• 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:
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
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this information? I'm curious how it's being calculated. For example, when they're counting income, is it only the tax definition of income? Or are they also counting income from investments which are taxed at a lower rate. And I'd also like to figure out what percentage of discretionary income the wealthy make compared to what percentage of taxes they pay.

TurtleDude said:
So I am merely advocating people pay their share of what they use or what they want.
Click to expand...

Which is still asking others to pay more taxes than they currently do so that you can pay less, something you vilify others for.

TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

Do you actually read the stuff I post? Because if you did, you'd know that I don't want to continue anything about the current tax system. On the contrary I want to make massive changes to nearly every part of the US tax code.

The only reason I keep harping on this particular point is because hypocrisy bugs the crap out of me and I rarely let it go without pointing it out.
 
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 do agree that you shouldn't be taxed on any proceeds made from the sale of your primary residence. Saying that all capital gains aren't income at all is silly though. In many cases, people make far more on their investments than the rate of inflation. I'd be okay with reducing the capital gains income by the rate of inflation, but why shouldn't anything in excess of inflation be taxed as income?
 
Catawba said:
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.
Click to expand...

I never said that they did. All I am saying is that when gov't messes with things other things are bound to happen. As those in 1982 changing many laws concerning mortages and mortgage insurance likely never anticipated that 20 years later it would all fall apart. I am saying, without a doubt that changing the taxation laws concerning investment income WILL have economic consequences, more jobs, same jobs or less jobs will result, can you guess which? By saying that prior investment tax law changes have NOT created jobs does that mean reverting back to old (or inventing new) investment rates will create jobs? Perhaps, as I think, it is the very fast growing national debt, making HUGE future tax increases likely, that has stalled the economy. Money lent to the gov't is NOT available to be invested in private business, that is the most likely shift I can see the rich investors making if the (after tax) yield is as good and the risks are smaller. We will see.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I never said that they did.
Click to expand...


Well, what is the incentive for the working class to continue to vote for the tax cuts for the wealthy then?


All I am saying is that when gov't messes with things other things are bound to happen. As those in 1982 changing many laws concerning mortages and mortgage insurance likely never anticipated that 20 years later it would all fall apart.
Click to expand...

We have experience in this case that shows that eliminating the capital gains tax cuts do not hurt our economy, or affect job creation.



I am saying, without a doubt that changing the taxation laws concerning investment income WILL have economic consequences, more jobs, same jobs or less jobs will result, can you guess which?
Click to expand...

Well we had higher job creation when the capital gains rate was higher under Reagan and Clinton.


By saying that prior investment tax law changes have NOT created jobs does that mean reverting back to old (or inventing new) investment rates will create jobs?
Click to expand...

It did not hurt job growth when it was used in the past. Since it is not creating jobs in the the US, why continue reduced revenue that just increases the deficit?

Perhaps, as I think, it is the very fast growing national debt, making HUGE future tax increases likely, that has stalled the economy. Money lent to the gov't is NOT available to be invested in private business, that is the most likely shift I can see the rich investors making if the (after tax) yield is as good and the risks are smaller. We will see.
Click to expand...

It was the Bush recession that stalled the economy. If you want to stimulate the economy we need to reverse the income inequality that most of the wealth concentrated at the top out of reach of consumers who drive production.
 
molten_dragon said:
Where are you getting this information? I'm curious how it's being calculated. For example, when they're counting income, is it only the tax definition of income? Or are they also counting income from investments which are taxed at a lower rate. And I'd also like to figure out what percentage of discretionary income the wealthy make compared to what percentage of taxes they pay.



Which is still asking others to pay more taxes than they currently do so that you can pay less, something you vilify others for.



Do you actually read the stuff I post? Because if you did, you'd know that I don't want to continue anything about the current tax system. On the contrary I want to make massive changes to nearly every part of the US tax code.

The only reason I keep harping on this particular point is because hypocrisy bugs the crap out of me and I rarely let it go without pointing it out.
Click to expand...
your point fails because you think that the tax code is fair now where the rich pay more than 40% of the income and estate taxes. I have no hypocrisy I have never been against paying my share of the taxes. which ranges for my group somewhere between 1% (based on population) or 22% of the federal income tax burden (based on share of the income.


Your idiotic claim that I vilify people completely ignores the current situation.
 
Catawba said:
Well, what is the incentive for the working class to continue to vote for the tax cuts for the wealthy then?




We have experience in this case that shows that eliminating the capital gains tax cuts do not hurt our economy, or affect job creation.





Well we had higher job creation when the capital gains rate was higher under Reagan and Clinton.




It did not hurt job growth when it was used in the past. Since it is not creating jobs in the the US, why continue reduced revenue that just increases the deficit?



It was the Bush recession that stalled the economy. If you want to stimulate the economy we need to reverse the income inequality that most of the wealth concentrated at the top out of reach of consumers who drive production.
Click to expand...

I love how you casually cast aside the property rights and freedom of the rich on the grounds that taxing them at confiscatory rates won't (in your mind LOL) hurt the economy

guess what-ending most welfare programs, or sterilizing the poor wouldn't hurt the economy and might well help it. If personal rights mean nothing than lets at least do something that we know will help the economy
 
TurtleDude said:
I love how you casually cast aside the property rights and freedom of the rich on the grounds that taxing them at confiscatory rates won't (in your mind LOL) hurt the economy
Click to expand...

No one has proposed confiscatory rates. The only rate increases proposed are lower that historic rates when our economy was prospering.
 
Catawba said:
No one has proposed confiscatory rates. The only rates increases proposed are lower that historic rates when our economy was prospering.
Click to expand...

having the rates on investment income go from 15% to 40% is confiscatory

and if you aren't paying 40C on the next dollar you own your claim has absolutely no relevance.

and you have never come close to proving that the economy was better because of those rates

you cannot replicate the dot com bubble so your speculation is garbage
 
TurtleDude said:
having the rates on investment income go from 15% to 40% is confiscatory

and if you aren't paying 40C on the next dollar you own your claim has absolutely no relevance.

and you have never come close to proving that the economy was better because of those rates

you cannot replicate the dot com bubble so your speculation is garbage
Click to expand...


Who has proposed increasing capital gain rates to 40%?
 
Catawba said:
Who has proposed increasing capital gain rates to 40%?
Click to expand...

you don't pay much attention to current events do you?

and investment income is not limited to long term capital gains
 
TurtleDude said:
you don't pay much attention to current events do you?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do, that's why I've not heard anyone propose a 40% capital gains tax rate. I think you just pulled that out of your ass, which is why you cannot back it up with a credible source.
 
Catawba said:
Yes, I do, that's why I've not heard anyone propose a 40% capital gains tax rate. I think you just pulled that out of your ass, which is why you cannot back it up with a credible source.
Click to expand...

one of your fellow travelers on this board said that all income should be taxed at 40% for the rich. so you are lying unless you want to call the guy who likes your posts the most a liar
 
TurtleDude said:
one of your fellow travelers on this board said that all income should be taxed at 40% for the rich. so you are lying unless you want to call the guy who likes your posts the most a liar
Click to expand...

So no politician has proposed a 40% tax rate on Capital gains? You are frantic just because a forum poster suggested it?

:lamo
 
Catawba said:
So no politician has proposed a 40% tax rate on Capital gains? You are frantic just because a forum poster suggested it?

:lamo
Click to expand...

you deny that some people want capital gains and dividend income to be taxed the same for the rich as earned income?

WTF do you think the BUFFETT RULE is designed to do?


Geeez
 
I think they do. I think we unfairly dish out too much money to the poor/lazy.
 
TurtleDude said:
you deny that some people want capital gains and dividend income to be taxed the same for the rich as earned income?
Click to expand...

There are no proposals by Congress or the President I have seen that increase capital gains tax rates to 40%. If there were, you would have provided a source to show us that you didn't just pull that out of your ass. But you haven't, so we know where that figure came from.

WTF do you think the BUFFETT RULE is designed to do?
Click to expand...

Increase capital gain rates to the same as earned income, just as Reagan thought it should be.
 
Catawba said:
There are no proposals by Congress or the President I have seen that increase capital gains tax rates to 40%. If there were, you would have provided a source to show us that you didn't just pull that out of your ass. But you haven't, so we know where that figure came from.



Increase capital gain rates to the same as earned income, just as Reagan thought it should be.
Click to expand...


Its amazing you contradict yourself so easily

you want the rich to pay 40% marginal rates

you want dividend income to be taxed the same as their earned income

QED you want taxes on dividends to be 40%
 
digsbe said:
I think they do. I think we unfairly dish out too much money to the poor/lazy.
Click to expand...


Oh, that explains why the poor/lazy are so well off and the rich are doing so poorly.

Do you really expect anyone but the far right to buy that Digsbe?
 
TurtleDude said:
Its amazing you contradict yourself so easily

you want the rich to pay 40% marginal rates

you want dividend income to be taxed the same as their earned income

QED you want taxes on dividends to be 40%
Click to expand...



Try to focus Turtle. Who has proposed a 40% capital gains tax rate? Link please.
 
Catawba said:
Oh, that explains why the poor/lazy are so well off and the rich are doing so poorly.

Do you really expect anyone but the far right to buy that Digsbe?
Click to expand...
you apparently don't understand things too well. we have given billions to the poor in order for the government to gain power and control and all this has done is to expand dependency

and far more people than the far right (anyone who thinks others pay too much taxes apparently is far right to the moon bat left) are tired of so much money being confiscated to buy the votes of the needy
 
Catawba said:
Try to focus Turtle. Who has proposed a 40% capital gains tax rate? Link please.
Click to expand...

You forgot about the Buffett Rule-an EFFECTIVE tax rate of 30%--WTF do you think that means
 
TurtleDude said:
you deny that some people want capital gains and dividend income to be taxed the same for the rich as earned income?

WTF do you think the BUFFETT RULE is designed to do?


Geeez
Click to expand...

If you double (or more) the capital gains FIT rate then you effectively cut the investment yield of 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 much of the stock market and switches to bonds (tax free interest yield), precious metals and "growth stocks", that can be held (tax free) until the capital gains rate gets changed back to basically what it is now.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If you double (or more) the capital gains FIT rate then you effectively cut the investment yield of 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 much of the stock market and switches to bonds (tax free interest yield), precious metals and "growth stocks", that can be held (tax free) until the capital gains rate gets changed back to basically what it is now.
Click to expand...

if you read the babble posted by those who constantly whine that its "unfair" to tax the investment income of the wealthy less than that of their earned income you will quickly find that economic rationality or an understanding of investment is foreign to these people. rather they are oozing envy that others have the means to invest and they want the government to take more money from those more industrious than they are

their leader set the stage when he admitted he would still want to jack up investment tax rates even if it resulted in less tax revenue because it would be "FAIR"

fair would be all the parasites paying the same rates as the rich do
 
TurtleDude said:
fair would be all the parasites paying the same rates as the rich do
Click to expand...

"The parasites"...disgusting you would call fellow man parasites.
It seems you have some disconnect to the world-one that severely limits your scope and thinking..and leads you to this hyper partisanship
 
Fruityfact said:
"The parasites"...disgusting you would call fellow man parasites.
It seems you have some disconnect to the world-one that severely limits your scope and thinking..and leads you to this hyper partisanship
Click to expand...

an auspicious post for a newbie-so much fail in so few words. parasites are those who demand others support them. and parasites can be rich elitists like John Edwards, indolent middle class people who demand all their subsidies or the poor.

and yes there are plenty of "fellow men" that I have no use for. They deliberately impose costs on the rest of us. They are parasites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom