Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[Maryland Patriot]

Those talking about paying a fair share don't agree with you.
if a rich guy pays 1,000,000 in tax a year, yet I only paid roughly 30k, then to be fair either my tax has to increase by 999,970.00 or his would have to decrease by an equal amount.
Really makes no difference what you make, there is a bill due and every citizen owes an equal part of that bill.

fair is a social concept not a capital concept. cost is a capital concept; why shouldn't our wealthiest pay the finest tax rates in the world.

Compelling argument that would indicate they should pay a higher percentage?
even at the same percentage they do pay a greater amount.
what's needed is for everyone to contribute something.

everyone does contribute something at the State and local level.

Not those that totally live off of welfare, but still, the federal tax is the major drain on ones pay check. So everyone should contribute an equal percentage of their income to satisfy the debt. Tax revenue should be based on the total dollars traded.

who doesn't pay consumption taxes regardless of income?

why not end our war on drugs.

if you think that someone spending welfare dollars is contributing to paying off debt, I would like to make a deal with you. You give me $100.00 and I will give you $6.00 back. I keep $94.00 and you are better off financially. We can make this trade anytime you are in need of money.

 

[Arizona Willie]

The problem lies in the definition of equal.

Does equal mean an exact equality in dollar terms?

eg I pay 10,000 dollars so the super rich guy should only pay 10,000 dollars?

Or should equal mean ' equal percentage '

eg I pay 10% so the uber rich dude should only pay 10%?

Thus me and the rich guy pay equally.

One of the problems with that is where do you draw the bottom line on equal?

Saying a rich man shouldn't have to pay more than regular people effectively means that he shouldn't pay more than the common man who pays the least.

In other words the uber wealthy should pay NOTHING because there are regular people who pay nothing.

How do you define " equal "?

The progressive taxation system has long been determined to be the FAIREST system. The more wealth you receive from society the more you should return to society.

A person who makes 20K a year and has to pay 10% tax ( we will just lump all taxes together for the discussion instead of picking fly shit out of the pepper over fed / state / local ) is left with 18K to live on.

The person who makes 20 million a year and only has to pay 10% tax is left with 18 million to live on.

That doesn't seem like an equal / fair distribution of the burden.

That is where the Flat Tax people are crazy. It is the most unfair system of all.
It takes way too much from the poor and takes almost nothing from the rich.

====================

yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.

Those talking about paying a fair share don't agree with you.
if a rich guy pays 1,000,000 in tax a year, yet I only paid roughly 30k, then to be fair either my tax has to increase by 999,970.00 or his would have to decrease by an equal amount.
Really makes no difference what you make, there is a bill due and every citizen owes an equal part of that bill.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

The problem lies in the definition of equal.

Does equal mean an exact equality in dollar terms?

eg I pay 10,000 dollars so the super rich guy should only pay 10,000 dollars?

Or should equal mean ' equal percentage '

eg I pay 10% so the uber rich dude should only pay 10%?

Thus me and the rich guy pay equally.

One of the problems with that is where do you draw the bottom line on equal?

Saying a rich man shouldn't have to pay more than regular people effectively means that he shouldn't pay more than the common man who pays the least.

In other words the uber wealthy should pay NOTHING because there are regular people who pay nothing.

How do you define " equal "?

The progressive taxation system has long been determined to be the FAIREST system. The more wealth you receive from society the more you should return to society.

A person who makes 20K a year and has to pay 10% tax ( we will just lump all taxes together for the discussion instead of picking fly shit out of the pepper over fed / state / local ) is left with 18K to live on.

The person who makes 20 million a year and only has to pay 10% tax is left with 18 million to live on.

That doesn't seem like an equal / fair distribution of the burden.

That is where the Flat Tax people are crazy. It is the most unfair system of all.
It takes way too much from the poor and takes almost nothing from the rich.

====================

yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.

Those talking about paying a fair share don't agree with you.
if a rich guy pays 1,000,000 in tax a year, yet I only paid roughly 30k, then to be fair either my tax has to increase by 999,970.00 or his would have to decrease by an equal amount.
Really makes no difference what you make, there is a bill due and every citizen owes an equal part of that bill.

both paying 10% is fair.
It does not matter how much is left over after paying tax, the point is that dollar for dollar each person put the same amount toward the debt. There is not a fairer way to do it that than.
??% on each dollar.
by your definition, which I do understand but don't agree with, sales tax is an unfair way of taxing products sold. That 6% tax per dollar spent is equal, the guy that makes 20,000 is going to pay the same tax on purchases as the guy making 1,000,000. How can that be fair yet working other taxes the same is not.

 

[Dad2three]

yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.

But we don't tax wealth in America.

That SMALL sliver at the top paying estate taxes would disagree Bubs

 

[Dad2three]

So NO you can't refute FACTS that Ronnie increased the capital gains tax rate to 28%, same as earned wages! How the fuk could the economy work? Hell Ronnie had a TOP rate of 50% the first 6 years Bubba, how could the economy function at those levels? lol

Economy functions regardless of policy... idiot.

Yes, Reagan signed the bill presented to him by a Democrat Congress where he agreed to increase the cap gains tax rate from 20% to 28% temporarily. His reasoning was, it was better to compromise here in order to reduce the top marginal income tax rates from 50% to 28%. He didn't LIKE it... it wasn't what HE wanted to do... he had to work with the Congress he was dealt, which was controlled by the opposing party.

GOP Senate Bubs, weird though how the top tax rate of 50% the first 6 years of Ronnie THEN increasing capital gains taxes to the same as EARNED income 28% the last 2 years, seems like there can be ZERO correlation with how tax rates effect the economy right Bubs?

I mean in right wing world view, how the fuk could that commie Reagan have had a successful economy?

PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE show me Ronnie "increase the cap gains tax rate from 20% to 28% temporarily"

 

[Dad2three]

fair is a social concept not a capital concept. cost is a capital concept; why shouldn't our wealthiest pay the finest tax rates in the world.

Compelling argument that would indicate they should pay a higher percentage?
even at the same percentage they do pay a greater amount.
what's needed is for everyone to contribute something.

everyone does contribute something at the State and local level.

Not those that totally live off of welfare, but still, the federal tax is the major drain on ones pay check. So everyone should contribute an equal percentage of their income to satisfy the debt. Tax revenue should be based on the total dollars traded.

who doesn't pay consumption taxes regardless of income?

why not end our war on drugs.

if you think that someone spending welfare dollars is contributing to paying off debt, I would like to make a deal with you. You give me $100.00 and I will give you $6.00 back. I keep $94.00 and you are better off financially. We can make this trade anytime you are in need of money.

Without false premises, distortions AND LIES, what would the right wingers EVER have Bubba?

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Some conservative critics of federal social programs, including leading presidential candidates, are sounding an alarm that the United States is rapidly becoming an “entitlement society” in which social programs are undermining the work ethic and creating a large class of Americans who prefer to depend on government benefits rather than work. A new CBPP analysis of budget and Census data, however, shows that more than 90 percent of the benefit dollars that entitlement and other mandatory programs spend go to assist people who are elderly, seriously disabled, or members of working households — not to able-bodied, working-age Americans who choose not to work. (See Figure 1.) This figure has changed little in the past few years.



...The claim behind these critiques is clear: federal spending on entitlements and other mandatory programs through which individuals receive benefits is promoting laziness, creating a dependent class of Americans who are losing the desire to work and would rather collect government benefits than find a job.

Such beliefs are starkly at odds with the basic facts regarding social programs, the analysis finds. Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percentof the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.


Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[Dad2three]

The problem lies in the definition of equal.

Does equal mean an exact equality in dollar terms?

eg I pay 10,000 dollars so the super rich guy should only pay 10,000 dollars?

Or should equal mean ' equal percentage '

eg I pay 10% so the uber rich dude should only pay 10%?

Thus me and the rich guy pay equally.

One of the problems with that is where do you draw the bottom line on equal?

Saying a rich man shouldn't have to pay more than regular people effectively means that he shouldn't pay more than the common man who pays the least.

In other words the uber wealthy should pay NOTHING because there are regular people who pay nothing.

How do you define " equal "?

The progressive taxation system has long been determined to be the FAIREST system. The more wealth you receive from society the more you should return to society.

A person who makes 20K a year and has to pay 10% tax ( we will just lump all taxes together for the discussion instead of picking fly shit out of the pepper over fed / state / local ) is left with 18K to live on.

The person who makes 20 million a year and only has to pay 10% tax is left with 18 million to live on.

That doesn't seem like an equal / fair distribution of the burden.

That is where the Flat Tax people are crazy. It is the most unfair system of all.
It takes way too much from the poor and takes almost nothing from the rich.

====================

yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.

Those talking about paying a fair share don't agree with you.
if a rich guy pays 1,000,000 in tax a year, yet I only paid roughly 30k, then to be fair either my tax has to increase by 999,970.00 or his would have to decrease by an equal amount.
Really makes no difference what you make, there is a bill due and every citizen owes an equal part of that bill.

both paying 10% is fair.
It does not matter how much is left over after paying tax, the point is that dollar for dollar each person put the same amount toward the debt. There is not a fairer way to do it that than.
??% on each dollar.
by your definition, which I do understand but don't agree with, sales tax is an unfair way of taxing products sold. That 6% tax per dollar spent is equal, the guy that makes 20,000 is going to pay the same tax on purchases as the guy making 1,000,000. How can that be fair yet working other taxes the same is not.

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state." Adam Smith

 

[Maryland Patriot]

The problem lies in the definition of equal.

Does equal mean an exact equality in dollar terms?

eg I pay 10,000 dollars so the super rich guy should only pay 10,000 dollars?

Or should equal mean ' equal percentage '

eg I pay 10% so the uber rich dude should only pay 10%?

Thus me and the rich guy pay equally.

One of the problems with that is where do you draw the bottom line on equal?

Saying a rich man shouldn't have to pay more than regular people effectively means that he shouldn't pay more than the common man who pays the least.

In other words the uber wealthy should pay NOTHING because there are regular people who pay nothing.

How do you define " equal "?

The progressive taxation system has long been determined to be the FAIREST system. The more wealth you receive from society the more you should return to society.

A person who makes 20K a year and has to pay 10% tax ( we will just lump all taxes together for the discussion instead of picking fly shit out of the pepper over fed / state / local ) is left with 18K to live on.

The person who makes 20 million a year and only has to pay 10% tax is left with 18 million to live on.

That doesn't seem like an equal / fair distribution of the burden.

That is where the Flat Tax people are crazy. It is the most unfair system of all.
It takes way too much from the poor and takes almost nothing from the rich.

====================

yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.

Those talking about paying a fair share don't agree with you.
if a rich guy pays 1,000,000 in tax a year, yet I only paid roughly 30k, then to be fair either my tax has to increase by 999,970.00 or his would have to decrease by an equal amount.
Really makes no difference what you make, there is a bill due and every citizen owes an equal part of that bill.

both paying 10% is fair.
It does not matter how much is left over after paying tax, the point is that dollar for dollar each person put the same amount toward the debt. There is not a fairer way to do it that than.
??% on each dollar.
by your definition, which I do understand but don't agree with, sales tax is an unfair way of taxing products sold. That 6% tax per dollar spent is equal, the guy that makes 20,000 is going to pay the same tax on purchases as the guy making 1,000,000. How can that be fair yet working other taxes the same is not.

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state." Adam Smith

Do you know what in proportion means?
you just shot your argument against a flat tax in the foot.
dumb ass.

 

[Dad2three]

The problem lies in the definition of equal.

Does equal mean an exact equality in dollar terms?

eg I pay 10,000 dollars so the super rich guy should only pay 10,000 dollars?

Or should equal mean ' equal percentage '

eg I pay 10% so the uber rich dude should only pay 10%?

Thus me and the rich guy pay equally.

One of the problems with that is where do you draw the bottom line on equal?

Saying a rich man shouldn't have to pay more than regular people effectively means that he shouldn't pay more than the common man who pays the least.

In other words the uber wealthy should pay NOTHING because there are regular people who pay nothing.

How do you define " equal "?

The progressive taxation system has long been determined to be the FAIREST system. The more wealth you receive from society the more you should return to society.

A person who makes 20K a year and has to pay 10% tax ( we will just lump all taxes together for the discussion instead of picking fly shit out of the pepper over fed / state / local ) is left with 18K to live on.

The person who makes 20 million a year and only has to pay 10% tax is left with 18 million to live on.

That doesn't seem like an equal / fair distribution of the burden.

That is where the Flat Tax people are crazy. It is the most unfair system of all.
It takes way too much from the poor and takes almost nothing from the rich.

====================

yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.

Those talking about paying a fair share don't agree with you.
if a rich guy pays 1,000,000 in tax a year, yet I only paid roughly 30k, then to be fair either my tax has to increase by 999,970.00 or his would have to decrease by an equal amount.
Really makes no difference what you make, there is a bill due and every citizen owes an equal part of that bill.

both paying 10% is fair.
It does not matter how much is left over after paying tax, the point is that dollar for dollar each person put the same amount toward the debt. There is not a fairer way to do it that than.
??% on each dollar.
by your definition, which I do understand but don't agree with, sales tax is an unfair way of taxing products sold. That 6% tax per dollar spent is equal, the guy that makes 20,000 is going to pay the same tax on purchases as the guy making 1,000,000. How can that be fair yet working other taxes the same is not.

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state." Adam Smith

Do you know what in proportion means?
you just shot your argument against a flat tax in the foot.
dumb ass.

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate." - Adam Smith



More from Wealth of Nations Bubs:


"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich . . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."


"It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxuries, and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people, that ought ever to be taxed."

"The ordinary rent of land is, in many cases, owing partly, at least, to the attention and good management of the landlord. A very heavy tax might discourage, too much, this attention and good management. Ground-rents, so far as they exceed the ordinary rent of land, are altogether owing to the good government of the sovereign, which, by protecting the industry either of the whole people or of the inhabitants of some particular place, enables them to pay so much more than its real value for the ground which they build their houses upon; or to make to its owner so much more than compensation for the loss which he might sustain by this use of it. Nothing can be more reasonable, than that a fund, which owes its existence to the good government of the state, should be taxed peculiarly, or should contribute something more than the greater part of other funds, towards the support of that government."


lol

 

[hadit]

Do not let anyone who wails about "fair share", or "pay more", or any other nebulous term get away with it. Always insist that they quantify it. What exactly is a "fair share"? Exactly how much more should they be forced to pay?

 

[Dad2three]

Do not let anyone who wails about "fair share", or "pay more", or any other nebulous term get away with it. Always insist that they quantify it. What exactly is a "fair share"? Exactly how much more should they be forced to pay?

 

[Dad2three]

 

[hadit]

Do not let anyone who wails about "fair share", or "pay more", or any other nebulous term get away with it. Always insist that they quantify it. What exactly is a "fair share"? Exactly how much more should they be forced to pay?

So, what's your number? You do realize, don't you, that you perfectly illustrate my point? You're yelling that they need to pay more. Okay, how much more? What figure would satisfy your envy?

 

[boedicca]

Do not let anyone who wails about "fair share", or "pay more", or any other nebulous term get away with it. Always insist that they quantify it. What exactly is a "fair share"? Exactly how much more should they be forced to pay?

So, what's your number? You do realize, don't you, that you perfectly illustrate my point? You're yelling that they need to pay more. Okay, how much more? What figure would satisfy your envy?

Thieves usually want 100% of whatever the victim has.

Just sayin'.

 

[Dad2three]

Do not let anyone who wails about "fair share", or "pay more", or any other nebulous term get away with it. Always insist that they quantify it. What exactly is a "fair share"? Exactly how much more should they be forced to pay?

So, what's your number? You do realize, don't you, that you perfectly illustrate my point? You're yelling that they need to pay more. Okay, how much more? What figure would satisfy your envy?

Envy huh? lol

Weird how the "job creators" pre Reaganomics loved our nation enough to pay enough of a tax "burden' that we not only built the best infrastructure in the world, but had almost no debt, THEN we decided this Punishing" the "job creators" was somehow not only unfair, but held our economy back? lol

AGAIN, LETS GO BACK TO THE TAX RATES WHERE THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US PAID 50%-70% (EFFECTIVE) FROM 1932-1980?

 

[Dad2three]

Do not let anyone who wails about "fair share", or "pay more", or any other nebulous term get away with it. Always insist that they quantify it. What exactly is a "fair share"? Exactly how much more should they be forced to pay?

So, what's your number? You do realize, don't you, that you perfectly illustrate my point? You're yelling that they need to pay more. Okay, how much more? What figure would satisfy your envy?

Thieves usually want 100% of whatever the victim has.

Just sayin'.

Sociopaths "believe in" myths and fairy tales too. Just saying

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Do not let anyone who wails about "fair share", or "pay more", or any other nebulous term get away with it. Always insist that they quantify it. What exactly is a "fair share"? Exactly how much more should they be forced to pay?

So, what's your number? You do realize, don't you, that you perfectly illustrate my point? You're yelling that they need to pay more. Okay, how much more? What figure would satisfy your envy?

Envy huh? lol

Weird how the "job creators" pre Reaganomics loved our nation enough to pay enough of a tax "burden' that we not only built the best infrastructure in the world, but had almost no debt, THEN we decided this Punishing" the "job creators" was somehow not only unfair, but held our economy back? lol

AGAIN, LETS GO BACK TO THE TAX RATES WHERE THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US PAID 50%-70% (EFFECTIVE) FROM 1932-1980?

why are you saying the top 1% of us.
say it like you really mean it, those that make more than you do should pay 70 to 100% so you can get a free ride.

 

[Dad2three]

Do not let anyone who wails about "fair share", or "pay more", or any other nebulous term get away with it. Always insist that they quantify it. What exactly is a "fair share"? Exactly how much more should they be forced to pay?

So, what's your number? You do realize, don't you, that you perfectly illustrate my point? You're yelling that they need to pay more. Okay, how much more? What figure would satisfy your envy?

Envy huh? lol

Weird how the "job creators" pre Reaganomics loved our nation enough to pay enough of a tax "burden' that we not only built the best infrastructure in the world, but had almost no debt, THEN we decided this Punishing" the "job creators" was somehow not only unfair, but held our economy back? lol

AGAIN, LETS GO BACK TO THE TAX RATES WHERE THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US PAID 50%-70% (EFFECTIVE) FROM 1932-1980?

why are you saying the top 1% of us.
say it like you really mean it, those that make more than you do should pay 70 to 100% so you can get a free ride.

Got it, AS the tax burden has shifted away from the "job creators" and income inequality has become, like it was pre HIGH PROGRESSIVE TAXATION, a more just and equal society post 1932-1980

How could someone making $8 million a year live on $3 million right Bubs?


NOTICE ANYTHING BUBS:

 

[Boss]

yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.

But we don't tax wealth in America.

We do, just not at the federal level. I pay property taxes every year for the privilege of "owning" a house and a car. The more valuable the house and car, the higher the taxes.

Sorry, you are giving an example of taxation on real property assets, not actual wealth. I can be super-wealthy and not own a car or house. I can live in a state or rural area with virtually no property tax.

Again-- We do not tax people according to their worth! Morons like danielPOS assume that people who earn large incomes are wealthy and their income is indicative of their wealth. This is simply not true... great propaganda... works really good to get abject morons all riled up and envious... but just not remotely true.

Trump (of all people) has suggested we have a one time "wealth tax" to generate revenue. I happen to think he may run into some Constitutional issues with that. The 4th Amendment prohibits the government from confiscating your property... wealth is part of your property.

 

[Boss]

yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.

But we don't tax wealth in America.

income is a form of wealth.

Nope, it's not.