• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

The 25%ers vs 99%ers

Business owners benefit more, as evidenced by the fact that they have more money. Therefore, they should pay more.

But the business owners risk more. In the relationship what do the educated employee or consumer risk relative to the business owner?
 
But the business owners risk more. In the relationship what do the educated employee or consumer risk relative to the business owner?

Only the successful business owners have to pay taxes. It's not like they're being taxed before they know whether they'll make money or not, and it's not like the taxes are taking away their reward for being successful. It's still entirely possible to get rich.
 
Do you even read my posts, or do you just spout the same lines over and over again?
right back at you. you believe that the top 1 percent use more than the bottom 90%?
 
right back at you. you believe that the top 1 percent use more than the bottom 90%?
:rofl
I don't know. Why don't you go read the post where I answered that question like 5 minutes ago? Then you can prove my point a little more.
 
Only the successful business owners have to pay taxes. It's not like they're being taxed before they know whether they'll make money or not, and it's not like the taxes are taking away their reward for being successful. It's still entirely possible to get rich.

That's generally true but the educated employee and customer are always successful as long as the business stays viable. The employee knows he will make money whether the business does or not. And the reward for being successful is the same for all three. AND it is possible for the employee and the business owner to get rich, considering one's definition of rich is subjective. Even the consumer may feel rich himself considering the success in aquiring the product.
 
That's generally true but the educated employee and customer are always successful as long as the business stays viable. The employee knows he will make money whether the business does or not. And the reward for being successful is the same for all three. AND it is possible for the employee and the business owner to get rich, considering one's definition of rich is subjective. Even the consumer may feel rich himself considering the success in aquiring the product.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.
 
:rofl
I don't know. Why don't you go read the post where I answered that question like 5 minutes ago? Then you can prove my point a little more.
you really didn't answer anything but I guess the question becomes

1) should the rich pay more and more because they CAN

2) or because you believe they use more proportionate to the amount of taxes they pay
 
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.

Only the successful business owners have to pay taxes. It's not like they're being taxed before they know whether they'll make money or not, and it's not like the taxes are taking away their reward for being successful.
That's generally true but the educated employee and customer are always successful as long as the business stays viable. The employee knows he will make money whether the business does or not. And the reward for being successful is the same for all three.

It's still entirely possible to get rich.

AND it is possible for the employee and the business owner to get rich, considering one's definition of rich is subjective. Even the consumer may feel rich himself considering the success in aquiring the product.
 
That's generally true but the educated employee and customer are always successful as long as the business stays viable. The employee knows he will make money whether the business does or not. And the reward for being successful is the same for all three.



AND it is possible for the employee and the business owner to get rich, considering one's definition of rich is subjective. Even the consumer may feel rich himself considering the success in aquiring the product.

Here's my point: Since it's impossible to get rich in absence of society, having a lot of money implies that you've gotten more use out of the things society provides than someone who doesn't have a lot of money. It doesn't really matter whether it's an employee or a business owner or whatever.
 
you really didn't answer anything but I guess the question becomes

1) should the rich pay more and more because they CAN

2) or because you believe they use more proportionate to the amount of taxes they pay

Yes. It's both practical, because the poor can't really afford to pay more taxes, and moral, because the rich have benefited more from society than the poor.
 
Yes. It's both practical, because the poor can't really afford to pay more taxes, and moral, because the rich have benefited more from society than the poor.

you cannot prove the second proposition and I would argue those who are able to survive due to handouts have been given more than those who are taxed to pay for far more than they use

and no one can seriously argue that the top one percent-people who pay 40% of the income tax use more government than the bottom 80% who pay less than 40% of the federal taxes
 
you cannot prove the second proposition and I would argue those who are able to survive due to handouts have been given more than those who are taxed to pay for far more than they use

and no one can seriously argue that the top one percent-people who pay 40% of the income tax use more government than the bottom 80% who pay less than 40% of the federal taxes

You should try replacing yourself with a computer that just repeats the same things over and over again without taking the other person's position into account at all and see if anyone notices the difference.

Or wait, that might be what you're already doing. How can we tell?
 
Here's my point: Since it's impossible to get rich in absence of society, having a lot of money implies that you've gotten more use out of the things society provides than someone who doesn't have a lot of money. It doesn't really matter whether it's an employee or a business owner or whatever.

Now I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.
 
you really didn't answer anything but I guess the question becomes

1) should the rich pay more and more because they CAN

2) or because you believe they use more proportionate to the amount of taxes they pay

I suspect that the well-known Marx quote sums up his position nicely:


“From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.”


He surely sees “The Rich” as those whose ability is great, and himself as one whose need is great; thus he adopts the philosophy of those who wish to have their own “great needs” fulfilled at the expense of others who have “great abilities”.
 
Last edited:
I suspect that the well-known Marx quote sums up his position nicely:


“From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.”


He surely sees “The Rich” as those whose ability is great, and himself as one whose need is great; thus he adopts the philosophy of those who wish to have their own “great needs” fulfilled at the expense of others who have “great abilities”.

So in other words, you have no idea what my position is. Shocking.
 
Well, I don't know for certain, of course. But I think I can make a very good guess, based on evidence that you've provided.

I'm not a Marxist, and if you feel like searching, you can find many posts by me disagreeing with Marx. So keep guessing.

Of course, you may be one of those conservatives who's incapable of figuring out the difference between communism, socialism, and Marxism.
 
the rich have benefited more from society than the poor.
Yes, but why have they benefited more? Are they rich because society gave more to those people? No, the rich provided goods and services in return for that money, not to mention the fact that they provided jobs. It's true that the rich own corporations, which own trucks and other things that use the infrastructure more than the average person, but they'd also be paying higher taxes even without a progressive tax code, and that doesn't even take into account things like truck taxes, gas taxes and corporate taxes. To answer TD's question, the rich should be paying higher taxes because they can. There's nothing moral about it. Progressive taxes are a necessary evil, and I'm not sure they need to be as progressive as they are now.
 
I would argue those who are able to survive due to handouts have been given more than those who are taxed to pay for far more than they use
That's a good point. The poor have benefited from society more than the rich because the rich are net givers and the poor are net takers.
 
that still does not justify 1% paying more taxes than 80% because there is no possible way you can honestly claim that the top one percent use more of the direct and indirect government services than 80%

Of course it does. The top 1 percent have a standard of living that is exponentially greater than the bottom 80%. To expect a demographic, who pays the majority of their income to live, to pay a higher tax rate will have a profound impact on their standard of living while allowing a poverty trap to manifest.
 
The poor have benefited from society more than the rich because the rich are net givers and the poor are net takers.

The ability to accumulate obscene amounts of wealth is not a benefit of this society? Who would have thought....
 
You should try replacing yourself with a computer that just repeats the same things over and over again without taking the other person's position into account at all and see if anyone notices the difference.

Or wait, that might be what you're already doing. How can we tell?

That is a funny statement coming from you given your repetitious nonsense and the repetitious nonsense of the tax the rich, buy the votes of the poor types on this board.

You have never made a convincing argument that the 47% who pay (it might be 51%)no income tax cannot pay ANYTHING

and you have never addressed the commonsense point that if someone doesn't pay income taxes they tend to be less concerned about the tax bills of others going up
 
The ability to accumulate obscene amounts of wealth is not a benefit of this society? Who would have thought....

that is really not responsive to his point which was correct.
 
As commented on by Henry Blodgett:

A new Wall Street Journal poll suggests that Americans have woken up to the extreme inequality that has developed in the country in the past three decades, in which the richest Americans have gotten much richer while everyone else has stayed in place or lost ground.

60% of the poll's respondents believe that the current structure of the economy favors a small portion of the rich over the rest of the country. They also think that the power of major banks and corporations should be curtailed. And that the government shouldn't subsidize or bail out companies.

None of that is surprising given the bailouts of recent years.

What is surprising, or at least is disheartening, is that the same Americans continue to believe that they can have it all.

For example, 53% of Americans believe the debt and deficits should be cut significantly... but the same percentage agrees that taxes should not be raised on anyone.

Similarly, 53% of Americans think that the influence of banks and corporations should be reined in... but that regulations on businesses should be pared back.

In other words, Americans want everything.

Yes, most of those who believe that debt and deficits should be cut probably think that the way to do it is simply through spending cuts, not tax increases. But it's hard to imagine how the necessary deficit reduction could be achieved just through spending cuts, without hammering the economy or cutting into services that Americans want. Non-partisan economists generally think that deficits should be reduced through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.

It's very hard to imagine that we will find a way out of our economic predicament that doesn't involve significant pain of one sort or another. But it does not appear that most Americans have woken up to that.

Read more: NEW POLL: Americans Want Everything

Not too surprising. Those that don't have it, want it. Debt and deficits should be cut significantly, but someone else should incur any pain associated therewith. The government should not bail out companies, but how many rust-belt jobs were saved with the auto industry bailouts?

Yep, we want it all. We just don't want to pay for it.
 
As commented on by Henry Blodgett:



Not too surprising. Those that don't have it, want it. Debt and deficits should be cut significantly, but someone else should incur any pain associated therewith. The government should not bail out companies, but how many rust-belt jobs were saved with the auto industry bailouts?

Yep, we want it all. We just don't want to pay for it.

everybody wanna go heaven
nobody wanna die!!

(Screwface in MARKED FOR DEATH)
 
Back
Top Bottom