• 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
Henrin said:
He lost that argument hay.
Click to expand...

I thought you were only concerned with logic and reasoning?
you from 872

Political reality =/= logical debate. My argument is based on ethics, logic, and rights.
Click to expand...

If he won or lost - that should be irrelevant to you compared to the logic involved in his argument?
 
haymarket said:
I thought you were only concerned with logic and reasoning?
you from 872
Click to expand...

You forgot ethics and rights.

I also have you know that the reason he lost that argument is because of ethics and rights.

And in the part you quoted is just his empty opinion. There is no reasonings there.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Perhaps Thomas Jefferson can answer your question
Click to expand...

Of course, Thomas Jefferson also said:

A capitation is more natural to slavery; a duty on merchandise is more natural to liberty, by reason it has not so direct a relation to the person.
Click to expand...
 
Catawba said:
Exactly, as compared with the working class that have to pay a higher rate on their income. You forget that the rich pay a lower tax rate only because we allowed under the promise of job creation. Without job creation there is no reason for the working class to continue to allow the rich to pay a lower rate on their income.

So the more you **** with the working class, the less likely it is they will allow you to continue paying a lower tax rate.
Click to expand...

there again is two fold stupidity in that post

1) assuming that none of the rich have earned income

2) pretending that earned income and investment income are the same thing

another massive bit of dishonesty on your part
 
Henrin said:
I love how you're acting like taking control over property with the use of government is something you don't actually need to defend. Instead you assume its a good thing and then run from there with your argument. A really weird thing to see so many think the premise of makes sense.
Click to expand...

he supports economic statist vandalism-if he doesn't have what it takes to be prosperous, those who do should have their wealth looted
 
Did you at least have coffee before you start your whining again LOL..
 
Dion said:
When the uber wealthy are not paying close to the percentage I am paying ... and able to hide millions ...no they are not paying their fair share.
Click to expand...

yeah that happens how many times? and if they are paying far more actual dollars than you do-you have no complaint. Because I guarantee you on LIKE INCOME they pay a higher rate than you do. HIDE Millions-that is not legal so quit whining.
 
Henrin said:
He lost that argument hay.
Click to expand...
Lost? That's odd, I thought it was just a discussion they were having - not a debate.


Of course, I can see where you'd like to believe he 'lost' or that his opinion in this matter is somehow wrong but considering your history I'm more inclined to believe you've made some stuff up and are trying to peddle it as fact, again.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Perhaps Thomas Jefferson can answer your question
Click to expand...

If you want to support your progressive tax dreams with such authority remind me of who could vote under the government Jefferson helped establish. And if he actually supported that-why did you wealth stealers have to enact the 16th Amendment?
 
TurtleDude said:
HE has a tendency to cite the dissenting opinion as controlling legal authority
Click to expand...

Hate to tell ya this buddy...but your going to be paying more taxs, even if obama loses. The gop is not going to have both chambers and they just may lose the house
 
TurtleDude said:
If you want to support your progressive tax dreams with such authority remind me of who could vote under the government Jefferson helped establish. And if he actually supported that-why did you wealth stealers have to enact the 16th Amendment?
Click to expand...
The rich white people - which is the same reason the progressive tax didn't end up in the Constitution.

It's also the same reason slavery wasn't outlawed by the Constitution.



We have since corrected both mistakes. :)
 
Last edited:
lpast said:
Hate to tell ya this buddy...but your going to be paying more taxs, even if obama loses. The gop is not going to have both chambers and they just may lose the house
Click to expand...

Regardless of which party wins, $16T+ in national debt can only be paid by more taxation, unless federal spending is cut by over 40% (highly unlikely).
 
Henrin said:
And in the part you quoted is just his empty opinion. There is no reasonings there.
Click to expand...

So Jefferson did not engage in any intellectual process before he gave that opinion? That seems ridiculous on its face.
 
lpast said:
Hate to tell ya this buddy...but your going to be paying more taxs, even if obama loses. The gop is not going to have both chambers and they just may lose the house
Click to expand...

dream all you want-but its people like you who are ultimately going to take the biggest bath due to out of control spending
 
TurtleDude said:
If you want to support your progressive tax dreams with such authority remind me of who could vote under the government Jefferson helped establish.
Click to expand...

Aahhh! So the wetdream of the far right once again shows up here. To return to the good old days when only monied white men could cast their vote and keep the rest of the nation in their thrall.

Thanks for revealing your true agenda Turtle.
 
haymarket said:
Aahhh! So the wetdream of the far right once again shows up here. To return to the good old days when only monied white men could cast their vote and keep the rest of the nation in their thrall.

Thanks for revealing your true agenda Turtle.
Click to expand...

another one of your dishonest interpretations-I merely said if you adopt TJ as your white knight in shining armor in your quest to slay the evil moneyed rich, you are going to have to live with all the peasants and slaves he raped on his quest.
 
haymarket said:
Aahhh! So the wetdream of the far right once again shows up here. To return to the good old days when only monied white men could cast their vote and keep the rest of the nation in their thrall.

Thanks for revealing your true agenda Turtle.
Click to expand...

The recent swing, in the other direction, is not so good either. Once you have more people that pay less in federal taxes, than they get in federal benefits, the game of democracy is over; look at Greece, for a good example. The argument that we can limit taxation, without limitting gov't spending to match, is the root of the current problem. Making the argument that whatever the masses demand in federal spending, must be paid for ONLY by an ever shrinking number of our "richest" citizens, at an ever higher rate, will lead to economic collapse. We are now at a point that the federal gov't is allowed to borrow and spend far more than it dare ask for by direct taxation; with a totally unsustainable federal deficit rate of 40%. The basis of the latest "Obama plan" is to tax at 18% of GDP, instead of the current 17% of GDP, yet to continue to spend at a rate of 24% of GDP.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
another one of your dishonest interpretations-I merely said if you adopt TJ as your white knight in shining armor in your quest to slay the evil moneyed rich, you are going to have to live with all the peasants and slaves he raped on his quest.
Click to expand...

I never adopted any white knight. You asked a question about progressive taxation and I used the statement by Jefferson to inform and educate you of a proper answer.

What the rest of your post is all about with slavery and the such is a mystery to me since it has nothing to do with the answer to your question.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The recent swing, in the other direction, is not so good either. Once you have more people that pay less in federal taxes, than they get in federal benefits, the game of democracy is over; look at Greece, for a good example. The argument that we can limit taxation, without limitting gov't spending to match, is the root of the current problem. Making the argument that whatever the masses demand in federal spending, must be paid for ONLY by an ever shrinking number of our "richest" citizens, at an ever higher rate, will lead to economic collapse. We are now at a point that the federal gov't is allowed to borrow and spend far more than it dare ask for by direct taxation; with a totally unsustainable federal deficit rate of 40%. The basis of the latest "Obama plan" is to tax at 18% of GDP, instead of the current 17% of GDP, yet to continue to spend at a rate of 24% of GDP.
Click to expand...

You bring up several good points. That is why my long standing position has been

1- All Americans who earn dollar one should pay at least 5% in federal income tax.
2- all brackets should be raised five points
3- most deductions should be ended
4- stop preferential rates for capital gains and inheritance abolishing both and simply declaring those monies as income.
5- cut at least $300 billion from the federal budget today
6- have 100% of American earners pay FICA tax on 100% of their earnings instead of just the lower 93% who pay that full load today.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
[...] look at Greece, for a good example. [...]
Click to expand...
Comparing the USA to Greece is like comparing an Abrams to a Tonka.


Greece is a poor example - even for Europe.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
The recent swing, in the other direction, is not so good either. Once you have more people that pay less in federal taxes, than they get in federal benefits, the game of democracy is over; look at Greece, for a good example. The argument that we can limit taxation, without limitting gov't spending to match, is the root of the current problem. Making the argument that whatever the masses demand in federal spending, must be paid for ONLY by an ever shrinking number of our "richest" citizens, at an ever higher rate, will lead to economic collapse. We are now at a point that the federal gov't is allowed to borrow and spend far more than it dare ask for by direct taxation; with a totally unsustainable federal deficit rate of 40%. The basis of the latest "Obama plan" is to tax at 18% of GDP, instead of the current 17% of GDP, yet to continue to spend at a rate of 24% of GDP.
Click to expand...
It's not what the masses demand that controls Fed spending, it's what the economy demands right now to keep things from getting worse than they already are. Fed spending is decreasing, as it was always meant to do after the massive spending required to stop collapse. If the Fed were to "pop the clutch" so to speak, by cutting off all the extra Fed spending at once, the engine would stall again and we'd be back where we started.

Oh I know, many people think we should have let the whole thing just fail. That may have been one approach from a strictly economic standpoint but it would have played holy hell with the people. One of government's jobs is protecting the people, which includes protection from economic games played by corporations.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Political reality =/= logical debate. My argument is based on ethics, logic, and rights. I'm not here to argue to the supreme court and I'm well enough aware of the sixteenth amendment. Are you aware of why it was needed?
Click to expand...

Then make a case for ethics, logic, or rights. You are giving me nothing but talking points.
 
TurtleDude said:
there again is two fold stupidity in that post

1) assuming that none of the rich have earned income

2) pretending that earned income and investment income are the same thing

another massive bit of dishonesty on your part
Click to expand...


There is only a distinction between the tax rates on earned income and unearned income because the voters allowed it based on the promise that it would create jobs.
Since it has not produced jobs in this country, it is unlikely voters will continue to allow it, especially when they are being asked to accept lower benefits to continue the tax cuts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom