• 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
You still have not shown that the greed of others led that person to be so impoverished that they died from lack of a fan. You have not proved it because you can not prove it because it is not true. It is rhetoric, and you've bought into it hook line and sinker. Who is greedy? And how did that person cause the other person to be poor?
I didn't say anyone "caused" another to be poor - but greed keeps people poor. I'm sure you believe Mrs. Mertz should die and decrease the surplus population.
 
I didn't say anyone "caused" another to be poor - but greed keeps people poor. I'm sure you believe Mrs. Mertz should die and decrease the surplus population.

Greed doesn't keep people poor. Lack of taking advantage of opportunities does. If nobody in the country was wealthy, and we had two classes: middle class and poor, the poor wouldn't be any better off.
 
Some way to pay for it.... don't you think there are ways for the unemployed to earn money? Temp jobs- maybe they have to downgrade and work at mcdonalds. Maybe the dog sit for neighbors or cut grass... quit making excuses. The bottom line is that because you don't have money doesn't mean you CANT have it. It is there.
I'm not suggesting illegal activity. I'm suggesting work. Hustle. Feed your family.
When was the last time you had to skip a meal?

I've stood in the temp jobs line and I've missed meals. Don't feed me some crap you read on a website.


BTW it is deer season. No tags required in most states. You can kill up to 12 per season in georgia. Enough to eat off of for a whole year. And if you hunt with a bow, you can take another 12.
Not deer season here - not until fall.
Tags required here - limit varies by year. ((If there are no tags what stops you from taking 20-30 deer?))

You can only eat off it that long if you can preserve it that long.


And where did you get the gun? The bow? Did you steal them?
Who taught you to hunt? To Shoot?
Are you going to hump those deer back on foot? If not, did you steal a car?


The obvious conclusion here is that you're not poor and have apparently never been poor.
And/or you're a criminal.
 
Last edited:
Greed doesn't keep people poor. Lack of taking advantage of opportunities does. If nobody in the country was wealthy, and we had two classes: middle class and poor, the poor wouldn't be any better off.
I stand corrected - greed causes death and suffering.


You assume there are opportunities to be had. If there are a million jobs but three million out of work then two million people will be without jobs. The same works for fans. If there are 1000 fans and 3000 old people that need them then 2000 old people will not get fans.
 
You assume there are opportunities to be had.
Where there are large companies in a relatively free market, there are opportunities.
I don't think you understand that it's not opportunities, it's choice.

We provide free high school education for example, and completing high school is a significant statistical indicator of getting out of poverty. Great right?

Yet roughly 23% don't graduate. They refuse the opportunity. Should we blame Facebook for that? Maybe some Wall Street investment banker? What is clear is that you cannot blame lack of opportunity.
 
Where there are large companies in a relatively free market, there are opportunities.
I don't think you understand that it's not opportunities, it's choice.

We provide free high school education for example, and completing high school is a significant statistical indicator of getting out of poverty. Great right?

Yet roughly 23% don't graduate. They refuse the opportunity. Should we blame Facebook for that? Maybe some Wall Street investment banker? What is clear is that you cannot blame lack of opportunity.
There are Ph.D's that are unemployed from a lack of jobs in the market.

Three million unemployed and one million jobs still leaves two million unemployed. It doesn't take a high school diploma for that kind of arithmetic.
 
Last edited:
When was the last time you had to skip a meal?

I've stood in the temp jobs line and I've missed meals. Don't feed me some crap you read on a website.


Not deer season here - not until fall.
Tags required here - limit varies by year. ((If there are no tags what stops you from taking 20-30 deer?))

You can only eat off it that long if you can preserve it that long.


And where did you get the gun? The bow? Did you steal them?
Who taught you to hunt? To Shoot?
Are you going to hump those deer back on foot? If not, did you steal a car?


The obvious conclusion here is that you're not poor and have apparently never been poor.
And/or you're a criminal.

Not a criminal. Not greedy either. Not rich, not poor. Never missed a meal- because I know how to earn money. I have been unemployed. I never missed a mortgage payment. Cut grass, did odd jobs- then temp to perm when the opportunity arose. Didn't pay me much so started my own business. Now I own two. No one ever gave me a dime, and I never took anything from anyone.

There is opportunity. Again, I didn't read it on a website. If you are unemployed and you are sitting around all day waiting on the job market to improve, you are missing opportunties.
 
I stand corrected - greed causes death and suffering.


You assume there are opportunities to be had. If there are a million jobs but three million out of work then two million people will be without jobs. The same works for fans. If there are 1000 fans and 3000 old people that need them then 2000 old people will not get fans.

No, it doesn't cause death and suffering. If greed caused all these problems now, the same would have been true prior to the 2008 financial crisis. If someone is wealthy, it does not take away from someone who has less, no matter what economic class that individual is in.
 
So you didn't answer the high school opportunity question? Why not?

There are Ph.D's that are unemployed from a lack of jobs in the market.
Violin?
 
In order to both address our deficit and make the tax system more fair. As Reagan said, so the bus driver is not paying a higher tax rate than millionaires.

You could tax the wealthy at 100%, and it would hardly make a dent in the deficit. 'Fair' is a subjective term, I find it fair when we all pay the same and all receive the same for what we pay.
 
There are Ph.D's that are unemployed from a lack of jobs in the market.

Three million unemployed and one million jobs still leaves two million unemployed. It doesn't take a high school diploma for that kind of arithmetic.

What type of PhD's?

There are also thousands of agricultural jobs paying well above minimum wage that these poor souls are unwilling to fill. It doesn't take a high school diploma to see we should not be paying people unemployment for not taking available jobs.
 
Its the economy stupid!!!


The 1 Percent’s Problem

"Why won’t America’s 1 percent—such as the six Walmart heirs, whose wealth equals that of the entire bottom 30 percent—be a bit more . . . selfish? As the widening financial divide cripples the U.S. economy, even those at the top will pay a steep price."

"Let’s start by laying down the baseline premise: inequality in America has been widening for dec*ades. We’re all aware of the fact. Yes, there are some on the right who deny this reality, but serious analysts across the political spectrum take it for granted. I won’t run through all the evidence here, except to say that the gap between the 1 percent and the 99 percent is vast when looked at in terms of annual income, and even vaster when looked at in terms of wealth—that is, in terms of accumulated capital and other assets. Consider the Walton family: the six heirs to the Walmart empire possess a combined wealth of some $90 billion, which is equivalent to the wealth of the entire bottom 30 percent of U.S. society. (Many at the bottom have zero or negative net worth, especially after the housing debacle.) Warren Buffett put the matter correctly when he said, “There’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years and my class has won.”

"The relationship is straightforward and ironclad: as more money becomes concentrated at the top, aggregate demand goes into a decline. Unless something else happens by way of intervention, total demand in the economy will be less than what the economy is capable of supplying—and that means that there will be growing unemployment, which will dampen demand even further. In the 1990s that “something else” was the tech bubble. In the first dec*ade of the 21st century, it was the housing bubble. Today, the only recourse, amid deep recession, is government spending—which is exactly what those at the top are now hoping to curb."

"So, the advice I’d give to the 1 percent today is: Harden your hearts. When invited to consider proposals to reduce inequality—by raising taxes and investing in education, public works, health care, and science—put any latent notions of altruism aside and reduce the idea to one of unadulterated self-interest. Don’t embrace it because it helps other people. Just do it for yourself."

From The Price of Inequality: Joseph Stiglitz on the 1 Percent Problem | Politics | Vanity Fair
 
Its the economy stupid!!!


The 1 Percent’s Problem

"Why won’t America’s 1 percent—such as the six Walmart heirs, whose wealth equals that of the entire bottom 30 percent—be a bit more . . . selfish? As the widening financial divide cripples the U.S. economy, even those at the top will pay a steep price."

"Let’s start by laying down the baseline premise: inequality in America has been widening for dec*ades. We’re all aware of the fact. Yes, there are some on the right who deny this reality, but serious analysts across the political spectrum take it for granted. I won’t run through all the evidence here, except to say that the gap between the 1 percent and the 99 percent is vast when looked at in terms of annual income, and even vaster when looked at in terms of wealth—that is, in terms of accumulated capital and other assets. Consider the Walton family: the six heirs to the Walmart empire possess a combined wealth of some $90 billion, which is equivalent to the wealth of the entire bottom 30 percent of U.S. society. (Many at the bottom have zero or negative net worth, especially after the housing debacle.) Warren Buffett put the matter correctly when he said, “There’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years and my class has won.”

"The relationship is straightforward and ironclad: as more money becomes concentrated at the top, aggregate demand goes into a decline. Unless something else happens by way of intervention, total demand in the economy will be less than what the economy is capable of supplying—and that means that there will be growing unemployment, which will dampen demand even further. In the 1990s that “something else” was the tech bubble. In the first dec*ade of the 21st century, it was the housing bubble. Today, the only recourse, amid deep recession, is government spending—which is exactly what those at the top are now hoping to curb."

"So, the advice I’d give to the 1 percent today is: Harden your hearts. When invited to consider proposals to reduce inequality—by raising taxes and investing in education, public works, health care, and science—put any latent notions of altruism aside and reduce the idea to one of unadulterated self-interest. Don’t embrace it because it helps other people. Just do it for yourself."

From The Price of Inequality: Joseph Stiglitz on the 1 Percent Problem | Politics | Vanity Fair

another rant about the rich that thinks raising taxes actually ends inequality or is charity.
 
another rant about the rich that thinks raising taxes actually ends inequality or is charity.

When you say things like you just did, did it ever occur to you to actually read what you are responding to and speak to the points made in the post instead of merely giving us Turtle talking Point #3 or #7 or whatever?

It might then approach something that we could call actual debate for once.
 
When you say things like you just did, did it ever occur to you to actually read what you are responding to and speak to the points made in the post instead of merely giving us Turtle talking Point #3 or #7 or whatever?

It might then approach something that we could call actual debate for once.


yeah another Obama advisor whining about the waltons and claiming that taxing the rich more someone alleviates inequality.

LOL all that taxing the rich more does is encourages more wasteful spending and buys more votes for the pandering pimps of the dem party
 
yeah another Obama advisor whining about the waltons and claiming that taxing the rich more someone alleviates inequality.

LOL all that taxing the rich more does is encourages more wasteful spending and buys more votes for the pandering pimps of the dem party

The pandering pimps of your party seem to be riding in limo's these days and the folks on the right they pander to cannot get enough of their nonsense. Your masters would be proud that you continue to spew their neologisms at every possible opportunity.
 
The pandering pimps of your party seem to be riding in limo's these days and the folks on the right they pander to cannot get enough of their nonsense. Your masters would be proud that you continue to spew their neologisms at every possible opportunity.

Yeah right, we want to ride our fox hunting horses over you peasants. There is that fixation with neologisms. You found a wiki definition that sounded impressive and you have beaten the dead horse until its hamburger

and what is really funny is you don't even understand the term that you have adopted as your amulet
 
another rant about the rich that thinks raising taxes actually ends inequality or is charity.

You don't have to be the world's most frequently cited economist (as is Stiglitz) to understand that a consumer economy cannot prosper when most of society's wealth is concentrated at the top, out of reach of the majority of consumers.

Everyone with a basic understanding of economics knows this.
 
Its the economy stupid!!!

"Why won’t America’s 1 percent—such as the six Walmart heirs, whose wealth equals that of the entire bottom 30 percent—be a bit more . . . selfish? As the widening financial divide cripples the U.S. economy, even those at the top will pay a steep price."

Why was the portion above in bold text? The Waltons have been exceedingly successful.

"Let’s start by laying down the baseline premise: inequality in America has been widening for dec*ades.

Ok, but the author fails to connect the dots on why this has been happening.


"The relationship is straightforward and ironclad: as more money becomes concentrated at the top, aggregate demand goes into a decline.
Again the author fails to refer ANY source to substantiate this ‘ironclad’ assertion.

This was an interesting read but the author fails in several of areas. It appears his underlying tenant is that more taxes (on the rich) would increase aggregate demand. The problem with this thesis is that ‘Keynesian style’ transfers have historically failed. Bush tried these when he implemented the ‘refund checks’ which did very little to stimulate the economy. President Obama tried this again in the stimulus bill with the tax cuts that again arguably failed. Further the current plan to ‘let the Bush tax cuts expire on the riches 2%’ will net a mere ~$90b annually, a mere pittance relative to the deficit. In considering this care must be taken as the ‘rich’ have the wherewithal to subvert excessive taxation whereas the 99% do not.

As to the rest of Mr. Stiglitz’s opinions/rant I will finish with one of his latter points…’mistrust’…really…mistrust…REALLY in this day and age. How can one trust the leadership of the country given the typical ‘way they do business’.
 
You don't have to be the world's most frequently cited economist (as is Stiglitz) to understand that a consumer economy cannot prosper when most of society's wealth is concentrated at the top, out of reach of the majority of consumers.

Everyone with a basic understanding of economics knows this.

Its amazing-economists' predictions rate right next to weather forecasters in terms of accuracy.

why do you think wealth is concentrated at the top? I bet you think it is due to government not taking enough away-in other words you don't blame the indolent middle class and the poor but only the government and the rich.

Its like saying that Nadal, ND and Federer cheat the rest of the tennis players out of grand trophies rather than criticizing the other players for not training as hard as the champions or not having as strong a mental game
 
You don't have to be the world's most frequently cited economist (as is Stiglitz) to understand that a consumer economy cannot prosper when most of society's wealth is concentrated at the top, out of reach of the majority of consumers.

REALLY, 'world's most frequently cited economist'! OH well then he MUST be right...

Everyone with a basic understanding of economics knows this.

Condescending much?...thank you for that.
 
Why was the portion above in bold text? The Waltons have been exceedingly successful.

Yes by treating their working class employees shabbily. Tell me how 6 super rich can stimulate the economy as much as 30 % of the population?



Ok, but the author fails to connect the dots on why this has been happening.

No, he connected them quite clearly.


This was an interesting read but the author fails in several of areas.

Thanks for you opinion anonymous internet guy, but I understand as one of the most frequently cited economists in the world does, that a consumer economy cannot prosper when most of society's wealth is at the top, out of reach of the majority of consumers.
 
REALLY, 'world's most frequently cited economist'! OH well then he MUST be right...



Condescending much?...thank you for that.

But of course-those who need the government to take care of them or who resent those who are wealthy, always have a far greater understanding of economics than those who actually are successfully economically
 
Yes by treating their working class employees shabbily. Tell me how 6 super rich can stimulate the economy as much as 30 % of the population?





No, he connected them quite clearly.




Thanks for you opinion anonymous internet guy, but I understand as one of the most frequently cited economists in the world does, that a consumer economy cannot prosper when most of society's wealth is at the top, out of reach of the majority of consumers.


some of us tire of the attitude that people should be treated as bricks in the wall and that wealth should be handed out by ever wise control freak politicians rather than by the market.

you see, if you want to use what is best for the economy as your sole reason to allocate wealth-even if it is anathema to individual rights than one can argue that euthanasia of those who are unable to care for themselves would be best for the economy as well

which if course is not too farfetched because those who constantly want government to make thinks "more efficient and more fair" tend to end up supporting stuff like the "Cultural revolution"
 
Back
Top Bottom