• 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!

Should we be paying for the rich?

Should our money be going to the rich?

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 5.9%

  • No

    Votes: 25 73.5%

  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 7 20.6%
  • Total voters
    34
  • Poll closed .
T

The Lurker

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2012
Messages
366
Reaction score
75
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Shocking Report Shows America's Top 1% Now Richer than Bottom 90% COMBINED

Of course, becoming rich is no reason for alarm. Many people work very hard to save money and acquire wealth. This is the beauty of the free market. However, it is how these few people gain such vast amounts of wealth, that is cause for concern.

The ruling elite in the United States quite literally hand-pick politicians and pay for their campaigns to put them in office. More than half of all donations provided to the 2016 presidential candidates in the year 2015, in both parties, proves this notion as they came from a mere 158 families.

The 158 families, who’ve donated billions of dollars to these candidates, have entirely different reasons for choosing their politicians versus Joe Sixpack. Consequently, it is for this reason that Joe Sixpack’s requests are completely ignored by the next puppet to be placed in office who claims to represent him.
Click to expand...

David Brunori, a Forbes contributor, noted three years ago concerning a report titled, “Subsidizing the Corporate One Percent,” that “three-quarters of all state economic development subsidies went to just 965 corporations since the beginning of the study in 1976. The Fortune 500 corporations alone accounted for more than 16,000 subsidy awards, worth $63 billion – mostly in the form of tax breaks.

“Think about that. The largest, wealthiest, most powerful organizations in the world are on the public dole. Where is the outrage? Back when I was young, people went into a frenzy at the thought of some unemployed person using food stamps to buy liquor or cigarettes. Ronald Reagan famously campaigned against welfare queens. The right has always been obsessed with moochers. But Boeing receives $13 billion in government handouts and everyone yawns, when conservatives should be grabbing their pitchforks.”

Grossly inflated subsidies are provided to the oil and gas industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the agriculture industry, or Big Ag. Corporations garner tax subsidies from state and local governments. And the biggest corporations fund lobbyists — and win hundreds of billions in federal contracts.
Click to expand...

I would suggest reading the article, as it's not long.

Basically, from what I can gather from this article, our tax dollars go to the wealthy in this country. I personally don't think that that should be the case.

What do you think?
 
Whoops. I accidentally put "No, I'm not" for the second option.

Just consider the second option to be "No."
 
The Lurker said:
Whoops. I accidentally put "No, I'm not" for the second option.

Just consider the second option to be "No."
Click to expand...

I'm sure a nice mod might come by and fix that for you if you ask. They're cool like that.
 
Cephus said:
I'm sure a nice mod might come by and fix that for you if you ask. They're cool like that.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I'll ask a mod to do just that.

Again, thanks for the advice.
 
No one should have to give their hard-earned money to someone else unless they choose to.
 
Most of the problems stem from elevating ever more to a federal power (responsibility?). There are only 535 congress critters, with about 66 not up for a vote (popular reconfirmation?) in each two year election cycle. For 158 very rich folks to buy (rent?) a slight majority of them (two each?) is not very hard to conceive. After all, many (if not most) of these representatives of the people (little guy?) are already among the top 10% and they do expect (and get?) a trickle down from their closest peers at the very top.

Much of the power that business gives (buys for?) itself is via tinkering with the, ever growing, federal income tax (FIT) code. FIT bracket rates are progressive for wage/salary income only but, of course, the very (uber?) rich receive little via that most highly taxed method of acquiring income - the rich are growing their wealth in "special" ways.

We are told that the rocket surgeon must pay a higher FIT rate than the fry cook yet, somehow, blindly accept that Walmart should pay exactly the same FIT rate as a mom & pop restaurant (taco truck?). That does not even begin to address how such such mysteries as "carried interest" entered the FIT code.
 
Last edited:
The Lurker said:
Shocking Report Shows America's Top 1% Now Richer than Bottom 90% COMBINED

I would suggest reading the article, as it's not long.

Basically, from what I can gather from this article, our tax dollars go to the wealthy in this country. I personally don't think that that should be the case.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

What about Russia, where 111 people control 19% of the country's wealth?

Three years later, however, inequality remains among the the most stubborn challenges facing the Putin economy. The gulf between between the nation’s ultra-wealthy and everyone else is so extreme, Credit Suisse concluded in a recent report, that “it deserves to be placed in a separate category.” Here is a brief snapshot:

111 people control 19 percent of all household wealth in Russia

If there is one statistic that underscores the depth of wealth inequality in Russia, it may be that an estimated 111 billionaires control nearly a fifth of all household wealth in the country. That’s according to the 2014 Credit Suisse analysis, which found that those in the top 10 percent of the population control a staggering 85 percent of wealth in Russia.
Click to expand...

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/inequality-and-the-putin-economy-inside-the-numbers/
 
I wouldn't mind if the gov't clearly stated it was "Corporate Welfare" so USA taxpayers would know who the true Welfare Queens are. I'm currently overwhelmed by Militarized local Police Agencies, surveillance, the gov't subsidizing the .01%, MSM progaganda steered by CIA/gov't/etc. instead of true news, USA invasiions of foreign nations)Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.). I think the gov't is worried about going bust and is preparing for a Police State to fend off the protests. They keep getting local police agencies more and more involved with the FBI and National forces instead of local agendas. Make more things illegal to fill Corporate Prisons. Put impediments to slow Renewable Energy to protect the wallets of Big Corporate Energy. MIC, Big Energy, Banks, MSM, and only a few others run the USA. I didn't notice a placecard at the table for me. How about you?
/
 
DaveFagan said:
I wouldn't mind if the gov't clearly stated it was "Corporate Welfare" so USA taxpayers would know who the true Welfare Queens are. I'm currently overwhelmed by Militarized local Police Agencies, surveillance, the gov't subsidizing the .01%, MSM progaganda steered by CIA/gov't/etc. instead of true news, USA invasiions of foreign nations)Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.). I think the gov't is worried about going bust and is preparing for a Police State to fend off the protests. They keep getting local police agencies more and more involved with the FBI and National forces instead of local agendas. Make more things illegal to fill Corporate Prisons. Put impediments to slow Renewable Energy to protect the wallets of Big Corporate Energy. MIC, Big Energy, Banks, MSM, and only a few others run the USA. I didn't notice a placecard at the table for me. How about you?
/
Click to expand...

I think you put it very succinctly. Thank you, DaveFagan.
 
The Lurker said:
This is a problem that, unfortunately, many countries are facing.

Anyway, I reported this post as you're not addressing the topic.

Please answer the topic. I don't want us to come to a confrontation.
Click to expand...

If this is a problem that many countries are facing, then why are you focusing specifically on the United States? Why not, say, Russia?
 
Cardinal said:
If this is a problem that many countries are facing, then why are you focusing specifically on the United States? Why not, say, Russia?
Click to expand...
We live in the US and this is mostly an American forum.
 
The Lurker said:
Shocking Report Shows America's Top 1% Now Richer than Bottom 90% COMBINED





I would suggest reading the article, as it's not long.

Basically, from what I can gather from this article, our tax dollars go to the wealthy in this country. I personally don't think that that should be the case.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

I think you should put how the rich are ending up with my taxes in your words.....

Because as far as I know, my taxes go to counties, states, and the federal governments

I don’t write a check to the waltons or the gates
 
jimbo said:
I think the bottom 50% pay no income tax, so the question is how much of the pie should they be getting?
Click to expand...

If they got more pie they'd have money to pay taxes.
 
It isn't. The OP article stated the rich got richer. It has nothing to do with the OP stating, "our tax dollars go to the wealthy in this country."

The money the "rich" earned wasn't tax dollars to begin with. Seems the article is a disparity of wealth rant.
 
The Lurker said:
Shocking Report Shows America's Top 1% Now Richer than Bottom 90% COMBINED





I would suggest reading the article, as it's not long.

Basically, from what I can gather from this article, our tax dollars go to the wealthy in this country. I personally don't think that that should be the case.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
I'm picking option 2, but reading it as a flat "No".

But with the caveat that subsidizing things which will improve situation/living standards for a most/all people (or especially, those on the bottom of the living standard bell curve) might guide corporations and the like towards positive things.

Of course, any subsidies should ALWAYS come with requirements for use that prevent their being used simply to improve a corporation's bottom line so their stock rises, or give their leadership bonuses.

We should NEVER be using government funds for that kind of thing, as it benefits so few.
 
mike2810 said:
It isn't. The OP article stated the rich got richer. It has nothing to do with the OP stating, "our tax dollars go to the wealthy in this country."

The money the "rich" earned wasn't tax dollars to begin with. Seems the article is a disparity of wealth rant.
Click to expand...
That's because wealth disparity is perhaps the top problem in the USA, and the world, and it's steadily getting worse.

IOW, it NEEDS to be ranted about.
 
What if...? said:
If they got more pie they'd have money to pay taxes.
Click to expand...

If they made any attempt to better themselves they'd have more money.

It's not my job to give them more pie. It's theirs to get their slice.
 
jimbo said:
If they made any attempt to better themselves they'd have more money.

It's not my job to give them more pie. It's theirs to get their slice.
Click to expand...

A terrible drought occurs and a farmer loses all his crops and animals. Explain how he is supposed to better himself to get his slice.
 
The Mark said:
That's because wealth disparity is perhaps the top problem in the USA, and the world, and it's steadily getting worse.

IOW, it NEEDS to be ranted about.
Click to expand...

You do realize that even now the people making +200K pay 58.9% of the total federal income tax collected. When looking at people who make 100K or more per year the percentages goes up to 80.6% of all federal tax revenue.
Who pays U.S. income tax, and how much? | Pew Research Center

So how much more would you like these people to pay?
 
Soopairik said:
A terrible drought occurs and a farmer loses all his crops and animals. Explain how he is supposed to better himself to get his slice.
Click to expand...

Insurance, emergency savings account.

Everyone should be putting back money to save for that day when the crap hits the fan - even if you can only save a little at a time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom