• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

It's time - the rich must pay their way!

It's just plain old greed, same as it ever was, sent Jesus to the cross, and has continued unabated for 2000 years.

It's interesting that you bring up the subject. I thought, rather, that Jesus didn't have much to say about Economic Fairness. But, according to the Internet, I'm wrong.

From here: The Gospel and Economic Justice

Excerpt:

Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God....
But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.

Luke 6:20; 24

Well, that's kinda-sorta interesting. But I wonder if he really said that.

I cannot imagine why Jesus should think that the rich were milking the poor in biblical times. Though, indeed, there were no Roman laws that prevented that from happening. And, the Romans could not give a damn since they were doing exactly the same. If anything, Pilate, the Roman governor, was tasked on his ability to fund Rome. Without which he'd be quickly out of what - at the time - was considered a Very Good Job. Taxing the Jews and sending the funds off to Rome is precisely the reason he was in Israel.

Of course, Jesus supposedly came from the poor-family class. And, if I wanted to create a religion that is Most Certainly where I would start. But, is that what he really-'n-truly wanted to do - or was he more open-minded?

Anyway, I have never thought that this site should debate religion, and still don't. Moreover, whatever happened more than 2000 years ago is very difficult to corroborate.

So, my comments stop here ...
 
1) the uber rich pay the highest rate on any source of income
To those whom much is given much more is expected. Why do the silver spoons insist on freeloading?
2) you seem upset that many of them don't have wage income and that means their income tax rate is lower
Actually, if 20% tax was truly levied on all capital gains, as prescribed by law, it would be more than enough.
3) but you ignore that they pay far more actual dollars.
Well, they sort of have "far more actual dollars." What do you want to do, tax those who have less?

lol...you probably do.
 
"It's time the rich must pay their way"... great, because another "we are the 99%" slogan is going to do anything.

This is why on a long enough timeline modern liberals lose.
 
I don't care how rich the rich are. So long as they keep making the pie bigger I get mine. About every 35 years the economy doubles. If you can't make yours under those conditions you're an idiot or incredibly lazy. There is opportunity everywhere you look. Just ask all those immigrants now owning their own businesses. They ain't bitchin', they just get after it.
This is what we get when everybody gets a trophy.

Oh, sooooo good-for-YOU! Your selfishness is admirable! By nobody.

Because, you see, when I send my kids off for military-duty I kinda-sorta-wanna think it's to protect our family and not just the rich. In fact, in most American wars it has been the poor-families that did most of the fighting-and-dying.

The rich just get richer. And the poor can go to hell!

That's life! (But, only if you bizarre enough to want it that way ...)
 
Prove it

I'll wait(wink)
Prove what--that right wingers lie? No need. It's been documented, thousands of times.

BTW, has Mexico paid for that wall yet?
 
in other words, stuff you cannot prove actually goes to the rich.
In other words, you're just going to ignore the obvious yet again.
 
Actually, if 20% tax was truly levied on all capital gains, as prescribed by law, it would be more than enough.

Sounds like a damn-fine idea! For starters. But, I would (if I could but I can't) be a lot, lot higher in percentage. If someone has three or four megabucks, they are living very, very well. The important failure is the fact that said wealth is handed down to children who do not, in fact, deserve a penny beyond (say) a megabuck.

If you were to have in the US what I have in France, namely "Free Healthcare and Very-low-cost Post-secondary education", they'd be very costly. But, they are also key to two sets of highly-important and key Public Services. So, higher upper-income taxation is credibly worthwhile having.

Doctors in France earn less than they do in the US - and teachers in the US earn less than they do in France. But, I can't prove the latter bit since the French-data on teaching-salaries is too difficult to find. And just asking around is not the way to treat statistical data.

Methinks ...
 
To those whom much is given much more is expected. Why do the silver spoons insist on freeloading?

Actually, if 20% tax was truly levied on all capital gains, as prescribed by law, it would be more than enough.

Well, they sort of have "far more actual dollars." What do you want to do, tax those who have less?

lol...you probably do.
trite mantras are bullshit. Nothing is GIVEN to the rich by the government. that is where the parasite mentality fails. It assumes that the rich are that way just because the government gave them something and that creates a debt.
 
"It's time the rich must pay their way"... great, because another "we are the 99%" slogan is going to do anything.

This is why on a long enough timeline modern liberals lose.

Liberals have won every single social and political argument they’ve engaged in. Now we comin’ for the economy.
 
Liberals have won every single social and political argument they’ve engaged in. Now we comin’ for the economy.
bullshit and I expect your definition of "liberal" is as bogus as your silly argument
 
bullshit and I expect your definition of "liberal" is as bogus as your silly argument

Conservatives have lost every ”culture war”, they’ve stood helplessly against social change. This last summer they went apeshit over confederate civil war-binkies, in example, and as far as the eye can see one confederate statue after another has fallen. Names removed from bases.

We won. Again.
 
Conservatives have lost every ”culture war”, they’ve stood helplessly against social change. This last summer they went apeshit over confederate civil war-binkies, in example, and as far as the eye can see one confederate statue after another has fallen. Names removed from bases.

We won. Again.
yeah that is why firearms owners rights are expanding and those under 25 are increasingly hostile to the bannerrhoid mentality
 
yeah that is why firearms owners rights are expanding and those under 25 are increasingly hostile to the bannerrhoid mentality

Fair, I’ll rephrase: other than gun massacres, the right has had no victories in this country.
 
Fair, I’ll rephrase: other than gun massacres, the right has had no victories in this country.
gun massacres have nothing to do with the RKBA any more than rape has anything to do with consenting adults being able to have sex
 
The top 10% is anyone making incomes over $100,000 a year while the top 0.1% have an income of greater than $1,600,000 a year. That’s why conservatives use top 10%, because it masks the truly wealthy.

In 2020 the capital gains tax rates are either 0%, 15% or 20% for most assets held for more than a year. Capital gains tax rates on most assets held for less than a year correspond to ordinary income tax brackets (10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% or 37%).

Look, if you want to talk about economics and public policy impacts on finance we can do that, but at least use the appropriate vocabulary and have a basic understanding of the rules of the game.

First off, top 10% of households is $167k. That's pretty rich by almost any standard. It isn't modern royalty, but it's damned well off. Stop trying to make your own definition of "rich" where it only lands on a tiny fraction of the population.

Second off, most people making $1.6MM a year are either senior executives, business owners, extremely high end professionals, or people vesting stock grants/options in a boom cycle. That is almost entirely going to be taxed as earned income, likely with effective rates north of 40%.

Third, the people you really seem to have a problem with are the people generating seven figures in investment income. They are not paying 0, 15, or 20% capital gains. They are paying 23.8% at the federal level, plus whatever local levels tack on. This is *higher* than anywhere else in the developed world.

So, if you think the IRC is so unjust, I assume you believe that those of France, Denmark, and Sweden are absolute travesties?

To those whom much is given much more is expected. Why do the silver spoons insist on freeloading?

Actually, if 20% tax was truly levied on all capital gains, as prescribed by law, it would be more than enough.

Well, they sort of have "far more actual dollars." What do you want to do, tax those who have less?

lol...you probably do.

Again, most progressive income tax system in the world calamity. The rich pay a greater level of relative taxes in the US than anywhere in Europe.

What precisely do you mean with your comment about capital gains being legally levied?
 
First off, top 10% of households is $167k. That's pretty rich by almost any standard. It isn't modern royalty, but it's damned well off

That…is not rich. hahhaaha oh boy
 
That…is not rich. hahhaaha oh boy
and that is not much of a rebuttal to his argument about tax burdens. Since the lefties constantly talk about other countries, 167K a year is rich on a global standard.
 
and that is not much of a rebuttal to his argument about tax burdens. Since the lefties constantly talk about other countries, 167K a year is rich on a global standard.

Who gives a shit? American standards should be comped with American standards. Conservatives babble about our exceptionalism and being a shining city on a hill except when they want to explain away something.

DID YOU SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE DIED OF COVID IN BELARUS??
 
Who gives a shit? American standards should be comped with American standards. Conservatives babble about our exceptionalism and being a shining city on a hill except when they want to explain away something.

DID YOU SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE DIED OF COVID IN BELARUS??
I will keep that in mind every time one of the lefties howls for European health care, gun bans etc. How many people are dying in India?
 
I will keep that in mind every time one of the lefties howls for European health care, gun bans etc. How many people are dying in India?

Dunno, let’s check in with conservative thinker Candance Owens:

 
Blah, blah, blah.

You're desperate for a cogent response. And the above is NOT one ... !
It's you who has no response.

When I originally showed just how poor France is compared to the US, you implied that the numbers were out of date. But the updated figures show an even wider gap: 35k for France vs 53k for the US. That's a huge difference, and it's because the French tolerate much more government intervention into their economy.

You just can't accept the fact that more government makes people worse off, not better. Not only is France poor, but there are no gun rights, and no right to free speech.

That's the kind of misery social democracy produces, and you want that for the US? No thank you.
 
NO COMPARISON!

You just can't accept the fact that more government makes people worse off, not better. Not only is France poor, but there are no gun rights, and no right to free speech.
Look CP, France is NOT a poor-country. The average-wage of the US is a bit more than a third higher than in France. BFD!

Howeerver, when you go to a doctor in the US it costs five-times as much as in France or anywhere in Europe. And, should you ever need surgery, in Europe it is nearly free and in the US it's so high as to be outta-sight. Which is why many people avoid it, but also why the French (for instance) have a lifespan average three-to-four years longer than a Yank. (And it is the same comparison anywhere in the EU because the countries have the same Healthcare System throughout.)

And I wont even go into the fact that a year at a US state post-secondary schooling costs at least 10 times more than in the EU.

From here: Compare tuition fees schemes in Europe
The average [European] tuition fee for first cycle programs (bachelor's degrees) and second cycle programs (master's degrees) amounts to approximately 1500 EUR per academic year.

There is simply no comparison in many aspects that directly indicate the "quality of living-standards"! And how does Europe provide for all the "coverage" mentioned above? By means of very much higher taxation than in the US.

As could the US if it wanted to do so - because the present lower-than-should-be upper-income taxation came to be with Ronnie RayGun ...
 
Last edited:
NO COMPARISON!


Look CP, France is NOT a poor-country. The average-wage of the US is a bit more than a third higher than in France. BFD!

Howeerver, when you go to a doctor in the US it costs five-times as much as in France or anywhere in Europe. And, should you ever need surgery, in Europe it is nearly free and in the US it's so high as to be outta-sight. Which is why many people avoid it, but also why the French (for instance) have a lifespan average three-to-four years longer than a Yank.

And it is the same comparison anywhere in the EU because the countries have the same Healthcare System throughout.

And I wont even go into the fact that a year at a US state post-secondary schooling costs at least 10 times more than in the EU.

From here: Compare tuition fees schemes in Europe


There is simply no comparison in many aspects that directly indicate the "quality of living-standards"! And how does Europe provide for all the "coverage" mentioned above.? By means of very much higher taxation than in the US ...
I believe in the eurosocialist nations, the middle class pays a far higher share of the national tax burden.
 
The top 10% pay 71% of the income tax, how much more should they pay, what is the correct %?
Whereas as the bottom 50% pays only 2% of federal taxes. How is it fair to ask the top bracket to pay more?
 
Back
Top Bottom