believe there are specific tax laws about the sale of your primary residence - at least there used to be.
 
MoSurveyor said:
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.
Click to expand...

that goes against your logic. the rich guy should be more willing..since he had so much more to lose.

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!!
Click to expand...

nuke 'em where? their home country? what good would that do when their troops are HERE breaking down your door? nuke 'em here and kill them and us? seems counter-productive

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.
Click to expand...

so you are saying that since a rich guy has more "stuff" his life is worth more than yours so he should pay a higher % for defense than you?


regardless: FWIW I think including services that benefit everyone in a discussion of what is a "fair share" to pay is disingenuous.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I believe there are specific tax laws about the sale of your primary residence - at least there used to be.
Click to expand...

Only that you may 'defer' the taxation of the capital gain, on the sale of your primary residence, by purchasing another of greater value.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Only that you may 'defer' the taxation of the capital gain, on the sale of your primary residence, by purchasing another of greater value.
Click to expand...
There used to be a one-time write off you could take. They may have phased it out, I haven't been keeping track since we bought our last home 17 years ago.
 
OscarB63 said:
that goes against your logic. the rich guy should be more willing..since he had so much more to lose.
Click to expand...
No, if he dies he looses it all and since he has more to loose he's less willing to die. If he stays alive he may get it back some day - but he may have to live in slavery or some other undesirable state for awhile. What I have isn't worth living like that, I'd rather die.

But if you would care to show that 1% of the military comes from "The 1%" of the population I may be persuaded to change my mind.

OscarB63 said:
nuke 'em where? their home country? what good would that do when their troops are HERE breaking down your door? nuke 'em here and kill them and us? seems counter-productive
Click to expand...
Nuke it all. If I'm going to die what do I care?!? And if other countries understand this they will not take the chance of invading, it won't be worth the risk.

OscarB63 said:
so you are saying that since a rich guy has more "stuff" his life is worth more than yours so he should pay a higher % for defense than you?
Click to expand...
I didn't say his life is worth more, the courts already do that, he already does that, his life insurance policies or whatever other financial backups are in place will say that. And, yes, his "stuff" figures into the equation. If the rich don't mind loosing their "stuff" then why the hell are we having this discussion??



OscarB63 said:
regardless: FWIW I think including services that benefit everyone in a discussion of what is a "fair share" to pay is disingenuous.
Click to expand...
I think dividing things up into "fair share" is disingenuous because there is not and can never be an objective definition of it.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
I think dividing things up into "fair share" is disingenuous because there is not and can never be an objective definition of it.
Click to expand...

with this I agree 100%. life isn't fair. some people are born smarter or more athletic or better looking, etc than others. some people are born into richer families than others. contrary to popular belief we are NOT all created equal.

my whole problem with the "rich aren't paying their fair share" squeals is that it usually comes from those who are paying little or nothing themselves and just want to punish the rich for being "luckier" than they are...or to get more "free" stuff handed to them.

I was not born rich and I am far from rich now. I have worked hard to provide a comfortable life for myself and my family. It pisses me off to see some "poor" person cry that I should work even harder so that they can have a better life. or worse yet, see some douchebag on the interweb (who is probably richer than I am) say the same.
 
OscarB63 said:
with this I agree 100%. life isn't fair. some people are born smarter or more athletic or better looking, etc than others. some people are born into richer families than others. contrary to popular belief we are NOT all created equal.
Click to expand...
No we're not created equal. But that doesn't mean anyone should be treated like dirt, either. It takes everyone to make this country work, not just some or a special few.

OscarB63 said:
my whole problem with the "rich aren't paying their fair share" squeals is that it usually comes from those who are paying little or nothing themselves and just want to punish the rich for being "luckier" than they are...or to get more "free" stuff handed to them.
Click to expand...
I think on this forum that's a huge and most likely false assumption. I know I'm not getting stuff for free. I've worked decades to get what I've got, I've made a fairly good living, and I'm ready to settle back and relax to some extent. I expect my SSA investment to be returned some day but other than that I'm happy with what I've done and where I am.

OscarB63 said:
I was not born rich and I am far from rich now. I have worked hard to provide a comfortable life for myself and my family. It pisses me off to see some "poor" person cry that I should work even harder so that they can have a better life. or worse yet, see some douchebag on the interweb (who is probably richer than I am) say the same.
Click to expand...
The latter is the worst sort in my book. That "poor little rich me" routine makes me sick. I also don't expect to support people forever, either, but I understand people get into binds once in awhile and see no problem helping them out for a short while.

I also know that what we're seeing now is almost beyond living memory. Only the oldest of the old remember the Great Depression, and these times are second only to those times as far as general hardship goes. For the rich or even slightly affluent to get on their high horse at times like these - well, it certainly shows their true and disgusting colors.



PS
I don't like the idea of people being on unemployment for 3 years but I'm also fairly sure if the jobs were there they'd be filled quickly enough. When there are 4 people for each job you can't expect everyone to "get a job".
 
Last edited:
tax.png

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/17/247409/bachmann-23000-millionaires/
 
Catawba said:
tax.png

As Richest Pay Lowest Taxes In A Generation, Bachmann Would End Income Tax For 23,000 Millionaires | ThinkProgress
Click to expand...

What I see when I see that graph, and assuming its content as true and correct is the goverment takes too much money. 13% and 16% is too much period. That graph doesnt include all the other taxes that are paid like sales fuel property ect. The government takes way too much at all levels. Its pretty sad when chevron makes 6.2 cents on a gallon of gas and the goverment makes at least 35 cents. I dont care what you think of chevron but no goverment should make more on a product than the people making it.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Its pretty sad when chevron makes 6.2 cents on a gallon of gas and the goverment makes at least 35 cents. I dont care what you think of chevron but no goverment should make more on a product than the people making it.
Click to expand...
What a crazy way to think. The government makes no money at all on gasoline. In fact, the government losses money on gasoline because, overall, the amount of gasoline burned driving on government maintained roadways does not return enough money to pay for all the maintenance required, let alone building new roadways or expanding existing ones.
 
Last edited:
PirateMk1 said:
What I see when I see that graph, and assuming its content as true and correct is the goverment takes too much money. 13% and 16% is too much period. That graph doesnt include all the other taxes that are paid like sales fuel property ect. The government takes way too much at all levels. Its pretty sad when chevron makes 6.2 cents on a gallon of gas and the goverment makes at least 35 cents. I dont care what you think of chevron but no goverment should make more on a product than the people making it.
Click to expand...


I can see why the uber-rich that care nothing about the economy or their fellow citizens would see it that way.
 
Last edited:
I responded by saying " no".....the wealthy pay way too much. Only a class envious tool or commie SOB would disagree with that fact.
 
Catawba said:
tax.png

As Richest Pay Lowest Taxes In A Generation, Bachmann Would End Income Tax For 23,000 Millionaires | ThinkProgress
Click to expand...

OK let's see here, I assume that we are talking about the "individual" tax returns of the richest 400 people in the U.S. and comparing that to the average of millions of people that fall into the mythical "median" spectrum. Lets make two assumptions: 1) the median income is based on wages and 2) the 400 rich people get the vast majority of their income from non-wage sources. One big factor, right off the bat, is SS/Medicare is a 6.4% tax bump in the rate of the median income, and has little if any affect on the rich. The next factor is that the rich are not rich because they are stupid, they play the tax law game using the best available tax lawyers, tax accountants and, yes, tax law lobbyists to "tweek" both their investments and the tax code itself to maximize their gain and minimize their taxation. One very simple and legal way to do this is by switching from stock dividends (fully taxable) to growth stocks (capital gain tax rate) or gov't bonds (non-taxable). I am not sure what federal taxes are included but assume FIT, FICA and excise taxes are. The percentage of fuel, alcohol, tobacco and etc. excise taxes (if included) would also fall much heavier upon the median income folks than the rich, since personal consumption of these items is about the same amount even for the uber-rich. What would also be an interesting graph bar addition is the percentages paid by these two groups of the total of all federal taxes.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
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.
Click to expand...

The horse is an animal, even when trained well, it can still decide not to give it's all.
It can break a bone or become injured, making the history of winnings irrelevant.


MoSurveyor said:
If most people can "win" with investing then where's this risk you talk about?
Click to expand...

Because sometimes, even when a company adds value, consumers don't want the product, causing the investors to lose money.
The company may be formed at the wrong time and suffer from an economic down turn.

MoSurveyor said:
You haven't shown me compelling evidence to the contrary. I'm willing to be convinced - do your best.
Click to expand...

That's only because you choose not to see it.
I've given enough information to you, to show that they aren't the same thing.
You're ignoring it.

MoSurveyor said:
That's only true if it's FDIC insured - not all banks are.
Click to expand...

No, just the vast majority of them are.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK let's see here, I assume that we are talking about the "individual" tax returns of the richest 400 people in the U.S. and comparing that to the average of millions of people that fall into the mythical "median" spectrum. Lets make two assumptions: 1) the median income is based on wages and 2) the 400 rich people get the vast majority of their income from non-wage sources. One big factor, right off the bat, is SS/Medicare is a 6.4% tax bump in the rate of the median income, and has little if any affect on the rich. The next factor is that the rich are not rich because they are stupid, they play the tax law game using the best available tax lawyers, tax accountants and, yes, tax law lobbyists to "tweek" both their investments and the tax code itself to maximize their gain and minimize their taxation. One very simple and legal way to do this is by switching from stock dividends (fully taxable) to growth stocks (capital gain tax rate) or gov't bonds (non-taxable). I am not sure what federal taxes are included but assume FIT, FICA and excise taxes are. The percentage of fuel, alcohol, tobacco and etc. excise taxes (if included) would also fall much heavier upon the median income folks than the rich, since personal consumption of these items is about the same amount even for the uber-rich. What would also be an interesting graph bar addition is the percentages paid by these two groups of the total of all federal taxes.
Click to expand...
The full document the chart came from. I haven't read even close to all of it but I do not believe FICA is included.

www.ips-dc.org/files/1675/ShiftingResponsibility.pdf
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK let's see here, I assume that we are talking about the "individual" tax returns of the richest 400 people in the U.S. and comparing that to the average of millions of people that fall into the mythical "median" spectrum. Lets make two assumptions: 1) the median income is based on wages and 2) the 400 rich people get the vast majority of their income from non-wage sources. One big factor, right off the bat, is SS/Medicare is a 6.4% tax bump in the rate of the median income, and has little if any affect on the rich. The next factor is that the rich are not rich because they are stupid, they play the tax law game using the best available tax lawyers, tax accountants and, yes, tax law lobbyists to "tweek" both their investments and the tax code itself to maximize their gain and minimize their taxation. One very simple and legal way to do this is by switching from stock dividends (fully taxable) to growth stocks (capital gain tax rate) or gov't bonds (non-taxable). I am not sure what federal taxes are included but assume FIT, FICA and excise taxes are. The percentage of fuel, alcohol, tobacco and etc. excise taxes (if included) would also fall much heavier upon the median income folks than the rich, since personal consumption of these items is about the same amount even for the uber-rich. What would also be an interesting graph bar addition is the percentages paid by these two groups of the total of all federal taxes.
Click to expand...

You are correct that poor people have ****ty lobbyist and that the far right thinks unearned income should be taxed at a lower rate than earned income.
 
MoSurveyor said:
The full document the chart came from. I haven't read even close to all of it but I do not believe FICA is included.

www.ips-dc.org/files/1675/ShiftingResponsibility.pdf
Click to expand...

It appears that it does not, but I could not say that for sure either, as the article flip-flops between "total federal tax burden" and "overall effective FIT rates" in the span of a mere sentence or two. The bottom line is this. If you double (or more) the capital gains federal tax rate then you effectively cut the investment yield (dividends rate) of blue chip stocks to less than that of many tax free bond investments, which will likely have two very bad "unintended" consequences: 1) less activity (and value) for these more price static and higher yield stocks and 2) less overall tax revenue as money leaves the blue chip stock market and switches to bonds (tax free interest yield), precious metals and "growth stocks", that can be held (tax free) until the law gets changed back to basically what it is now. ;-)
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
The horse is an animal, even when trained well, it can still decide not to give it's all.
It can break a bone or become injured, making the history of winnings irrelevant.
Click to expand...
And this somehow makes it more/less random than a company that might change CEOs, or change suppliers, or be affected by any number of other uncontrollable variables in the market?

Harry Guerrilla said:
Because sometimes, even when a company adds value, consumers don't want the product, causing the investors to lose money.
The company may be formed at the wrong time and suffer from an economic down turn.
Click to expand...
So investing is random, too?

Harry Guerrilla said:
That's only because you choose not to see it.
I've given enough information to you, to show that they aren't the same thing.
You're ignoring it.
Click to expand...
I'm not ignoring anything. "Investing" money is a gamble, it's a bet. The investor (gambler) is betting that the company (horse) he's putting his money behind (betting on) will make money for him (win).

The only difference you've shown so far is the winnings from gambling aren't deferred, which basically means they're short-term gains instead of long-term. I admitted that earlier, did you miss it? (And, yes, I understand the difference in the tax rates for short and long-term gains.)

Harry Guerrilla said:
No, just the vast majority of them are.
Click to expand...
But there's no special deal for those that aren't FDIC insured, are there? The IRS gives no special rate for investing in CD's at a non-FDIC bank or other uninsured financial institution, right?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It appears that it does not, but I could not say that for sure either, as the article flip-flops between "total federal tax burden" and "overall effective FIT rates" in the span of a mere sentence or two. The bottom line is this. If you double (or more) the capital gains federal tax rate then you effectively cut the investment yield (dividends rate) of blue chip stocks to less than that of many tax free bond investments, which will likely have two very bad "unintended" consequences: 1) less activity (and value) for these more price static and higher yield stocks and 2) less overall tax revenue as money leaves the blue chip stock market and switches to bonds (tax free interest yield), precious metals and "growth stocks", that can be held (tax free) until the law gets changed back to basically what it is now. ;-)
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that our higher capital gains tax rates under Reagan and Clinton hurt our economy. And there is no evidence that the lowered capital gains tax rates have created more jobs in the US.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It appears that it does not, but I could not say that for sure either, as the article flip-flops between "total federal tax burden" and "overall effective FIT rates" in the span of a mere sentence or two. The bottom line is this. If you double (or more) the capital gains federal tax rate then you effectively cut the investment yield (dividends rate) of blue chip stocks to less than that of many tax free bond investments, which will likely have two very bad "unintended" consequences: 1) less activity (and value) for these more price static and higher yield stocks and 2) less overall tax revenue as money leaves the blue chip stock market and switches to bonds (tax free interest yield), precious metals and "growth stocks", that can be held (tax free) until the law gets changed back to basically what it is now. ;-)
Click to expand...
Well, at least we're finally getting past (I hope!!) the BS side of the story and focusing on what affect capital gains taxes actually have - and why they're changed from time to time.

Right now it might be a good thing to have people investing in bonds, especially state and municipal bonds to get some capital improvements projects (that's the construction industry) moving again. It also wouldn't hurt for small and medium businesses to get a boost as well. So the bonds are looking like maybe a good route for the economy. Not sure how commodities would fair but I think most are kind of high right now, so I don't see anyone jumping whole-hog into that.
 
MoSurveyor said:
And this somehow makes it more/less random than a company that might change CEOs, or change suppliers, or be affected by any number of other uncontrollable variables in the market?
Click to expand...

And those changes, while unpredictable are still different than gambling.
"Investing" in a number, horse, dog, lottery ticket, is different from investing in an ownership interest in a business.

Your "investments" in those gambling activities, do not produce value added, products or services.

MoSurveyor said:
So investing is random, too?
Click to expand...

Some aspects of investing are random.
That doesn't mean it's gambling.

MoSurveyor said:
I'm not ignoring anything. "Investing" money is a gamble, it's a bet. The investor (gambler) is betting that the company (horse) he's putting his money behind (betting on) will make money for him (win).

The only difference you've shown so far is the winnings from gambling aren't deferred, which basically means they're short-term gains instead of long-term. I admitted that earlier, did you miss it? (And, yes, I understand the difference in the tax rates for short and long-term gains.)
Click to expand...

What does the horse produce?

MoSurveyor said:
But there's no special deal for those that aren't FDIC insured, are there? The IRS gives no special rate for investing in CD's at a non-FDIC bank or other uninsured financial institution, right?
Click to expand...

There aren't, but that's likely because the number of uninsured banks is hardly present.
I'm sure it's based on the idea that the government doesn't want uninsured banks and thus, they do not encourage this economic activity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom