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

[Contumacious]

Having the rich pay more in taxes only helps the poor if the government spends the extra money in a wise and responsible way something they do not have a very good history of doing.

A WELFARE STATE = GOVERNMENT BUY THE PEOPLE

 

[bripat9643]

This morning on Fox News Sunday, Dr. Ben Carson provided an example of the kind of misinformation that pollutes this (and every) campaign. While promoting his desire for a flat tax, Dr. Carson pointed out how people feel that having higher income taxpayers pay at a higher rate is wrong.

"That's socialism", he said, and I quote.

What the ****? Well no, Dr. Carson, a graduated income tax system is not Socialism. Socialism is not about the structure of the tax system.

But no doubt, many were in full agreement with his characterization. So is he ignorant, or just playing to the crowd? And why would anyone buy that statement?
.

A graduated income tax was one of the items Karl Marx listed in his platform to achieve communism.

Apparently Carson is smarter than you.

A tax system and public ownership of the means of production are two different things.
.

Control of the economy is all that matters, and a graduated income tax is an attempt to control economic decisions.

That's not what socialism is. It's public ownership and control of the means of production.

So for the record, you're saying that you agree a graduated tax rate is socialism?
.

Ownership is only important because it means control. Having control without ownership has the exact same end result. Expropriating income is one way to control what it gets spent on.

 

[BluesLegend]

Having the rich pay more in taxes only helps the poor if the government spends the extra money in a wise and responsible way something they do not have a very good history of doing.

^^^ Holy shit man the post of the day, BINGO!! Baltimore got over $1 billion dollars in stimulus money from Obama. Guess how much the poor got for jobs training...$3 million. Guess where the money actually went? Yes right in the pockets of the Democratic party public employee unions so they could kick money back to Democratic party candidates, shocker.

 

[rightwinger]

Having the rich pay more in taxes only helps the poor if the government spends the extra money in a wise and responsible way something they do not have a very good history of doing.

A WELFARE STATE = GOVERNMENT BUY THE PEOPLE

No it doesn't

It is just helping people who need help

 

[bripat9643]

Having the rich pay more in taxes only helps the poor if the government spends the extra money in a wise and responsible way something they do not have a very good history of doing.

A WELFARE STATE = GOVERNMENT BUY THE PEOPLE

No it doesn't

It is just helping people who need help

Wrong. It's organized plunder and crony capitalism.

 

[Contumacious]

Having the rich pay more in taxes only helps the poor if the government spends the extra money in a wise and responsible way something they do not have a very good history of doing.

A WELFARE STATE = GOVERNMENT BUY THE PEOPLE

No it doesn't

It is just helping people who need help

WELL , WE CONCUR.

THE DEMAGOGUE POLITICIANS WHO SUPPORT THE WELFARE STATE DO GET HELP, POWER AND PRESTIGE.

ASK COMRADE SANDERS.


.

 

[Papageorgio]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

Several millionaires donate money to charities. I have dealt with many foundations and without the rich, they would never survive. I don't buy that millionaires are selfish.

There are those that don't give but they can be poor or rich. I find the government to be very greedy.

 

[Mac1958]

This morning on Fox News Sunday, Dr. Ben Carson provided an example of the kind of misinformation that pollutes this (and every) campaign. While promoting his desire for a flat tax, Dr. Carson pointed out how people feel that having higher income taxpayers pay at a higher rate is wrong.

"That's socialism", he said, and I quote.

What the ****? Well no, Dr. Carson, a graduated income tax system is not Socialism. Socialism is not about the structure of the tax system.

But no doubt, many were in full agreement with his characterization. So is he ignorant, or just playing to the crowd? And why would anyone buy that statement?
.

A graduated income tax was one of the items Karl Marx listed in his platform to achieve communism.

Apparently Carson is smarter than you.

A tax system and public ownership of the means of production are two different things.
.

Control of the economy is all that matters, and a graduated income tax is an attempt to control economic decisions.

That's not what socialism is. It's public ownership and control of the means of production.

So for the record, you're saying that you agree a graduated tax rate is socialism?
.

Ownership is only important because it means control. Having control without ownership has the exact same end result. Expropriating income is one way to control what it gets spent on.

It could be argued that any personal income tax, any sales tax, any corporate tax, any tariff, any law and any regulation is control.

All of those things are "socialist".

And that's the regular, purist, binary libertarian thinking that Carson is playing to.
.

 

[bripat9643]

A graduated income tax was one of the items Karl Marx listed in his platform to achieve communism.

Apparently Carson is smarter than you.

A tax system and public ownership of the means of production are two different things.
.

Control of the economy is all that matters, and a graduated income tax is an attempt to control economic decisions.

That's not what socialism is. It's public ownership and control of the means of production.

So for the record, you're saying that you agree a graduated tax rate is socialism?
.

Ownership is only important because it means control. Having control without ownership has the exact same end result. Expropriating income is one way to control what it gets spent on.

It could be argued that any personal income tax, any sales tax, any corporate tax, any tariff, any law and any regulation is control.

All of those things are "socialist".

And that's the regular, purist, binary libertarian thinking that Carson is playing to.
.

Yes, they are socialist. I agree with that assessment.

 

[Contumacious]

A graduated income tax was one of the items Karl Marx listed in his platform to achieve communism.

Apparently Carson is smarter than you.

A tax system and public ownership of the means of production are two different things.
.

Control of the economy is all that matters, and a graduated income tax is an attempt to control economic decisions.

That's not what socialism is. It's public ownership and control of the means of production.

So for the record, you're saying that you agree a graduated tax rate is socialism?
.

Ownership is only important because it means control. Having control without ownership has the exact same end result. Expropriating income is one way to control what it gets spent on.

It could be argued that any personal income tax, any sales tax, any corporate tax, any tariff, any law and any regulation is control.

All of those things are "socialist".

And that's the regular, purist, binary libertarian thinking that Carson is playing to.
.

IT IS CORRECT THAT A HEAVY GRADUATED INCOME TAX IS ONE OF THE PLANKS OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO.

CARSON IS NOT A LIBERTARIAN.


.

 

[rightwinger]

Having the rich pay more in taxes only helps the poor if the government spends the extra money in a wise and responsible way something they do not have a very good history of doing.

A WELFARE STATE = GOVERNMENT BUY THE PEOPLE

No it doesn't

It is just helping people who need help

Wrong. It's organized plunder and crony capitalism.

A civilized society raising revenue is not plunder

 

[2aguy]

Worked before

One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure

No it hasn't, it was successful what has been a failure is government, they waste, steal or lose our tax money.......and then that effects the economy....18 trillion in the hole means 18 trillion not being used to create an economy.

We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves

What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.

Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes

You need to cut taxes before you cut spending...otherewise they will just keep spending. Or, both at the same time.

 

[2aguy]

No it hasn't, it was successful what has been a failure is government, they waste, steal or lose our tax money.......and then that effects the economy....18 trillion in the hole means 18 trillion not being used to create an economy.

We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves

What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.

Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes

Idiots like you have kicked and screamed every time it has been tried.

Bullshit

Agree to a necessary spending level and THEN set your tax rate to cover it.

Starving the beast does not work

Starving the beast has never been tried...Reagan tried to cut spending and was lied to by the democrats.

 

[Dad2three]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?

About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change. And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world. We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.

Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)

 

[2aguy]

Having the rich pay more in taxes only helps the poor if the government spends the extra money in a wise and responsible way something they do not have a very good history of doing.

A WELFARE STATE = GOVERNMENT BUY THE PEOPLE

No it doesn't

It is just helping people who need help

Wrong. It's organized plunder and crony capitalism.

A civilized society raising revenue is not plunder

It is when the corrupt politicians steal, waste, or lose the money they are supposed to be spending wisely......

 

[rightwinger]

Worked before

One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure

No it hasn't, it was successful what has been a failure is government, they waste, steal or lose our tax money.......and then that effects the economy....18 trillion in the hole means 18 trillion not being used to create an economy.

We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves

What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.

Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes

You need to cut taxes before you cut spending...otherewise they will just keep spending. Or, both at the same time.

Makes no sense to cut taxes first
All it does is add debt.

Cut both at once

 

[rightwinger]

We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves

What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.

Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes

Idiots like you have kicked and screamed every time it has been tried.

Bullshit

Agree to a necessary spending level and THEN set your tax rate to cover it.

Starving the beast does not work

Starving the beast has never been tried...Reagan tried to cut spending and was lied to by the democrats.

Reagan escalated spending on the military

 

[Rozman]

Why is it every five minutes give or take a minute the left wants to raise taxes?
We never see them put forth any demand that we look at government spending.
They don't think there might be a way to cut out any wasteful spending or a way to
better handle the money that the government already takes in.

Their only proposal is to take in more revenue and spend it just as fast.

 

[bripat9643]

Having the rich pay more in taxes only helps the poor if the government spends the extra money in a wise and responsible way something they do not have a very good history of doing.

A WELFARE STATE = GOVERNMENT BUY THE PEOPLE

No it doesn't

It is just helping people who need help

Wrong. It's organized plunder and crony capitalism.

A civilized society raising revenue is not plunder

Wrong. Taxation is theft. No one has ever demonstrated any moral difference between them.

 

[Dad2three]

The rich, supposedly, do pay more. In fact, we must make that so.

Supposedly.................lol..................go to the irs site and look at income versus amounts received by the irs and get that supposedly out of your head. They do, and it's in black and white at their site for all to see.........

Unless you just don't want to look there.

The counter to that equation of those who pay no taxes at all is that they forget to see the other side of the equation on other taxes.......property, sales taxes, licensing fees and taxes...........and etc............People of all incomes pay taxes in some way................just not so on the irs forms via the final payments to the Irs........

The only real exception being the tax credits which pay out over 200 Billion a year to the lower wage earners with children.

As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.

As the rich become super-rich they pay lower taxes. For real. - The Washington Post