Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    12:36 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:31,572
Points:2,841,855
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
Troller_Diesel
All-Star Author Denver

Posts:720
Points:8,010
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2014 2:28:26 PM

Hobby001, how about just cutting spending back and not wasting money on ridiculous projects, crony capitalists, and throwing it around like drunken Democrats? (Apologies to Teddy Kennedy...)
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,335
Points:1,304,945
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2014 2:09:08 PM

Hobby001
The answer is not higher taxes. The answer is less spending from DC. O-Vomit has added 8 Trillion dollars to the National Debt. He intends to add 4 Trillion more in his last 2 years in office.
The first thing we have to do is get Reid out of office. He has blocked all legislation since he became head of the Senate.
Over 40 House bills passed to help our immigration problems and he refused to bring them up.
Profile Pic
Hobby001
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:5,799
Points:1,439,520
Joined:Jul 2007
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2014 1:27:32 PM

Everyone should be paying higher taxes to cover the excessive spending in DC.

How about a change to the tax code so everyone pays something and no person gets a refund for more than they paid into the IRS? More specifically, the refund cannot exceed the total amount withheld from paychecks by the IRS and paid to the IRS as quarterly tax estimates.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,308
Points:2,661,550
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2014 1:22:42 PM

Chiefaz - "If the economy is so great why is 103 million people still out of work."

The economy is not "so great". But it's also not "in a tailspin".

And where do you get that "103 million" figure? From what I could find, that's the number of people with incomes below twice the poverty line (as of a couple of years ago).

That would also be almost 1/3 of our total population, including children and retired people.
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,335
Points:1,304,945
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 31, 2014 7:56:06 PM

Henn
If the economy is so great why is 103 million people still out of work. Those people are not even counted. Government lies and you fall for them.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,308
Points:2,661,550
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2014 7:21:00 PM

Economy heats up in Q2 after harsh winter
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,049
Points:19,060
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2014 7:26:29 AM

You are a static thinker, Henn. The economy already is in a tailspin, in part to regulation and in part to the tax code.

Free markets work. I think business would adjust to some of their customers having 10@ of their gross income taxed. The sky would not fall.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,308
Points:2,661,550
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2014 12:23:15 AM

SoylentGrain - "It might also create competition between the people who rent property, sell groceries and other basic essentials."

How is reducing the income of many people, thus reducing consumer spending, going to create competition? If anything, it will reduce business, kill jobs and send the economy into a tailspin.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,049
Points:19,060
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 7:13:02 PM

"Would put even more people on welfare. "

It might also create competition between the people who rent property, sell groceries and other basic essentials. That means lower prices. It might also be an incentive to get a higher paying job.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,308
Points:2,661,550
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 4:16:53 PM

Chiefaz - "Everyone pays 10% on any and all income."

Would put even more people on welfare.
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,335
Points:1,304,945
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2014 1:37:35 PM

Everyone pays 10% on any and all income.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,604
Points:372,440
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jul 23, 2014 9:46:09 PM

Excellent point about hedge funds, SG.

RJH, I've often wondered if we eliminated those give-aways, would wages rise because people just wouldn't work for less than they need?

Or would we have to raise the minimum wage in conjunction.

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 7/23/2014 9:46:57 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,308
Points:2,661,550
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 23, 2014 6:31:45 PM

Hobby001 - "How about a change to the tax code so everyone pays something and no person gets a refund for more than they paid into the IRS? More specifically, the refund cannot exceed the total amount withheld from paychecks by the IRS and paid to the IRS as quarterly tax estimates."

So you reject Ronald Reagan and his support for the EITC as a “sweeping victory for fairness” and “perhaps the biggest antipoverty program in our history”?

Of course, making it so "everyone pays something" would also increase the number of people on welfare, since many people would find the reduction in their earnings made working no longer worth it.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,049
Points:19,060
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jul 23, 2014 11:34:28 AM

'Hedge funds, which I do not care for because of their speculative nature, could go about their business of hedging against risk, instead of hedging against taxation. '

That's exactly what hedge funds do is hedge against business risk. It has little to do with taxes. The same techniques used in hedge funds are used by individuals operating other businesses. for example, my renter sells grain on the futures market and secures an option on the other side to secure against loss. It's simply an insurance policy.

Be careful what you wish for. If restrictions are placed on hedging to limit private individuals investing in funds, the same will apply to individuals owning businesses. That will make the day to day items you consume more expensive or unavailable.

[Edited by: SoylentGrain at 7/23/2014 11:38:01 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Hobby001
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:5,799
Points:1,439,520
Joined:Jul 2007
Message Posted: Jul 23, 2014 11:24:58 AM

Everyone should be paying more for the level of spending in Washington, DC. How about a change to the tax code so everyone pays something and no person gets a refund for more than they paid into the IRS? More specifically, the refund cannot exceed the total amount withheld from paychecks by the IRS and paid to the IRS as quarterly tax estimates.
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,335
Points:1,304,945
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 23, 2014 11:08:18 AM

Keep it going guys. If it wasn't for the rich we would all be in the poor house.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:72,712
Points:2,893,745
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jul 23, 2014 10:42:14 AM

I am completely with you, Soylent, that long term capital gains should not be taxed. Nor should short term capital gains. Nor should "corporate profits".
I am for the consumption-based FairTax. The revenue generated through taxing consumption of new goods and services would replace all income-based taxes.

Hedge funds, which I do not care for because of their speculative nature, could go about their business of hedging against risk, instead of hedging against taxation.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,049
Points:19,060
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jul 23, 2014 9:39:44 AM

The 150 or so billionaires in the US own, control, or have created and controlled the operations of companies that employ 7.5 million US citizens. The income tax generated by employing those individuals dwarfs that of the corporate income tax. In the event a corporation has years it pays no taxes, it's still dwarfed by the tax revenue generated by the personal income tax created by employing people.
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,335
Points:1,304,945
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 22, 2014 1:27:36 PM

SemiSteve
Those "rich" corporations pay a hell of a lot of taxes. Who employs all those taxpayers that keep this country afloat.
This liberal "stick" the rich is getting old.

[Edited by: Chiefaz at 7/22/2014 1:28:01 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,604
Points:372,440
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jul 22, 2014 11:59:06 AM

Would be helpful if some of these rich corporations were to pay ANY taxes at all.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,049
Points:19,060
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jul 22, 2014 11:54:13 AM

It's called a long term capital gain, I75at7AM. If congress is wasting time on this kind of picky nonsense, then, the tax code has to be simplified. One more reason to abolish the IRS, as it currently stands.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:72,712
Points:2,893,745
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jul 22, 2014 11:08:07 AM

How about hedge funds that avoid $6 Billion in taxes?
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,335
Points:1,304,945
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 18, 2014 1:14:14 PM

10% flat tax for everyone.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,308
Points:2,661,550
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 2, 2014 3:08:40 PM

PopcornPirate - "It is the governments job to not tax people to the point of not being able to start a business. To create jobs so some of the poor can better themselves & move up the ladder of life."

It's the government's job to create jobs? What happened to the "free market"?

"I will say it again
The Poor are Poor because it is all they know & all they are told.
Knowledge is the key to a better life"

Mostly true. One major problem is a culture that doesn't believe in either education or bettering oneself.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,049
Points:19,060
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jul 2, 2014 10:52:39 AM

"Quite the stereotype you have there of the poor - you'd fit perfectly in the Romney camp with his disdain of the poor as well. "

The wealthy people I know disdain poverty, not poor people. Most wealthy people became wealthy by selling products to people with money, not the impoverished.

The only people who benefit from poverty is the Democratic party.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,802
Points:506,765
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 2, 2014 9:38:57 AM

"The Poor are Poor because it is all they know & all they are told."

Quite the stereotype you have there of the poor - you'd fit perfectly in the Romney camp with his disdain of the poor as well.
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,203
Points:1,432,285
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Jul 2, 2014 9:15:55 AM

""It's also not the government's job to punish the poor for being poor just to reduce the load on the rich.""

It is the governments job to not tax people to the point of not being able to start a business. To create jobs so some of the poor can better themselves & move up the ladder of life.
I will say it again
The Poor are Poor because it is all they know & all they are told.
Knowledge is the key to a better life
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,308
Points:2,661,550
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 2, 2014 12:28:24 AM

SoylentGrain - "You are still leaving out taxes. discretionary income is income minus taxes and living expenses."

The basic idea behind a progressive tax system is that basic living expenses shouldn't be taxed by the income tax.

"It's not the government's job to level the playing field."

It's also not the government's job to punish the poor for being poor just to reduce the load on the rich.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 7/2/2014 12:29:22 AM EST]
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,049
Points:19,060
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jul 1, 2014 6:57:29 PM

"My mistake. Substitute "discretionary income" where I was using "disposable income". "

You are still leaving out taxes. discretionary income is income minus taxes and living expenses. That's why my close friend who worked at Walmart for 20 years can retire on a quarter section of good quality farmland at 60 years of age. Her tax liability was lower. I, on the other hand, made much more but, had to live in a high cost of living area to obtain that salary AND pay higher taxes. We both had similar discretionary incomes. It's not the government's job to level the playing field.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,604
Points:372,440
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jul 1, 2014 2:15:17 PM

Yes, of course the rich should be paying more in taxes.

Here's why:

The rich control most of government policy and, therefore, the spending.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,308
Points:2,661,550
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 1, 2014 1:40:25 PM

My mistake. Substitute "discretionary income" where I was using "disposable income".
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,049
Points:19,060
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jul 1, 2014 7:13:46 AM

"No. "Disposable income" is the income you've got left after you've paid for the basic necessities."

Like I said, leftists create different definitions. Income minus taxes is the definition taught in business schools. You are confused.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,308
Points:2,661,550
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 1, 2014 1:27:34 AM

Troller_Diesel - "rjhenn, we did that one time, remember? President Clinton and Newt Gingrich hammered out a landmark Welfare reform program, that not everyone liked, but everyone agreed was the best compromise possible."

It didn't go far enough, yet, as usual in such things, probably went too far in some areas.

"President Obama undid it by fiat..."

Nonsense. The request for waivers came from the states, some of which had Republican governors.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,308
Points:2,661,550
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 1, 2014 1:20:53 AM

SoylentGrain - "The leftist has a different definition than most conservatives, for sure. You do realize that "disposable income" is the money left over after taxes are paid."

No. "Disposable income" is the income you've got left after you've paid for the basic necessities.

You know, things like food, shelter, clothing, utilities, medical care. That's why we've got exemptions and deductions in the income tax system. It's an attempt to see that only disposable income is taxed.

And, on that basis, the wealthy don't pay much more than anyone else as a percentage of their disposable income, since almost all of their income is disposable income.
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
All-Star Author Denver

Posts:720
Points:8,010
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Jun 30, 2014 8:44:04 PM

rjhenn, we did that one time, remember? President Clinton and Newt Gingrich hammered out a landmark Welfare reform program, that not everyone liked, but everyone agreed was the best compromise possible.

President Obama undid it by fiat...
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,049
Points:19,060
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jun 30, 2014 7:30:23 PM

"OK, so you're not speaking the same language as anyone else?"

The leftist has a different definition than most conservatives, for sure. You do realize that "disposable income" is the money left over after taxes are paid. So, a person paying a higher tax rate has a lower disposable income, as a percentage, than someone pay low or no taxes.

What you do with your after tax dollars or "disposable income" is up to the individual. I chose to live in a nice secure Chicago suburb for 35 years. I made a respectable amount but, spent a lot of my "disposable income" for living expense. A childhood friend, who worked for WALMART, sweeping a warehouse floor for a couple decades, chose to live more modestly. Today, neither of us are poor. We are both 60, retired, and will never have to work again. What you do with your "disposable income" is more important than how much you make.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,308
Points:2,661,550
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 30, 2014 6:54:54 PM

Troller_Diesel - "It's just a far better one than the current liberal Marxist redistribution programs..."

OK, you've just demonstrated that, far from being a rational person, you're a radical conservative.

Which makes you no better than the "liberal Marxist" you imagine is running things.

OTOH, it's clear that we need to review all current forms of welfare, and consolidate most of them into a single program, with a single application, which would go a long way towards reducing fraud and duplication of effort. We also need to change the emphasis to getting people back to work.

Of course, that's only going to happen if we create more jobs, and jobs that pay better.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,308
Points:2,661,550
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 30, 2014 6:50:15 PM

SoylentGrain - "total income becomes "disposable income" after it is taxed and given to someone else."

OK, so you're not speaking the same language as anyone else?
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
All-Star Author Denver

Posts:720
Points:8,010
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Jun 30, 2014 4:48:51 PM

rjhenn, I didn't say it was a perfect plan.

It's just a far better one than the current liberal Marxist redistribution programs...
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,049
Points:19,060
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jun 30, 2014 4:36:38 PM

"Which is talking about total income, not "disposable income"."

total income becomes "disposable income" after it is taxed and given to someone else.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,308
Points:2,661,550
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 30, 2014 2:25:34 PM

Troller_Diesel - "Of course they should. They have more money."

It's not simply about "more money". It's about making things better for everyone, while not discouraging individual initiative. That means, in general, only taxing disposable income, not total income.

Which is why we have exemptions and deductions in the current system.

"Simple. Just have everyone, and I mean everyone, pay the exact same percentage."

Which hurts the poor, while not doing much for the rich.

"Oh, yeah, and end all government payments to people who don't work."

You mean like students and retirees?

"If you can't work, the government will provide enough to survive. If you work 40 hours a week, and pay taxes, the government will provide assistance to help you move up in the world."

So students who work part-time to put themselves through school are out-of-luck?

"If you sit on your rear and do nothing. Starve to death. And your kids with you."

How is that the fault of the kids?

Although I would be in favor of something like involuntary sterilization if you have two kids while on welfare (meaning get pregnant while on welfare and still be on welfare when you deliver). That would include dads, as determined by a paternity test, who father two such kids.

"It's called evolution."

Sounds more like "only the rich matter".
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
All-Star Author Denver

Posts:720
Points:8,010
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Jun 30, 2014 1:18:31 PM

Of course they should. They have more money.

Simple. Just have everyone, and I mean everyone, pay the exact same percentage.

Oh, yeah, and end all government payments to people who don't work.

If you can't work, the government will provide enough to survive. If you work 40 hours a week, and pay taxes, the government will provide assistance to help you move up in the world.

If you sit on your rear and do nothing. Starve to death. And your kids with you.

It's called evolution.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,308
Points:2,661,550
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 30, 2014 1:13:06 PM

SoylentGrain - "Wrong. Tax Burden of Wealthiest Twice Their Share of Income"

Which is talking about total income, not "disposable income".

"Exactly, how does taking tax money out of the employer's pocket and redistributing it as a benefit to employees increase profits?"

Ask Wal-Mart.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,802
Points:506,765
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jun 30, 2014 9:01:36 AM

"Weasle brought up the other taxes, which I paid as well, except for the gas tax, because I rode a bicycle."

Exactly - meaning the poor do indeed have some skin in the game...

Income tax, as rj mentioned, is not the only game in town yet it is the fixation of the Right's march against the Poor.

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 6/30/2014 9:02:06 AM EST]
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,049
Points:19,060
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jun 30, 2014 8:00:50 AM

"Which is roughly equal to their share of "disposable income"."Wrong. Tax Burden of Wealthiest Twice Their Share of Income

"And don't forget that our welfare programs help subsidize the profits of the wealthy by enabling them to underpay their employees."

Exactly, how does taking tax money out of the employer's pocket and redistributing it as a benefit to employees increase profits? The figure I hear was only 7% efficient. But, let's say the government is 97% efficient, the math still isn't on your side with this logic.


[Edited by: SoylentGrain at 6/30/2014 8:02:31 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,308
Points:2,661,550
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 29, 2014 11:57:35 PM

Hobby001 - "How about a change to the tax code so everyone pays something and no person gets a refund for more than they paid into the IRS?"

IOW, people with no income should still pay income tax.

"More specifically, the refund cannot exceed the total amount withheld from paychecks by the IRS and paid to the IRS as quarterly tax estimates."

So you think that Reagan was wrong when he called the Earned Income Credit a “sweeping victory for fairness” and “perhaps the biggest antipoverty program in our history.”

"A reminder: The top 1% of this country shouldered 36.7% of the federal income tax burden, using data from the IRS. The top 5% pays 58.7%. Top 10% pays 70.5%. The bottom half pays just 2.25%."

Which is roughly equal to their share of "disposable income".

And don't forget that our welfare programs help subsidize the profits of the wealthy by enabling them to underpay their employees.

"Many uneducated Democrats still think the rich individuals pay less taxes. But the top 50% pays 97% of all IRS revenues, and top 5% pays more than 50% of total revenues (check the IRS data and records)."

Again, income tax is not the only tax that people pay.
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:22,271
Points:3,626,065
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jun 29, 2014 3:35:37 PM

"Actually, income tax was the only tax you mentioned."

That is correct. Weasle brought up the other taxes, which I paid as well, except for the gas tax, because I rode a bicycle.
Profile Pic
Hobby001
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:5,799
Points:1,439,520
Joined:Jul 2007
Message Posted: Jun 29, 2014 1:48:14 PM

Many uneducated Democrats still think the rich individuals pay less taxes. But the top 50% pays 97% of all IRS revenues, and top 5% pays more than 50% of total revenues (check the IRS data and records).
Profile Pic
Hobby001
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:5,799
Points:1,439,520
Joined:Jul 2007
Message Posted: Jun 29, 2014 1:40:45 PM

A reminder: The top 1% of this country shouldered 36.7% of the federal income tax burden, using data from the IRS. The top 5% pays 58.7%. Top 10% pays 70.5%. The bottom half pays just 2.25%.
Profile Pic
Hobby001
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:5,799
Points:1,439,520
Joined:Jul 2007
Message Posted: Jun 29, 2014 1:39:29 PM

How about a change to the tax code so everyone pays something and no person gets a refund for more than they paid into the IRS? More specifically, the refund cannot exceed the total amount withheld from paychecks by the IRS and paid to the IRS as quarterly tax estimates.
Post a reply Back to Topics