• 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!

PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES EVEN WHEN BUILDING THE FIRST DEMOCRACY ON EARTH

OpportunityCost said:
The function of the Electoral college is to mirror representation in Congress, 2 electors per state and the rest is the same as their House representation. Its meant to highlight that the US system means you have to win states, not just the big population centers. That was its intended function then as well. A functioning democracy will never be perfected, its kind of the point of amendments and laws themselves.
Click to expand...

Unions barely exist in the US nowadays, so this remark is irrelevant. What does exist, since Ronald-RayGun lowered upper-income taxation are huge grants of money to politicians for election purposes. The money is employed in advertising candidates as if they were objects-on-sale.

When what should be happening is a real-debate amongst the candidates, and not the God-forsaken blah-blah-blah of a TV commercial.

And furthermore, on the state level in 1812 the governor of Massachusetts introduced Gerrymandering to manipulate the popular-vote creating voting-precincts that favor one or another party. We-the-sheeple have never dumped that manipulative law either that now affects the popular-vote throughout the nation.


History Lesson (of consequences to the above voting manipulations):
*Five times in the history of the US, the EC has rejected the popular-vote and elected its loser instead of its winner. The latest error being the election of Donald Dork who also lost the popular-vote for the presidency. That is NOT how any real democracy functions.
*Because of a cockamamie law passed in 1803 when there were no trains to get the popular-vote result to Congress in the District of Columbia. Jefferson was PotUS and he mistakenly (my emphasis) signed the law that created the Electoral College.
*From here: Wikipedia - 1803 in the United States

Events​

Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
Why should people who aren't paying taxes get tax credits? The middle class don't pay higher percentages of their incomes in income tax. Many in the middle class pay almost nothing in income taxes.
Click to expand...
Why do you think middle class workers do not pay taxes? And who said they pay "almost nothing" in income taxes? You can't be a lawyer and seriously believe that crap.

Repealing tax cuts for rich people is not making them pay higher taxes than the middle class BTW. It is simply reverting their tax rate to what it was during the Obama administration. Republicans love to pretend there is no difference but the government's own study and debate fact checkers have disproved that fear, which is only based on greed.
 
Last edited:
Patriotic Voter said:
Why do you think middle class workers do not pay taxes? And who said they pay "almost nothing" in income taxes? You can't be a lawyer and seriously believe that crap.

Repealing tax cuts for rich people is no making them pay higher taxes than the middle class BTW. It is simply reverting their tax rate to what it was during the Obama administration. Republicans love to pretend there is no difference but the government's own study and debate fact checkers have disproved that fear, which is only based on greed.
Click to expand...
that is brain dead idiocy: you assume that the Obama tax rates are proper and anything below that is unfair.
 
TurtleDude said:
That is brain dead idiocy. You assume that the Obama tax rates are proper and anything below that is unfair.
Click to expand...
You are choosing to miss the point as usual. I did not say what Barack Obama's tax rates were or that I approve those numbers. I am only talking about making rich people pay their fair share and noted why they hate the plan to repeal tax cuts.

If what I posted was stupid, the same government you claim to have been a part of is stupid because I did not make this up. Educate yourself first, then get back to me with links that prove simply repealing all tax cuts equals raising the tax rate.
 
Patriotic Voter said:
You are choosing to miss the point as usual. I did not say what Barack Obama's tax rates were or that I approve those numbers. I am only talking about making rich people pay their fair share and noted why they hate the plan to repeal tax cuts.

If what I posted was stupid, the same government you claim to have been a part of is stupid because I did not make this up. Educate yourself first, then get back to me with links that prove simply repealing all tax cuts equals raising the tax rate.
Click to expand...
fair share has three possible definitions :

1) everyone paying the same fee to the government

2) everyone paying the same rate

3) if a group makes 10% of the income, it pays 10% of the income tax

Claiming the rich don't pay their fair share is blatantly dishonest
 
TurtleDude said:
fair share has three possible definitions :

1) Everyone paying the same fee to the government
2) Everyone paying the same rate
3) If a group makes 10% of the income, it pays 10% of the income tax

Claiming the rich don't pay their fair share is blatantly dishonest.
Click to expand...
The fact rich people get tax cuts just because they are rich is totally unfair. If anyone should get tax cuts, they must be the people who earn less, not more, than a specific dollar amount. That is just common sense.

What kind of group are you talking about? Family tax plans, joint tax filing, corporate tax rates? Why does it have to be 10 percent?
 
Patriotic Voter said:
The fact rich people get tax cuts just because they are rich is totally unfair. If anyone should get tax cuts, they must be the people who earn less, not more, than a specific dollar amount. That is just common sense.

What kind of group are you talking about? Family tax plans, joint tax filing, corporate tax rates? Why does it have to be 10 percent?
Click to expand...
what a bullshit argument. you pretend that the rich should be taxed more and more without any concept of objective fairness.
 
TurtleDude said:
fair share has three possible definitions :

1) everyone paying the same fee to the government

2) everyone paying the same rate

3) if a group makes 10% of the income, it pays 10% of the income tax

Claiming the rich don't pay their fair share is blatantly dishonest
Click to expand...

Graduated tax-increase according to income is the rule internationally.

That also means income-tax fairness. The more you earn the more you pay taxes on income. WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH THAT RULE?

What we should be asking is why the Replicants ever started bringing the upper-income tax-rates down. What good does it do that some families earn billions? What can they do with all that money? Nothing!

They bank it and inevitably leave to their heirs. Rather, it should be confiscated by the government beyond a certain limit - which already affords the rich a very comfortable existence.

So, why should they earn it? Just because they can?

That is just not good-enough an "excuse" - because there is certainly no ample "reason" for doing so. We need a graduated income tax that arrives at confiscation at a much lower annual income-level. Like one or two million per year and the total-at-end-of-life cannot be left to "inheritors" who did nothing whatsoever to earn it ... !

PS: So, as a consequence the rich will find ways to transfer their wealth before they die. That can be handled however - the inheritors cannot "prove" that the wealth they obtained was from their own employment. (So, many will try to make the transfer before death outside the US and beyond the American tax authorities!)
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
Graduated tax-increase according to income is the rule internationally.

That also means income-tax fairness. The more you earn the more you pay taxes on income. WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH THAT RULE?

What we should be asking is why the Replicants ever started bringing the upper-income tax-rates down. What good does it do that some families earn billions? What can they do with all that money? Nothing!

They bank it and inevitably leave to their heirs. Rather, it should be confiscated by the government beyond a certain limit - which already affords the rich a very comfortable existence.

So, why should they earn it? Just because they can?

That is just not good-enough an "excuse" - because there is certainly no ample "reason" for doing so. We need a graduated income tax that arrives at confiscation at a much lower annual income-level. Like one or two million per year and the total-at-end-of-life cannot be left to "inheritors" who did nothing whatsoever to earn it ... !

PS: So, as a consequence the rich will find ways to transfer their wealth before they die. That can be handled however - the inheritors cannot "prove" that the wealth they obtained was from their own employment.
Click to expand...
the rule internationally-meaning politicians all over the world love being able to pander to the many by forcing a minority to bear most of the taxes. I guess you cannot understand that under 2 of the three objectively fair standards, the rich do pay more.

I love the parasite mentality-you shouldn't be able to leave what you paid taxes on to whom you want because the parasites deserve it more!!!
 
Patriotic Voter said:
The fact rich people get tax cuts just because they are rich is totally unfair. If anyone should get tax cuts, they must be the people who earn less, not more, than a specific dollar amount. That is just common sense.

What kind of group are you talking about? Family tax plans, joint tax filing, corporate tax rates? Why does it have to be 10 percent?
Click to expand...
Damn is that a stupid comment. They get tax cuts because they pay taxes. the people who PAY THE MOST TAXES should get the biggest tax cuts. what is UNFAIR is when those who DON'T pay much in taxes get all the same benefits as those who do pay lots of taxes.
 
TurtleDude said:
What a bullshit argument. You pretend that the rich should be taxed more and more without any concept of objective fairness.
Click to expand...
You are doing a terrible job trying to accuse me of wanting completely unfair taxes. I asked you questions. You are refusing to answer them for the sole purpose of making me look like what I am definitely not. I am not a socialist.

What don't you understand about the difference between repealing tax cuts and increasing the tax rate? I was very clear: Repeal the tax cuts for rich people. There is no reason being rich should be a qualifier for income tax cuts.
 
Patriotic Voter said:
You are doing a terrible job trying to accuse me of wanting completely unfair taxes. I asked you questions. You are refusing to answer them for the sole purpose of making me look like what I am definitely not. I am not a socialist.

What don't you understand about the difference between repealing tax cuts and increasing the tax rate? I was very clear: Repeal the tax cuts for rich people. There is no reason being rich should be a qualifier for income tax cuts.
Click to expand...
is the government increasing the tax rate?

why should the rich pay a higher rate?

why should they pay more for the same benefits?
 
TurtleDude said:
Is the government increasing the tax rate?
Click to expand...
No
TurtleDude said:
Why should the rich pay a higher rate?
Click to expand...
Because they can pay a higher rate than everyone else, of course. But I am only talking about repealing tax cuts, not increasing their tax rates.
TurtleDude said:
Why should they pay more for the same benefits?
Click to expand...
Can you prove all full-time workers get the same benefits regardless of their salaries and employment? I am pretty sure you are wrong about that.
 
Patriotic Voter said:
No

Because they can pay a higher rate than everyone else, of course.

Can you p[rove all full-time workers get the same benefits regardless of employment and salary? I am pretty sure you are wrong about that.
Click to expand...
so you believe from each according to their ability? do you think the rich should pay more for a suit, a car or a cheeseburger? what benefits do the rich actually get from government that the poor don't get?
 
TurtleDude said:
So you believe from each according to their ability?
Click to expand...
I believe in bannig tax cut rewards for being rich. Paying their fair share is impossible as long as they get income tax cuts while all Americans who need income tax cuts do not qualify . . . for the same reason they need income tax cuts. See the problem now?
 
Patriotic Voter said:
I believe in bannig tax cut rewards for being rich. Paying their fair share is impossible as long as they get income tax cuts while all Americans who need income tax cuts do not qualify . . . for the same reason they need income tax cuts. See the problem now?
Click to expand...
I believe you really haven't a clue what you are talking about. You seem to think that those who pay the least taxes should get the biggest tax cuts. What we don't need is different rates of taxes.
 
TurtleDude said:
I believe you really haven't a clue what you are talking about. You seem to think that those who pay the least taxes should get the biggest tax cuts. What we don't need is different rates of taxes.
Click to expand...
I know which people get tax cuts is totally unfair. There is no reason simply being rich should qualify anyone for getting a tax cut. You have still not addressed that issue. Why should rich people get tax cuts based on income?
 
TurtleDude said:
so you believe from each according to their ability? do you think the rich should pay more for a suit, a car or a cheeseburger? what benefits do the rich actually get from government that the poor don't get?
Click to expand...
/// What benefits do the rich actually get from the government that the poor don't get? /// More often than you will ever admit, 'the benefit of the doubt in courts of law.'
 
Lafayette said:
From the Guardian: Joe Biden Taxes Corporations Richest Americans

Excerpt:


The free-ride is over guyz-'n-galz. And, it's been a lonnnnng wait! But, it's time to pay your fair share.

Since when? Since Reckless-Ronnie-RAYGUN zapped us yokels to pay a larger share of the Federal budget by lowering Upper-income Taxation. His 1981 Business Deductions also helped to enrich their Net Worth even further.

All that illicit money gone to the rich and super-rich so they could leave it to their "kids" (to play-with).

What a waste of Taxable Income that could be employed to enhance generally America's standard-of-living. Whazzat?

Like this!
(1) A national-healthcare-plan that drops quickly upper-income costs of doctors and healthcare-in-general for everybody. (Uncel Sam's is the most expensive health-care in the developed world!) And,
(2) Free- or Nearly-free post-secondary education that prepares our young for this Brave New World of Services Industries that require a much higher level of education. Regardless of one's level of education, there should be free (or nearly free) post-secondary schooling available to learn any trade or simply go on to degree-related schooling. And not all states need the same post-secondary education-plan - if national in nature, the cost of the schooling can be assumed by Federal-spending and open to all comers.

My Point: Both of the above are necessities throughout the country - in some places more than others. But all states should be allowed to pursue the same objectives as stated above. The Federal government must assume the cost - as it does for the DoD!

The post-secondary education-costs in the US are legendarily expensive - they are far, far too much and thusly an effective barrier against learning ... !
Click to expand...
They already do pay their way - and a lot of others’ way as well.
Click to expand...
 
Logician Man said:
/// What benefits do the rich actually get from the government that the poor don't get? /// More often than you will ever admit, 'the benefit of the doubt in courts of law.'
Click to expand...
really-can you cite proof for that affirmative claim? and is that due to them being rich or the fact that they can hire better attorneys? (which is not a governmental benefit)?
 
Patriotic Voter said:
I know which people get tax cuts is totally unfair. There is no reason simply being rich should qualify anyone for getting a tax cut. You have still not addressed that issue. Why should rich people get tax cuts based on income?
Click to expand...
who should qualify for getting a tax cut?

those who pay most of the taxes or those who pay little of the taxes? you seem to not understand that in order to get big tax cuts, you have to pay substantial taxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom