• 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!

Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

Is it unreasonable to pay a little more?

  • Yes. I'm a greedy bastard!! I need MORE!!!

    Votes: 21 27.6%
  • No. There's comes a point in wealthiness where it just doesn't even matter anymore.

    Votes: 48 63.2%
  • I'm not sure.

    Votes: 7 9.2%

  • Total voters
    76
reality you say?.. hmmph

so you are sitting here telling me that enacting UHC will mean the government will pay out less in healthcare costs than it does now? is that your argument?

Each state provides its own health care - are you saying this is funded by the fed?
 
No one should ever have to pay more than 40% in total taxes.

Sadly, with today's tax environment some people are paying above 50% total tax.

in states with income taxes like Ohio and combined with the federal death tax, someone with earned income of 400K or more will be paying over 60% of their income in total taxes
 
in states with income taxes like Ohio and combined with the federal death tax, someone with earned income of 400K or more will be paying over 60% of their income in total taxes
I recall that M Romney's FEDERAL tax rate was 13%...

So how do you explain the remaining 47% ????

And alligator or is it crocodile tears for that poor little and whiny rich SOB, regardless of the rate..
 
I recall that M Romney's FEDERAL tax rate was 13%...

So how do you explain the remaining 47% ????

And alligator or is it crocodile tears for that poor little and whiny rich SOB, regardless of the rate..

that earned income qualifier must have missed your eyes
 
that earned income qualifier must have missed your eyes

One of the few that still believe you shouldn't have to pay the same tax rate for income you haven't earned. :cool:
 
One of the few that still believe you shouldn't have to pay the same tax rate for income you haven't earned. :cool:

I believe the rate should be the same

ZERO

or the same for everyone-period
 
I believe the rate should be the same

ZERO

or the same for everyone-period



Of course you do! Anything that benefits the wealthy and hurts the middle class, you are for! :cool:
 
I couldn't care less who's got what. I was talking about the billionaires who have more money than they could possibly ever spend because that's who I thought Obama was talking about when he said the whole fiscal cliff solution was being held up by a "small sliver of the very wealthiest who didn't want to pay a little more". I would think the small sliver is far beyond the 50-100k bracket..
There is no doubt in my mind that the tax system is horribly broken, very wrong, and totally inequitable...BUT: it is NOT the solution to the problem. Show me the tax rate that will balance the budget and pay down the idiotic debt in one lifetime and I will show you the tax rate the NOBODY can ever pay. The measly 15 or so Tn$ of debt pales by comparison with the HUNDRED++ Tn$ of unfunded liabilities from future entitlements. Until spending is corrected (and IMHO deficit financing for ANY government is made constitutionally impossible) the whole mess is going nowhere but down the drain.
 
There is no doubt in my mind that the tax system is horribly broken, very wrong, and totally inequitable...BUT: it is NOT the solution to the problem. Show me the tax rate that will balance the budget and pay down the idiotic debt in one lifetime and I will show you the tax rate the NOBODY can ever pay. The measly 15 or so Tn$ of debt pales by comparison with the HUNDRED++ Tn$ of unfunded liabilities from future entitlements. Until spending is corrected (and IMHO deficit financing for ANY government is made constitutionally impossible) the whole mess is going nowhere but down the drain.

It took 30 years of too much spending, especially on the military/industrial complex and optional wars, together with taxing the wealthy too little. It will take the reverse to address the problem. To address the growing cost of entitlements we will have to do what Simpson-Bowles proposed for SS: change the COLA rate, increase retirement age over the next ten years and increase, and increase the cap. That makes SS solvent for the long term. To cut health care costs, we will have to upgrade to UHC as every other industrialized nation has had to do to reduce costs.
 
Of course you do! Anything that benefits the wealthy and hurts the middle class, you are for! :cool:

what hurts the middle class is government dependency and being told that the rich have a duty to provide for the middle class. the middle class is not burdened with paying for the government services used by the wealthy so your stupid rant is just that-stupid
 
I'd have no problem with the wealthy paying a little bit more, IF the purpose behind it wasn't so that those who already pay the least (and get the most) could pay even less.
 
The problem I have with shouldering the burden on the wealthy "a little bit more" is that it creates a slippery slope. Guys like catawba would argue for a little more...then a little more...then a little more.

He'd probably rather see corporate/rich tax rates to the level they were pre-Kennedy, probably out of jealousy.
 
The problem I have with shouldering the burden on the wealthy "a little bit more" is that it creates a slippery slope. Guys like catawba would argue for a little more...then a little more...then a little more.

He'd probably rather see corporate/rich tax rates to the level they were pre-Kennedy, probably out of jealousy.

yep.. "a little bit more' is never enough. i guess they figure people would revolt if you asked for a lot, but if you take it in small enough chunks no one would notice.
 
yep.. "a little bit more' is never enough. i guess they figure people would revolt if you asked for a lot, but if you take it in small enough chunks no one would notice.
What I find amazing is that the Greek...oh, sorry...AMERICAN public can argue about tax rates when spending into total collapse. The whole business of letting politicians pick winners and losers is merely a diversion from the real issue. Balanced budgets including debt service is the only way to make the US sustainable.

To be fair, using either flat income tax or consumption tax (better, as it puts us manufacturers on more even footing with Chinese) rate adjusted to meet budget is the best way. To that, I would add hefty speculation tax.
 
The rich make an AVERAGE of $365 million per year.

They can pay 80% taxes and live just fine ..................

See when the rich PAY Gov taxes instead of PROFITING from Gov Via the MIC, then they will be on our side to
reduce waste like the MIC.
 
They can pay 80% taxes and live just fine ...................

It is not a matter of "can they", it is a matter of "should they". :shrug:

hell, they could pay 99% in taxes and live like the rest of us, but where then is the incentive to go above and beyond?

my baby bro is a pediatric heart surgeon. do you really think he would have spent 4 years in college, 4 years in medical school, 4 years general surgery residence, 3 years cardio-thorasic residence and 1 year in pediatrics to turn around a pay so much taxes that he gets to keep the same amount of $$$$ that some guy who graduated HS and went straight to work at some factory?
 
hell, they could pay 99% in taxes and live like the rest of us, but where then is the incentive to go above and beyond?

No one is proposing 99% taxes, but are you trying to say there was no incentive for the wealthy when effective tax rates were 60% for the top tax bracket from the 1940's until the 1980's?
 
The rich make an AVERAGE of $365 million per year.

They can pay 80% taxes and live just fine ..................

See when the rich PAY Gov taxes instead of PROFITING from Gov Via the MIC, then they will be on our side to
reduce waste like the MIC.

You probably "could" pay more and live just fine too.

Fortunately, I'm not here to be some sort of moral judge, like all the big government crowd wants to do.
 
It is not a matter of "can they", it is a matter of "should they". :shrug:

hell, they could pay 99% in taxes and live like the rest of us, but where then is the incentive to go above and beyond?

my baby bro is a pediatric heart surgeon. do you really think he would have spent 4 years in college, 4 years in medical school, 4 years general surgery residence, 3 years cardio-thorasic residence and 1 year in pediatrics to turn around a pay so much taxes that he gets to keep the same amount of $$$$ that some guy who graduated HS and went straight to work at some factory?


If he's only doing that job for the cash, then **** him.
 
If he's only doing that job for the cash, then **** him.

Nice attitude. Go around and pay doctors and lawyers the same as street sweepers, but don't complain when you can't get medical attention or legal advice.
 
Doctors work office hours. They have the strongest union known to man, because they control entry to their profession. If there are slightly too few doctors then their hourly rate goes up. The reason for hospitals is 24 hour nursing care, not medicine, yet nurses earn much less than doctors, though the educational requirement is similar. Nurses pay isn't much better than street sweepers' and the hours are a lot worse, yet if anything there's an oversupply, keeping their pay low.
 
Doctors work office hours. They have the strongest union known to man, because they control entry to their profession. If there are slightly too few doctors then their hourly rate goes up. The reason for hospitals is 24 hour nursing care, not medicine, yet nurses earn much less than doctors, though the educational requirement is similar. Nurses pay isn't much better than street sweepers' and the hours are a lot worse, yet if anything there's an oversupply, keeping their pay low.

Uh, yeah...England sure is not similar to America in that aspect. In the states, nurses make a terrific salary, and their educational requirements don't even come close to a doctor's.
 
We need to separate income tax from corporate tax. For some reason, lots of small businesses are taxed at the individual rate.

Until that happens I support no tax raises on anyone.
 
We need to separate income tax from corporate tax. For some reason, lots of small businesses are taxed at the individual rate.

Until that happens I support no tax raises on anyone.

They're taxed at the individual rate because that's most beneficial to many of them. They could be taxed at a corporate rate if they so choose, but often enough it'd hurt.
 
Back
Top Bottom