Agree or not: The rich benefit the most from tax money?

[hboats]

On a percentage basis, i doubt it's close:

- Everyone utilizes the military for safety. We don't really have a choice in the matter. Rich people don't access or use any more military services than middle-class/poor people do.
- Most people access the public school system. If you're going to say that it benefits the employer, then you have to consider just as much of a benefit to the employee.
- Same as the education system, everyone benefits from the infrastructure system. An employer couldn't benefit from the infrastructure if his/her employee doesn't.
- Student loan programs are generally available to everyone and pretty much fits under the same umbrella as the education system. If the employee hasn't benefitted from the education that the loan and school system provided, then the employer can't.
- Maybe there are some technologies that benefit employers more than employees, like machines or techniques that make an employees job easier, but that's still a benefit to the employee as well.
- Like everything else mentioned, patents are available to anyone, meaning anyone with a patent worthy product can get one and then use it to grow a business. In fact, you might argue that this helps the poor/middle class more in that it prevents an evil rich person from stealing their idea/product.

Ever thought about how the middle-class and pool benefit from rich people? For one, there's actually some tax money to spend on things that everyone accesses. If someone has a multi-million dollar home, they're going to pay higher property taxes which are applied to schools in the area. If there were no rich people in the area, the schools would suffer from less tax money.

Further, if there were no rich people who needed people to work for them in order to get/keep their business running, then those people lose a source of income.

I really can't wrap my head around the concept that rich people are a bad thing. The overwhelming majority of rich people are rich because they're smart/talented and have provided a good or service to the public that is wanted, and in the process, they employ millions of people to provide said good or service. What's so horrible about that?

Never said they were. Excessive richness, maybe. HOrding more and more of the profits while not increasing their worker's salary seems to be not a good thing. T
\
What I can't wrap my head around is people claiming its unfair that billionaires have to pay more in taxes, like they are really suffering for paying more, while having 20 100K cars, multiple houses and vacation homes, and plenty more money for whatever they want.

What I can't wrap my head around is why anyone would think that they have a RIGHT to the money that someone else EARNED. Basically what you're saying is, if someone has 20 $100,000 cars and multiple houses and vacation homes, and money for whatever they want, they couldn't have EARNED that much. Most billionaires earned their money through hard work. They made something of themselves and got paid for it. Why should ANYONE feel that it's their RIGHT to take what someone else has EARNED just because they don't have as much?

So, where do we draw the line? If someone has 5 $100,000 vehicles and 2 $1,000,000 houses and 1 vacation house, that's all they need. The government should take whatever is left over. Heck, who needs 5 vehicles, let's say 2 cars, and who can live in 2 houses and a vacation house besides, let's say one house and a vacation house.

I think the better question is, why is there such an entitlement mentality in this country? Why do people see someone that has more than them and just automatically assume that they don't deserve what they have?

I've worked hard to get where I am today. Now I'm nowhere close to "rich" but I have extra. And I've worked for every bit of it. Where has that mentality gone in the United States?

Rick

 

[Oddball]

Like I said....Looters.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Why? Cause without tax money there would be no money to run a government. ANd we all pay taxes, so its not "your money", plus we all benefit from that tax money

 

[DiamondDave]

Why? Cause without tax money there would be no money to run a government. ANd we all pay taxes, so its not "your money", plus we all benefit from that tax money

No.. we don't all pay taxes... many persons do not pay many taxes that other pay, mainly income taxes... and above that, as stated SO many times, we have unequal treatment in taxation by our government, which is not how it is supposed to be

 

[hboats]

Why? Cause without tax money there would be no money to run a government. ANd we all pay taxes, so its not "your money", plus we all benefit from that tax money

That's the point, we don't all pay taxes. 50% of the country does not. I guess what that 50% earned they've really earned, but the rest of us that are paying taxes didn't really earn what we were working for.

There is such an entitlement mentality in this country that it's getting sickening.

Rick

 

[xsited1]

Agree or not: The rich benefit the most from tax money?

Disagree. The government is notorious for spending our money unwisely. Just look at our nation's schools. We spend more per student than any other industrialized country on Earth and yet we get the least bang for our buck. And to say that they pay for the defense of this country is laughable when you consider we have more than 20 million illegal aliens living in the US right now. No, I'd have to say the rich benefit the least since they are forced to pay for waste and boondoggles.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I have absolutely NFI what in hell you're talking about.

Not only did the incredibly condescending OP had virtually zero do do with income taxes (those most talked about when taxes for the "wealthy" are brought up), it gives a list of services that nobody is ever asked as to whether they want them or not. IOW, they're forced upon us as a matter of course, so claiming that they're a defacto benefit to the eeeevil wealthy, more so than anyone else, is as dopey a premise that there is.

I didn't respond to the OP because I thought it was stupid.

I responded to your non-sequitur with one of my own simply because I was bored, and wandered through the thread.

I was not and is not a non sequitur, as the premise is that the given services and institutions are forced upon us all, so sniveling about whether or not the reviled "rich" benefit from them more is inane and worthy of ridicule as such.

I agree. Ridicule away. But when I see a post saying

When did any of them ask for all that "benevolent patronage" of Big Daddy Big Gubmint?

I have no choice but to respond.

 

[rightwinger]

When did any of them ask for all that "benevolent patronage" of Big Daddy Big Gubmint?

Isn't that what lobbyists do?

 

[saveliberty]

What I can't wrap my head around is why anyone would think that they have a RIGHT to the money that someone else EARNED. Basically what you're saying is, if someone has 20 $100,000 cars and multiple houses and vacation homes, and money for whatever they want, they couldn't have EARNED that much. Most billionaires earned their money through hard work. They made something of themselves and got paid for it. Why should ANYONE feel that it's their RIGHT to take what someone else has EARNED just because they don't have as much?

I think the better question is, why is there such an entitlement mentality in this country? Why do people see someone that has more than them and just automatically assume that they don't deserve what they have?

Maybe I can put it terms you can understand. I happen to think the government has created an unsustainable economic environment and ignores the will of the people. I tried to find a party that would correct that problem. Neither party will. I am beginning to not care about the method in which the problem gets resolved. The ends are beginning to justify the means.

If you are poor and do not see where you can improve your situation by education, location, or effort, looking to others probably starts to look like a solution. Another case of the ends justifying means.

Using this approach will break down society in both situations. That is why I return to working within the system.

 

[SFC Ollie]

When did any of them ask for all that "benevolent patronage" of Big Daddy Big Gubmint?

Constantly.

Who do you think pays lobbyists? Poor people?

In some cases. The American Legion does some of the most lobbying in Washington, And this old sergeants annual dues pay them. And I'm sure there are many members of the legion better off and worse off than I am. And they pay their dues, which pays for lobbyists in Washington.

 

[Foxfyre]

Going back to the implied thesis in the thread title, of course tax payers benefit from taxes paid. Probably some benefit more than non tax payers from taxes paid. And some may benefit less.

The issue comes down to four purposes for taxes paid:

1. Those necessary to cover expenses for the necessary administrative functions of government mandated by laws.

2. Those necessary to pay for shared infrastructure and services that benefit all, rich and poor alike.

3. Those approved by the taxpayers for certain quality of life aesthetics such as libraries, museums, zoos, aquariums, parks, beautification, convention and civic centers, open space etc.

4. Those presumed to be 'compassionate' or 'beneficial' or 'warranted' for certain targeted demographics.

I think nobody has much quarrel with the basis of #1 and #2 above though there are differences of opinion about how much is spent on the various components.

#3 is no problem as long as the people approve the bonds to finance whatever they would like to have in their community. It can become a problem, however, when a majority of non property owners are voting for the burden to be carried by property owners. Personally, if property ownes are the ones to carry such non-essential burdens, then only property owners should vote on such initiatives. Otherwise, a sales tax is much fairer.

#4 is where most of the issues are as it is here that government most often robs Peter to pay Paul.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

The only rich I know are government workers so I would have to say yes, they benefit the most from our taxation.

 

[Oddball]

Why? Cause without tax money there would be no money to run a government. ANd we all pay taxes, so its not "your money", plus we all benefit from that tax money

The most arrogant statement of the day.

Who engaged in productive behavior and earned the money to start with?

 

[rightwinger]

4. Those presumed to be 'compassionate' or 'beneficial' or 'warranted' for certain targeted demographics.
#4 is where most of the issues are as it is here that government most often robs Peter to pay Paul.

It all comes down to what type of society we choose to be. Do we want to take care of the less fortunate? Do we want to punish those who have made bad choices? Do we want to take care of the children of people who have made bad choices?

Should there be a safety net of "three hots and a cot' to anyone regardless of how repulsive they are to us?
Do we want people begging door to door? Do we want the sick and infirm dying in our streets?

These are the choices modern societies make. The level of support that is provided to the lowest common denominator is part of what defines us

 

[Foxfyre]

Well going back to my immediately preceding post, the rich may benefit more from #1 and #2 above because they utilize more of government services than the poor. But the rich also pay more in taxes and that should entitle them value for the money they pay.

#3 probably benefits all pretty much equally, so I can't see how the rich benefit more. Almost certainly the rich contribute more in taxes and also voluntarily contribute more to such quality of life factors.

It's certainly hard to say that #4 benefits the rich more than the poor though.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well of course Greg.. all the unemployment, welfare, free medical care, foodstamps, EIC credits, tuition assistance, book assistance, PELL grants, etc. that the "rich" get... yes they are using up all the services.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Why? Cause without tax money there would be no money to run a government. ANd we all pay taxes, so its not "your money", plus we all benefit from that tax money

The most arrogant statement of the day.

Who engaged in productive behavior and earned the money to start with?

Claiming tax money is "my money" is not arrogant and condescending?

 

[Titanic Sailor]

My bet is the level of poverty has skyrocketed under Obama, and it was done on purpose too.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Here's an idea Greg.. instead of spending 24/7 on here bitching and whining about all the preceived injustices that you have endured. Go get a job, work your ass off an endeavor to become one of the "rich".

 

[Some Guy]

There is some validity that 20% to a person making $300,000 is different than 20% to a person making $45,000.00 To me there is nothing wrong with some progressiveness in the tax code.

My issue is that if people who tend to want to tax the rich more REALLY want to tax them more, like 50-75% of income over value X. To me that is confiscation, not taxation. But thats what would be needed to achive the "equality" they are looking for.

I'm not wildly opposed to some progressiveness in the tax code, but there's two problems with it.

1. Obviously, people opinions on "some" is going to disagree wildly as evidenced by this thread. Some people here think the rich need to pay much more than they do today.

2. It creates gaps. I'm sure there's better way to do it, but you can't (for example) say that someone who makes $100,000.01 per year gets taxed at 25% while someone who makes $100,000.00 gets taxed at 20%. That one cent difference in income costs me $5,000. So, if i make $100k, my net income is $80k, but if i make $100,000.01, my net income is basically $75k. In order to get out of that hole, i basically need to make $107k per year. Maybe i'm making a mountain out of a mole hill, but there's some incentive there to do less in order to make less money which ultimately means you're not doing as much as you could to better yourself and your company.