• 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
DA60 said:
You won't prove it because obviously you cannot prove it.
You have posted 2700 times - so you obviously have the time and enjoy posting.
Plus, you have typed some fairly long posts in just the short time I have been here - so you obviously like spending time discussing economics.
So you have spent ALL this time posting and now you say you cannot be bothered?
Sorry pal - that does not even begin to ring true.
Why, just in the time you have spend deflecting my request for links - you could have posted several of them easily...so please save the rhetoric of you cannot be bothered - it does not wash.
As anyone with a clear head could see - you clearly have no links to unbiased, factual proof or you obviously would post them.
Like I typed - all style, little substance.
I will try and remember that about you in the future so I don't waste my time chatting with someone who never backs up what he claims.
No offense, but any idiot can do that...the person to respect is one who backs up their positions - even if they turn out to be wrong.
Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
:lamo :lamo :lamo
 
MoSurveyor said:
:lamo :lamo :lamo
Click to expand...

Once again folks....I have asked him time and again to prove his ideas with links to unbiased facts.

And once again he counters with insults and put downs and excuses...but NO LINKS TO FACTS.


Noted.
 
DA60 said:
Once again folks....I have asked him time and again to prove his ideas with links to unbiased facts.
And once again he counters with insults and put downs and excuses...but NO LINKS TO FACTS.
Click to expand...
You made claims, too, so go ahead, Duuuude, show us all your historic examples of how unfettered capitalism works for several hundred million people. I'm sure with all your BS, crap, insolence, and slams you have dozens of them to link. Not dozens of links, mind you, but dozens of cases from history where unfettered capitalism has endured.


I'll be waiting ... NOT ... because they don't exist!



It's interesting how

:lamo :lamo :lamo

are "insults and put downs and excuses".

I guess the first laughing smilie is insults
the second laughing smilie is put downs, and
the third laughing smilie is excuses???


And he wonders why I'm not going to debate anything!!! :lamo
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Today's taxes lowest in 60 years

"Yes, while we demand tax cuts, we're actually paying less, as a percentage of income, than ever before. And we're doing it while soldiers are fighting."

"As Republicans and Democrats continue to bicker over who should be taxed and how much, one fact rarely gets mentioned: Most Americans today pay less in federal income taxes than they have in 60 years, and far less than they have during other wars.

This is particularly true for the wealthy: By 2007, the richest 400 Americans paid an average of 16.6% in income taxes, thanks to exemptions and low capital-gains taxes, far less than the same group had paid decades ago and well below the 26.4% that group had been taxed only 15 years earlier."

"Overall, taxes are very low right now," said Chuck Marr, the director of federal tax policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan Washington, D.C., research group. In addition, "you have this tremendous shift (of wealth) in the United States to high-income people."

Today's taxes lowest in 60 years - 1 - money & politics - MSN Money
Click to expand...

Why do you try to equate the richest 400 people as being representative of the rich other than to be dishonest? Taxes are low on the 47% who pay no income taxes and the rich pay a higher portion of the income tax burden than at any time in the last 60 years. You operate from the position that massive taxes on the most productive citizens is the normal status rather than the proper position that income taxes were not a normal event for more than half our history.

Lower taxes do not shift wealth to the rich-rather they TAKE LESS wealth away
 
MoSurveyor said:
You made claims, too, so go ahead, Duuuude, show us all your historic examples of how unfettered capitalism works for several hundred million people. I'm sure with all your BS, crap, insolence, and slams you have dozens of them to link. Not dozens of links, mind you, but dozens of cases from history where unfettered capitalism has endured.


I'll be waiting ... NOT ... because they don't exist!



It's interesting how

:lamo :lamo :lamo

are "insults and put downs and excuses". I guess that's one BS remark for each laughing smilie?!? :lamo
Click to expand...

As soon as you show me links to prove the point you made above (which I have asked you for numerous times now)...I will be pleased to provide links to unbiased evidence to support a position I have made.

I have already posted many links to unbiased facts to attempt to prove my points...you have not (to my knowledge)...dude.
 
DA60 said:
The government should have NOTHING to do with the economy at ALL.
Click to expand...
DA60 said:
As soon as you show me links to prove the point you made above (which I have asked you for numerous times now)...I will be pleased to provide links to unbiased evidence to support a position I have made.

I have already posted many links to unbiased facts to attempt to prove my points...you have not (to my knowledge)...dude.
Click to expand...
There is no such historic data so don't bother telling tall tales.

Pie-in-the-sky ideals don't count and neither does Ayn Rand's valley from Atlas Shrugged. LOL!
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
There is no such historic data so don't bother telling tall tales.

Pie-in-the-sky ideals don't count and neither does Ayn Rand's valley from Atlas Shrugged. LOL!
Click to expand...

So for - what is it the fifth time - I have asked this guy to back up his claim with a link to unbiased, factual data.

And yet again he refuses.

I give up.


Just let me know MS when you can answer the question...I have things i would rather do then this silly back-and-forth.


Have a nice day.
 
US-Tax-Rate-History-1024x540.png


http://mymoneycounselor.com/historical-income-tax-rates
 
The 47% Myth: Just Who Pays Income Tax, Anyway?

"In 2008, according to the preliminary numbers, 142 million Federal income tax returns were filed, 51 million of which had no income tax liability on them. That's about 36%. Lotsa deadbeats, huh?

But of the 91 million returns filed that did have tax liability, 63 million or so were married filing jointly. So those 91 million tax returns actually represent 174 million people, and doesn't include the children of those people, for the most part. That's about 53% of the population, which is where the infamous 47% number came from.


So, who are these 150 million or so people who pay no income tax? Well, at least 60 million of them are children under 15. Goddamm deadbeat children! They should be paying their fair share! Close to another 40 million are over 65. While many people over 65 have enough income to have income tax liability, they are a minority. At least 25 million of these people are living on Social Security and not much else. Hence, no tax liability.


So, that leaves about 65 million working age adults who are paying no income tax. About 20% of the overall population. Lucky them. Most aren't making enough money to have to pay, period. Some are disabled, some are students...there are many reasons why. but most are just poor and poorly paid."

The 47% Myth: Just Who Pays Income Tax, Anyway? | The Smirking Chimp
 
Catawba said:
The 47% Myth: Just Who Pays Income Tax, Anyway?
Click to expand...

Weird but the article supports that 47% do not pay income tax??? I understand their point is WHY the don't but the underlying claim '47%...' was unsuccessfully refuted specifically.
 
Dickieboy said:
Weird but the article supports that 47% do not pay income tax??? I understand their point is WHY the don't but the underlying claim '47%...' was unsuccessfully refuted specifically.
Click to expand...

Sure, if you ignore that most are kids, the disabled and the elderly.

Is that your proposal to solve our deficit, tax kids, the disabled and the elderly more?
 
Catawba said:
Is that your proposal to solve our deficit, tax kids, the disabled and the elderly more?
Click to expand...

Nice try…I proposed nothing but rather merely attempted to point out that your post seemed ironic. The article claimed the 47% was a myth then substantiated the 47% with facts thus disproving the myth they suggested…that’s all.

MY proposal for ‘fixing the deficit’ does not belong in this thread…

Further, since this thread IS about 'rich taxation' hasn't it been subtantiated in MANY threads that the 'rich' do not make enought to address the deficit even modestly?
 
Last edited:
"According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive."

Distribution of wealth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
"According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive."

Distribution of wealth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Okay...and this means what EXACTLY?
 
Dickieboy said:
Okay...and this means what EXACTLY?
Click to expand...

It speaks to the fairness issue of the less progressive taxes we have today. (See the OP)
 
Catawba said:
It speaks to the fairness issue of the less progressive taxes we have today. (See the OP)
Click to expand...

The OP requests opinions on ‘Do the Rich pay their fair share’. Your post discusses the income growth between the 1% and the 60% middle income earners. I saw no ‘speaks to the fairness’ in the CBO analysis or their assertions concerning taxation. Please point it out…again EXACTLY.

Or are you just flinging crap against the wall hoping some will stick...
 
Dickieboy said:
The OP requests opinions on ‘Do the Rich pay their fair share’. Your post discusses the income growth between the 1% and the 60% middle income earners. I saw no ‘speaks to the fairness’ in the CBO analysis or their assertions concerning taxation. Please point it out…again EXACTLY.

Or are you just flinging crap against the wall hoping some will stick...
Click to expand...

From the post you responded to:

"Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive."
 
Catawba said:
From the post you responded to:

"Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive."
Click to expand...

Ok, and that speaks to 'CBO's assertion to fairness' how?
 
Dickieboy said:
Ok, and that speaks to 'CBO's assertion to fairness' how?
Click to expand...

Making tax rates less progressive means the wealthy pay a lesser tax rate (known as the trickle down theory) which turned out to be the working class having to shoulder a greater share of the nation's debt. 30 years of that has contributed to the record wealth disparity in this country.

Some are fine with that, and some aren't. That's why we have elections.
 
Catawba said:
"According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive."

Distribution of wealth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
Those #s are vague. They don't say whether or not they accounted for inflation. It's also hard to believe that the middle 60% could see a 40% increase while the bottom 90% saw a decrease.
 
Dickieboy said:
Okay...and this means what EXACTLY?
Click to expand...

it means that those who aren't successful but want more and more government , think that others ought to pay for what they want
 
Catawba said:
It speaks to the fairness issue of the less progressive taxes we have today. (See the OP)
Click to expand...

your entire premise is based on the assumption that a progressive tax is fair.
 
Can anyone explain to me why a flat tax, say 10% of your net income for EVERYONE, from the guy that makes 10k a year to the guy that makes 10 BILLION, why is this not ok? I think that is as fair as you can possibly be. That way everybody has a little meat in the pot and I think more people would care about where their money is being spent in Washington. With 47% of Americans not paying any income tax, what do they care how Washington wastes it? Make them have a little meat in the pot and I promise they would care.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom