Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    12:19 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Do you think the "rich" should be paying more in taxes? Back to Topics
101Speedster

Champion Author
Ventura

Posts:31,478
Points:2,825,055
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Aug 20, 2005 3:12:20 PM

If so, how do you define rich?
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,697
Points:2,532,455
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 1:13:59 PM

nstrdnvstr - "That trickle up has been a big failure, hasn't it?"

What "trickle up"? Look at the figures. The top 0.1% is getting more, while the rest of us are either static or getting less.

And usually working harder.

Wealth can't "trickle up" if most of it's frozen at the top.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 4/15/2014 1:15:28 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,099
Points:454,420
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 9:20:03 AM

"The top 1 percent of taxpayers pay more in federal income taxes than the bottom 90 percent."

The top 1 percent of taxpayers earn more in income taxes than the bottom 90 percent...

The sky is also blue ;)
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,099
Points:454,420
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 9:19:07 AM

"We have MORE people on food stamps, less people working, and a very high long term unemployment rate. AND the median wage is still lower than when Obama took office!"

You realize you just made my point about trickle-down economics being a failure, yes?
Profile Pic
detfan
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:13,836
Points:1,549,845
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 9:16:10 AM

No.
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:20,356
Points:3,492,265
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 9:02:40 AM

"The top 1 percent of taxpayers pay more in federal income taxes than the bottom 90 percent."

(source: taxfoundation.org)

[Edited by: SE3.5 at 4/15/2014 9:02:56 AM EST]
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,314
Points:2,760,070
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 8:13:31 AM

Rj, it's the thought that counts!
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:39,322
Points:4,309,980
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 6:08:45 AM

Weaslespit, "Trickle-down economics is like a weed - no matter how many times you think you've killed it, it keeps rearing its ugly head!"

That trickle up has been a big failure, hasn't it?

We have MORE people on food stamps, less people working, and a very high long term unemployment rate. AND the median wage is still lower than when Obama took office!

Oh, and gas prices have doubled!
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,697
Points:2,532,455
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 14, 2014 5:19:35 PM

I75at7AM - "0bama has proposed 442 tax hikes since taking office."

I wonder how many of those are duplicates.

And how many made it as far as an actual bill.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,314
Points:2,760,070
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Apr 14, 2014 3:37:55 PM

0bama has proposed 442 tax hikes since taking office.

He sure as heck wants SOMEONE to pay more in taxes, and he promised it wouldn't be the middle class. (He lied, and everyone knows it)
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,099
Points:454,420
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2014 9:31:48 AM

"Well, the trend was downward starting in January of 2008, so it's hard to see how that was BO's fault.

OTOH, the trend didn't bottom out until February of 2010, so he wasn't very effective at fixing things."

I'd say that is the reality of it in as simple of terms as can be stated.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,697
Points:2,532,455
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 10, 2014 12:46:04 PM

Well, the trend was downward starting in January of 2008, so it's hard to see how that was BO's fault.

OTOH, the trend didn't bottom out until February of 2010, so he wasn't very effective at fixing things.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,478
Points:2,825,055
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Mar 10, 2014 10:22:39 AM

>>That must be why the unemployment rate was both less, and on a downward trend, before the Shrub tax cuts.<<

Were there more people actually working before or after Obama was sworn in?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,099
Points:454,420
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 8, 2014 10:39:12 AM

"I think that's a bit too simple. I'd say the exemption should be more like: $20,000 for a single, $40,000 for a married couple, plus $5,000 for each of the first two children, $4,000 for the next child and dropping by $1,000 for each additional. Simple, but more 'fair'."

Certainly there are details that could be discussed with regards to threshold levels to fine-tune airfresh's example. I am not opposed to what you have suggested, it also seems to be fair and takes into account a common sense approach yet is still simple to follow.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,697
Points:2,532,455
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 4:44:20 PM

Weaslespit, quoting airfresh - "I've said this before in this topic... I would even build in a relatively high bottom exemption to accommodate low incomes. Incomes below $48K. If you make $50K you pay on $2000. If you make $1,000,000 you pay on $952,000. Fair AND progressive."

I think that's a bit too simple. I'd say the exemption should be more like: $20,000 for a single, $40,000 for a married couple, plus $5,000 for each of the first two children, $4,000 for the next child and dropping by $1,000 for each additional. Simple, but more 'fair'.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,697
Points:2,532,455
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 4:39:47 PM

SoylentGrain - "Also, you can't argue that more people were employed in the previous decade than now. Tax rates matter. The higher the rate, the less capital to to invest. that directly translates to job growth."

That must be why the unemployment rate was both less, and on a downward trend, before the Shrub tax cuts.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,099
Points:454,420
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 12:50:09 PM

Going back to arifresh's example - still the best, most common sense combination I have seen to-date;

"Want fair and equitable? Create a flat tax, lower the rate for all, abolish the IRS, abolish the tax code, and everyone pays the same rate. The rich still pay more they just won't have all the dodges built into the code.

I've said this before in this topic... I would even build in a relatively high bottom exemption to accommodate low incomes. Incomes below $48K. If you make $50K you pay on $2000. If you make $1,000,000 you pay on $952,000. Fair AND progressive."
Profile Pic
PiqueOil
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:6,374
Points:802,525
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 10:35:14 AM


The "Fair" proposal hasn't come close to being passed, though you declare that it solves the politics and math of tax-cutting. Reality directly contradicts your claim.





Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,314
Points:2,760,070
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 10:17:22 AM

"The math of tax-cutting can be complicated and the politics of it can be even more complex."

The FairTax solves it all.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,099
Points:454,420
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 9:44:00 AM

"The higher the rate, the less capital to to invest. that directly translates to job growth."

Trickle-down economics is like a weed - no matter how many times you think you've killed it, it keeps rearing its ugly head!
Profile Pic
PiqueOil
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:6,374
Points:802,525
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 9:42:06 AM


The math of tax-cutting can be complicated and the politics of it can be even more complex.

Profile Pic
WES03
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:6,113
Points:1,522,585
Joined:Feb 2009
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 9:07:24 AM

They already do.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
All-Star Author Illinois

Posts:931
Points:16,760
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 6:47:08 AM

"Shrub already tried that. It did NOT "help everyone", just a few. "

The largest tax reductions were at the bottom end of the tax schedule. Also, you can't argue that more people were employed in the previous decade than now. Tax rates matter. The higher the rate, the less capital to to invest. that directly translates to job growth.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,697
Points:2,532,455
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 3, 2014 1:30:48 PM

kbierley - "You want to help everyone? CUT TAXES!"

Shrub already tried that. It did NOT "help everyone", just a few.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,099
Points:454,420
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 3, 2014 12:38:56 PM

"You want to help everyone? CUT TAXES!"

In order to do this without adding to the debt, Congress (both sides) must stop their out-of-control spending which we have seen for the past decade+.

Profile Pic
kbierley
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:10,752
Points:1,420,320
Joined:Nov 2003
Message Posted: Mar 2, 2014 5:58:15 PM

You want to help everyone? CUT TAXES!
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,099
Points:454,420
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 11, 2014 8:59:55 AM

"So where is the wealth that you want to "distribute" going to come from?"

By decreasing the income inequality gap that has been growing for 4 decades.

No, this does not mean simply raising minimum wages. The problem is far more complex than that.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:39,322
Points:4,309,980
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Feb 10, 2014 3:34:08 PM

So where is the wealth that you want to "distribute" going to come from?

Will the government be printing up dollars to give to low income people until they have much more? Will they take it from somewhere else?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,099
Points:454,420
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 10, 2014 2:40:17 PM

"They are both the same thing. Where do you think the wealth is coming from?"

Nope - 2 very different ideas... Does this really need to be explained? Really?
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,478
Points:2,825,055
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Feb 10, 2014 2:36:22 PM

>>It is 'wealth distribution', not 'wealth re-distribution'...<<

They are both the same thing. Where do you think the wealth is coming from?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,099
Points:454,420
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 10, 2014 2:14:11 PM

"Weasle - we can agree on the need to eliminate and replace out esisting tax code."

OK! lol
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,099
Points:454,420
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 10, 2014 2:13:48 PM

"wealth redistribution"

There it is again. Why the constant incorrect statement? It is 'wealth distribution', not 'wealth re-distribution'...

Seems as though somebody has a FOX-like agenda on that one.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:12,343
Points:1,611,940
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Feb 10, 2014 1:53:23 PM

flyboy: "All taxes are open, above board and easily understandable"


You realize flyboy, that it would be next to impossible to engage in social engineering, wealth redistribution, vote buying, and generally grow government's power and influence with such a tax policy (or in other words everything the left seeks to accomplish via government) don't you?


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 2/10/2014 1:52:32 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:25,833
Points:1,257,025
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 10, 2014 11:55:20 AM

Weasle - we can agree on the need to eliminate and replace out esisting tax code.

The only taxes are on personal income. Personal income is defined as income of any kind from any source. Thus things like food stamps adn any other kind of govt aid/payment is also income just as realized capital gains or interest or wages.

If you wish make it so every person in a taxing entity (household/married couple etc) get a 10,000 dollar exemption of income. Then place a 20% or whatever tax on the rest. The same rate for everyone regardless of size of income.

But no other taxes of any kind on the federal level. No business taxes, no fees , no taxes by any other name. But no need for write offs or subsidies or all the other games the feds play to encourage some business and discourage some business. The govt does not get involved at all in business regarding taxes. The only thing the govt does regarding business is to make them play fair in wages and safety and waste handling etc.

All taxes are open, above board and easily understandable.

Above all ------- the govt will no longer be in the game of social engineering using the IRS.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,099
Points:454,420
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 10, 2014 11:42:38 AM

Going back to arifresh's example - still the best, most common sense combination I have seen to-date;

"Want fair and equitable? Create a flat tax, lower the rate for all, abolish the IRS, abolish the tax code, and everyone pays the same rate. The rich still pay more they just won't have all the dodges built into the code.

I've said this before in this topic... I would even build in a relatively high bottom exemption to accommodate low incomes. Incomes below $48K. If you make $50K you pay on $2000. If you make $1,000,000 you pay on $952,000. Fair AND progressive."
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,314
Points:2,760,070
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Feb 10, 2014 8:21:59 AM

RAB2010, many people support the idea of a consumption-based tax to replace all income tax to fund government. We must be careful that this is not implemented as a VAT, which is very counterproductive to economic growth.
The proposal has been around for years, was studied extensively by a non-partisan group ($20 million was spent on research into the numbers), and the result is the FairTax proposal. It is in Congress as HR25 and the Senate as SB122. The percentage added to the purchase of each new item or service would be 23%. Does this sound high? It does at first, until you factor in that all the imbedded taxes that are already built into manufactured goods are taken out. It is all explained in the FariTax Book - Saying Goodbye to the IRS (May 2006) and also a follow up book two years later, FairTax - Answering The Critics (Feb. 2008).

The expected result, if the FairTax were to be implemented, is that a product that retails now for $100 would still cost $100 afterward, but $77 would go to the manufacturer and $23 would go to the government. To the consumer, there would be no difference in price. Chow!
Profile Pic
RAB2010
All-Star Author Kalamazoo

Posts:579
Points:69,300
Joined:Mar 2010
Message Posted: Feb 9, 2014 12:21:34 PM

It is past time to eliminate the current tax code. If people want the "rich" to pay "more taxes," the solution is very simple: a simple 5 percent national consumption tax. No loopholes, no complicated wording: 5 percent tax on any purchase. No income tax. No problem.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,099
Points:454,420
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 6, 2014 10:28:15 AM

"Just quit while you're behind, your constant sniping at me is making you look foolish."

I'm criticizing your opinion of the poor and their influence on enacting change with regards to their environment as well as your assertion that poor people allow nice buildings to decay, including your previously mentioned home which was constructed of "redwood and had 6" gumwood baseboards throughout the interior". Neighborhoods don't decline 'because' poor people move in and 'allow' them to, poor people move in once they have already declined.

It is easy to say what they 'should' do to improve the condition of their properties and what 'should' happen when you are not in said person's shoes...

But again, whatever.
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:20,356
Points:3,492,265
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Feb 6, 2014 10:03:28 AM

"We should ALL try to be more civil in our postings."

Calling for civility is just as likely to get mocked as posting a rude comment.

Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,314
Points:2,760,070
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Feb 6, 2014 9:51:29 AM

Just quit while you're behind, your constant sniping at me is making you look foolish.

Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,099
Points:454,420
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 6, 2014 9:16:59 AM

"Weas, you have no place to refer to me or anything I post as ignorance."

I do - as evidenced from your own posts. But hey, whatever...
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,575
Points:341,440
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 5, 2014 4:13:55 PM

We should ALL try to be more civil in our postings.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,314
Points:2,760,070
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Feb 5, 2014 11:24:04 AM

Weas, you have no place to refer to me or anything I post as ignorance.

Try the mirror.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,099
Points:454,420
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 5, 2014 10:49:03 AM

"It's not my problem if you can't understand what happened to (formerly) middle class neighborhoods in America."

Indeed I do - unfortunately 'nothing' ever remains the same indefinitely. Nice areas can become slums, slums can turn into nice areas. It has nothing to do with Conservative or Liberal agendas.

"Yes, landlords should be held accountable for the condition and upkeep of their properties. They should also be very careful who they rent to so the place won't get torn up. Buildings and houses can be maintained. When they are not,it's a people problem, both the landlords and renters have a stake in the condition of their neighborhoods."

In a perfect world, of course you would be right. Ignorance is bliss I guess...

"Weasle, I do indeed know what I am talking about."

Clearly not.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,314
Points:2,760,070
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2014 2:08:20 PM

Weasle, I do indeed know what I am talking about.

It's not my problem if you can't understand what happened to (formerly) middle class neighborhoods in America.

Yes, landlords should be held accountable for the condition and upkeep of their properties. They should also be very careful who they rent to so the place won't get torn up. Buildings and houses can be maintained. When they are not,it's a people problem, both the landlords and renters have a stake in the condition of their neighborhoods.
Profile Pic
daylily2009
Champion Author Fayetteville

Posts:1,886
Points:874,795
Joined:Oct 2009
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2014 2:03:04 PM

Yes especially obama
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,575
Points:341,440
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2014 1:45:02 PM

"So then what yo are saying Steve is that allowing people to keep more of their money and spend it on toys provides jobs for others. "

--Nope. That was you trying to put words in my mouth.

Should we allow the super-rich to have lower taxes and eliminate industry jobs so that it will increase their profits and (already exorbitant executive incomes) so that when they finally decide to get a personal luxury item that the sales of such luxury items will sustain enough jobs to replace the ones they eliminated to get so rich?

Problem is there are not enough mega-rich to buy enough super-yachts to create enough good-paying jobs to replace the ones which were lost.

We should be taxing the rich more. We use that revenue to reverse the deficit and pay down the debt. That will get us on better financial footing.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,099
Points:454,420
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2014 1:25:15 PM

"So don't tell me "I should know better" because I do."

Clearly you don't based on your rant about once-new buildings becoming slums and then blaming that on a political ideology.

This says it all;

"...(if they live in a slum, they should demand that their land lords fix things and their neighbors not tear up the place)..."

Talk about not having any perspective - you are talking out of your derrière, sir.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,314
Points:2,760,070
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2014 12:53:26 PM

Fly, I think is was Bush 41 who "imposed" that tax (Congress passed it, he signed it). It was the blowback from that tax, after his infamous campaign promise (in 1988, when he got elected) "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" that cost him reelection in 1992.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:25,833
Points:1,257,025
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2014 12:43:58 PM

So then what yo are saying Steve is that allowing people to keep more of their money and spend it on toys provides jobs for others.

Of course the opposite is also true. When the Peanut Farmer slapped a luxury tax on yachts them evil rich folks just bought their toys elsewhere and the boatbuilders here went belly up and folks lost jobs. Hummmmm - amazing how stuff like that works aint it.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,575
Points:341,440
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2014 12:15:07 PM

"Business is booming in the superyacht industry. Boats now offer "pools with mechanical floors that can be raised or lowered to create a plunge pool, children's pool or helicopter landing pad.""

They Can Afford To Pay More Taxes Because Their Taxes Have been Cut In Recent Decades
Post a reply Back to Topics