• 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 Too Much Federal Income Taxes

Do The Rich Pay Too Much Income Taxes


  • Total voters
    90
The Christian ethic of caring for the poor and weak is the best part of Christianity and it used to play important part of in moderating the worst aspects of ruthless capitalism. Lack of concern for the poor isn't just a political view or ethic, it is a mental disorder.

"Antisocial (or dissocial) personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others. There may be an impoverished moral sense or conscience and a history of crime, legal problems, impulsive and aggressive behavior..."
Wikipedia

A good government understands that some citizens will be antisocial and constructs laws to limit the negative consequences. And since Congress is prevented from establishing a religion it follows that Christian morality on charity and the poor should not be part of our laws. There are sufficient Christians who can support Christian charities to complete that mission if they choose. And if there are not enough Christians to voluntarily sponsor these charities than government should not be doing that mission for them.

It seems to be bad public policy to expend precious resources on people who are unwilling or unable to support themselves and contribute to the general welfare and it unlikely to be able to do so in the future. We should be spending resources on people who can add value. Christian morality, as important as it is and even as much as I support it, should not be part of government programs. If a program is objectively useful, then keep it.

At least justify social programs objectively, not morally.
 
A good government understands that some citizens will be antisocial and constructs laws to limit the negative consequences. And since Congress is prevented from establishing a religion it follows that Christian morality on charity and the poor should not be part of our laws. There are sufficient Christians who can support Christian charities to complete that mission if they choose. And if there are not enough Christians to voluntarily sponsor these charities than government should not be doing that mission for them.

It seems to be bad public policy to expend precious resources on people who are unwilling or unable to support themselves and contribute to the general welfare and it unlikely to be able to do so in the future. We should be spending resources on people who can add value. Christian morality, as important as it is and even as much as I support it, should not be part of government programs. If a program is objectively useful, then keep it.

At least justify social programs objectively, not morally.

an interesting thought provoking argument. "the general welfare" has been mutated (like the commerce clause) beyond all known connection to the intent of the founders and has now become a vote buying scheme and a scheme designed to create a permanent class of dependent voters. Darwinian directives would suggest wasting resources on the can/won't nots only perpetuates such a group
 
I am not sure why government services are the only services in which the price is based on ability to pay. We all use the roads, parks, communication systems, access to libraries and education, benefit from the justice system and the defense system.

If some use these things to add value to their lives as they see fit while others use these things to generate more income why should the majority of payment come from the latter group. As Maslow stated in his hierarchy of needs, we all have needs, in priority order, of physiological, safety, social, esteem, and self actualization. The progressive tax system, or even the flat tax system, seems based on the questionable logic that people who work for self actualization through more income, more wealth, more power, etc., have to pay more than people who seek and work for other, non-financial, ends.
 
The United States has the most progressive tax system in the world.

international_tax_progressivity.png

Ummmmm


20111001_WOC714.gif



20121020_inc285_0.png



Countries With the Highest Income Tax Rates
(CNBC)
Countries With the Highest Income Tax Rates

1. Aruba
Highest income tax rate: 58.95%

2. Sweden
Highest income tax rate: 56.6%
Average 2010 income: $48,800

3. Denmark
Highest income tax rate: 55.4%
Average 2010 income: $64,000

4. Netherlands
Highest income tax rate: 52%
Average 2010 income: $57,000

5. (Tied) Austria
Highest income tax rate: 50%
Average 2010 income: $50,700

5. (Tied) Belgium
Highest income tax rate: 50%

5. (Tied) Japan
Highest income tax rate: 50%
Average 2010 income: $53,200
Average 2010 income: $52,700

5. (Tied) United Kingdom
Highest income tax rate: 50%
Average 2010 income: $52,320

9. Finland
Highest income tax rate: 49.2%
Average 2010 income: $49,000

10. Ireland
Highest income tax rate: 48%
Average 2010 income: $50,400
 
Ummmmm


20111001_WOC714.gif



20121020_inc285_0.png



Countries With the Highest Income Tax Rates
(CNBC)
Countries With the Highest Income Tax Rates

1. Aruba
Highest income tax rate: 58.95%

2. Sweden
Highest income tax rate: 56.6%
Average 2010 income: $48,800

3. Denmark
Highest income tax rate: 55.4%
Average 2010 income: $64,000

4. Netherlands
Highest income tax rate: 52%
Average 2010 income: $57,000

5. (Tied) Austria
Highest income tax rate: 50%
Average 2010 income: $50,700

5. (Tied) Belgium
Highest income tax rate: 50%

5. (Tied) Japan
Highest income tax rate: 50%
Average 2010 income: $53,200
Average 2010 income: $52,700

5. (Tied) United Kingdom
Highest income tax rate: 50%
Average 2010 income: $52,320

9. Finland
Highest income tax rate: 49.2%
Average 2010 income: $49,000

10. Ireland
Highest income tax rate: 48%
Average 2010 income: $50,400


:lamo
KPMG and CNBC vs OECD? You're kidding, right?
 
Last edited:
:lamo
KMPG and CNBC vs OECD? You're kidding, right?

counting the social security as a tax is a bit silly. its a forced retirement fund payment

and using 100,000 is dishonest
 
What a STUPID objection.
As if KPMG and CNBC are either inaccurate or Biased against High-incomers.
No doubt either of both use OECD numbers in any case.

It's no wonder your better off with your commentLESS OPs.


It's unwieldly not to use the same number for everyone.
100K is s good as any.

:lamo
Financial advisors putting out advertising copy? And the business reporting arm of the lefty network? Up against data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development? Really without credibility.:lamo
 
What a STUPID objection.
As if KPMG and CNBC are either inaccurate or Biased against High-incomers.
No doubt either or both use OECD numbers in any case.

It's no wonder you're better off with your commentLESS OPs.
Another Alzheimers post.


It's unwieldly not to use the same number for everyone.
100K is as good as any.
What number would you like?
Why don't YOU put more than 5 secs into your posts and GO find it. Go find anything that makes Your case in fact.

wow, five seconds? I am bright but I am not that fast. we get the fact that you whine about the rich and think they ought to pay more. I disagree. using SS is dishonest when comparing progressive tax rates, we should look at taxes designed to be progressive. tax hikers whine about regressive or flat taxes keeping the overall tax rate not as progressive as it should be and then pretend that progressive taxes should be EVEN MORE progressive to overcome the impact of non-progressive taxes
 
mbig said:
What a STUPID objection.
As if KPMG and CNBC are either inaccurate or Biased against High-incomers.
No doubt either of both use OECD numbers in any case.

It's no wonder your better off with your commentLESS OPs.

:lamo
Financial advisors putting out advertising copy? And the business reporting arm of the lefty network? Up against data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development? Really without credibility.:lamo
Why is that "Advertsing Copy"?
WTF/DUH.
KPMG are business consultants and accountants.
Their clients are rich and richER.

CNBC Is PRO-Business all day, every day.
ALL of us who invest for a living watch it all day.
It's the ESPN-of-Wall-St/Investors.
It's on in most Trading rooms in the country.

Another Inane/OBTUSE piece of Clownery from Duh-Jack-in-the-box.
Nonconversant and wrong on everything.
 
Last edited:
Why is that "Advertsing Copy"?
WTF/DUH.
KPMG are business consultants and accountants.

CNBC Is PRO-Business all day, every day.
ALL of us who invest for a living watch it all day. It's on in most Trading rooms in the country.
After hours one gets MSNBC which is very liberal.

Another Inane/OBTUSE piece of Clownery from Duh-Jack-in-the-box.

Keep up the good work. Siding with consultants trolling for customers and a TV network against the most respected economic data source in the developed world. The only thing funnier is your claim to invest for a living. Hold onto those baseball cards.:lamo
 
mbig said:
What a STUPID objection.
As if KPMG and CNBC are either inaccurate or Biased against High-incomers.
No doubt either of both use OECD numbers in any case.

It's no wonder your better off with your commentLESS OPs.

:lamo
b]Financial advisors putting out advertising copy? And the business reporting arm of the lefty network? Up against data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development? Really without credibility.:lamo
Why is that "Advertsing Copy"?
WTF/DUH.
KPMG are business consultants and accountants.
Their clients are Rich and RichER.

CNBC Is PRO-Business all day, every day, NOT a "lefty network".
(home to Kudlow et al)
WTF/DUH!
ALL of us who invest for a living watch it all day.
It's the ESPN-of-Wall-St/Investors.
It's on in most Trading rooms in the country.

Another Inane/OBTUSE piece of Clownery from Duh-Jack-in-the-box.
Nonconversant, juvenile emoticon BAITER, and wrong on everything.
 
Last edited:
How many posts has Mbig deleted? I quoted one in my post 510, he repeated it a minute ago and then both are gone
 
How many posts has Mbig deleted? I quoted one in my post 510, he repeated it a minute ago and then both are gone
Just one for edit. May have repeated instead. Having some Computer issues.

And in how many posts has Turtle Dude Lazily said NOTHING except "you're socialist parasite/we pay for you"?
Like 80,000 of your 90,00 intellectually Bankrupt Quips?
(with 10,000 youtube/songs for good measure).
What, 9 years of the Same basic post repeated 40 times daily?


You pair well with Jack Hays, "Historian by trade", who also is Nonconversant on anything/Everything. Jack who posts/BAITS like an 8 yr old thumbing his nose at daddy with a dozen teasing words and childish emoticons.

Board Blight x2.
 
Last edited:
these threads about taxes invariably decompensate into comments from those who aren't as rich as they think they ought to be whining about those who they think should not be as rich as they are.
 
And in how many posts has Turtle Dude Lazily said NOTHING except "you're socialist parasite/we pay for you"?


I would say at least one. He is part of a very powerful group of we.
 
I would say at least one.

His question was not legitimate on this thread. his claims about the tax rates were dishonest in the sense that the SS payments are not a progressive tax and shouldn't be counted in the FIT
 
His question was not legitimate on this thread. his claims about the tax rates were dishonest in the sense that the SS payments are not a progressive tax and shouldn't be counted in the FIT

The Social Security Tax is part of the Federal income tax.

The Federal income tax is made up of five parts
Part 1: Social Security Employer portion
Part 2: Social Security Employee portion
Part 3: Medicare Employer portion
Part 4: Medicare Employee portion
Part 5: Federal Income tax

One check is written for all five of these and sent to the exact same place.
:beatdeadhorse

Some people understand this. Some people do not.
 
these threads about taxes invariably decompensate into comments from those who aren't as rich as they think they ought to be whining about those who they think should not be as rich as they are.
That's false Turtle, I don't care how rich someone is, I Just want them to pay taxes.
 
Last edited:
The Social Security Tax is part of the Federal income tax.

The Federal income tax is made up of five parts
Part 1: Social Security Employer portion
Part 2: Social Security Employee portion
Part 3: Medicare Employer portion
Part 4: Medicare Employee portion
Part 5: Federal Income tax

One check is written for all five of these and sent to the exact same place.
:beatdeadhorse

Some people understand this. Some people do not.

when the SS "tax" was passed by congress what was it called and what was it billed as.

was it intended to be "progressive"

Guess what, I don't pay SS "tax or "Medicare tax" these days. I pay lots of income taxes
 
Why is that "Advertsing Copy"?
WTF/DUH.
KPMG are business consultants and accountants.
Their clients are rich and richER.

CNBC Is PRO-Business all day, every day.
ALL of us who invest for a living watch it all day.
It's the ESPN-of-Wall-St/Investors.
It's on in most Trading rooms in the country.

Another Inane/OBTUSE piece of Clownery from Duh-Jack-in-the-box.
Nonconversant and wrong on everything.

Yeah, worse than a stopped clock, which is correct twice a day.
 
That's false Turtle, I don't care how rich someone is, I Just want them to pay taxes.

If the shoe fits. the rich already pay too much taxes

the rich pay more than they use

the top 5% pay more FIT than the rest of the country combined


where do you get the idea the rich don't pay taxes?

and I suspect (no one has challenged it yet) that the voters who say no-combined, pay less federal income taxes than anyone whom you call rich.
 
when the SS "tax" was passed by congress what was it called

It was called a trust fund. The Supreme Court later disagreed.

TurtleDude said:
and what was it billed as.

I honestly can't say. I never did payroll in 1935. That was 44 years before I was born.

I wrote checks for payroll in 2007, 2008 and 2009. It was just as I described it. I didn't write a separate check to the Social Security Trust Fund. You will have to find somebody older than me to answer your second question.
 
It was called a trust fund.



I honestly can't say. I never did payroll in 1935. That was 44 years before I was born.

I wrote checks for payroll in 2007, 2008 and 2009. It was just as I described it. I didn't write a separate check to the Social Security Trust Fund. You will have to find somebody older than me to answer your second question.

Fair enough

I will let you in on something

I almost never ask questions like this that I don't already know the answer to
 
Back
Top Bottom