Thread: Do you have the right to say that a “rich” person isn’t paying enough taxes?

Originally Posted by starcraftzzz

The richest 1% of Americans own 40% of the nations wealth yet only pay 23% of its taxes.

Where are you getting your stats because the IRS disagrees with you - http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartb...income-earners (I know it's Heritage.org, but their data comes from the IRS).

Not to mention the richest 400 Americans and many millionaires pay lower tax rates then someone making 50,000 a year

Absolutely false. Income is taxed on a progressive scale: If you make more, then you will pay more in taxes.

Originally Posted by drj90210

Where are you getting your stats because the IRS disagrees with you - http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartb...income-earners (I know it's Heritage.org, but their data comes from the IRS).

You source is only income taxes, which make up only about 43% of all federal taxes.

Absolutely false. Income is taxed on a progressive scale: If you make more, then you will pay more in taxes.

Not true for investment taxes. They are taxed at a maximum rate of 15%, regardless how much you make.

the top 400 garner a much larger share of their income form investments, and get this special privileged low rate for more of their income.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

You source is only income taxes, which make up only about 43% of all federal taxes.

First of all, this thread is about the legitimacy in demanding that the wealthy pay more in INCOME TAX, so it is quite relevant to state the statistics regarding who pays the vast majority of income tax in this country. Second, Starcraftzzz did not have a source of the statistics that he posted.

Not true for investment taxes. They are taxed at a maximum rate of 15%, regardless how much you make.

Right, and where did the the investment money come from? Obviously it MUST have initially come from income, which means at one point in time, it was indeed taxed at the highest marginal rates. Comparing the long term capital gains tax and income tax is like comparing apples and oranges.

the top 400 garner a much larger share of their income form investments, and get this special privileged low rate for more of their income.

The Obama administration defines "rich" as any single person grossing more than $200,000 or a married couple grossing more than $250,000, which is a FAR cry from the top 400, all of whom are multibillionaires. Since, under Obama's definition of "rich", the vast majority of "rich" make closer to $200,000 in annual income, it is disingenuous to only talk about the Warren Buffets and Mark Zuckerbergs of the world.

Originally Posted by starcraftzzz

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...t-one-percent/
^The richest 1% of Americans now own 40% of the nation’s wealth

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/04/...ancial-crisis/
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2009.pdf
^Top 1% pays 23% of all taxes.



Nope you are 100% wrong

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...s-lower-taxes/
^25% of millionaires have lower tax rates then around 11 million middle class Americas.

http://www.blueoregon.com/2011/09/on...t-buffet-rule/
^The average millionaire with 2/3rd income from investments pays 30% less taxes then someone making 50,000 a year

http://wweek.com/portland/article-17...out_taxes.html
^The bottom 50% of American have a 35% higher effective tax rate compared to wages then the richest 400 Americans.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...e-percent-tax/
^Some billionaires pay as low of tax rates as 1%

So your entire source is far leftwing websites and blogs? What a surprise.

Originally Posted by drj90210

First of all, this thread is about the legitimacy in demanding that the wealthy pay more in INCOME TAX, so it is quite relevant to state the stats regarding who pays the vast majority of income tax in this country? Second, he did not have a source of the statistics that he posted.

I'm sorry, where did it say in the OP this thread was only about the INCOME TAX? I must have missed that.

And Starcraftzzz's post said nothing about his stats being the INCOME TAX.

Right, and where did the the investment money come from? Obviously it MUST have initially come from income, which means at one point in time, it was indeed taxed at the highest marginal rates. Comparing the long term capital gains tax and income tax is like comparing apples and oranges.

Where it comes from is irrelevant to the issue of whether it is regressive, which it is.

And second, it didn't necessarily come form income, but especially for the richest who have investements, most of it probably came from capital gains, which are not taxed. So your "obviously" statement MUST be wrong.

Finally, I agree that comparing investment income and earnings income is apples and oranges. The latter was earned.

The Obama administration defines "rich" as any single person grossing more than $200,000 or a married couple grossing more than $250,000, which is a FAR cry from the top 400, all of whom are multibillionaires. Since, under Obama's definition of "rich", the vast majority of "rich" make closer to $200,000 in annual income, it is disingenuous to only talk about the Warren Buffets and Mark Zuckerbergs of the world.

I'm not aware of such a definition. Could you please cite me to the source where the Obama administration defines "rich" as any single person grossing more than $200,000 or a married couple grossing more than $250,000.

Thank you.

But that doesn't make it disingenuous to talk about the richest 400 or Warren or Mark or Mitt at all.

Originally Posted by drj90210

So your entire source is far leftwing websites and blogs? What a surprise.

The Murdoch owned WSJ is a far left wing website?

That is a surprise.

Originally Posted by Meta777

How is the income from an entrepreneur taxed differently than the income of a coal miner? How is their property taxed differently? How is their capital gains taxed differently?

O_o A full time coal miner can making anywhere from 30K to 100K + a year
and on that income will be taxed a progressive tax which will be more depending on how much money they make.
Your typical full time entrepreneur can make anywhere from 40K to 191K + a year for their 'work', but they will pay a 15% flat tax on their income regardless of how much money they make.
If you're truly for tax equality, then why not tax everything based on the same set of rules?

I am for the same rules, but you are not comparing the apples with apples. The small business owner has other taxes and fees that he must pay that the coal miner (an employee) doesn’t even have to consider. So you are not comparing one employee’s income tax with another. Rather, you are comparing the income tax of an employee with the taxes of a small business owner.

Clearly he was indeed talking about those at the top of the totem pole. However, in a discussion of "rich people," it is disingenuous to only mention the small minority making more than $10 million per year when vast majority of "rich" are grossing closer to $200,000 per year. That's the point that I've been trying to get at all along. You seem to focus on the few billionaires out there, but according to the POTUS, the "rich" include any individual who grosses more than $200k or any married couple grossing more than $250k. This is a far cry from the Michael Bloombergs out there whose net worth is close to $10 billion. That's why when referencing the "rich," we need to be as specific as possible. We need to clarify if by "rich" we are referring to a general medicine physician with 3 children working 70 hours per week and grossing $250k per year or if we are referring to someone like Donald Trump.

Well rich is a relative term. Its difficult if not impossible to identify a particular income level above which one is rich and below which one is not.

Agreed, but our current POTUS did just that and declared that a “rich” single person is anyone grossing more than $200,000 and a “rich” married couple is any couple grossing more than $250,000. Hence, it is under this context that I am describing the “rich” in America.

I believe DC, are talking about are specifically those individuals at the top who control the means of production. Those people at the top are often richer than others simply because by controlling the means of production, they are controlling a vital factor of wealth creation,and as such they are in control of the money. They control who gets paid and who doesn't, and this control more often than not,
makes them richer than people without this control.

Name one individual in America that is so rich that he “controls the means of production” because I cannot name a single person who has this power? Certainly there are people who are rich beyond my wildest dreams, but even someone like Bill Gates has absolutely no influence over my life.

And certainly, such people have the ability to set their own income.

Yes, but my point was that under Obama’s arbitrary definition of “rich” such people (ultra-rich billionaires) only make up a tiny fraction of the “rich” in America, and most “rich” are indeed employees just like the middle class and poor.

Also, Trump isn't really that rich.

I only wish I could ever be as poor as Donald Trump

Ah, but these people are referred to as "rich" by the POTUS and a majority of the US population. I'm glad that you agree that they really aren't "rich."

First of all, I can't control how others define rich, either-way, that definition seems to have no bearing on what I was saying.

But since the government's power to levy taxes has a huge influence on our lives, you certainly have to agree that Obama’s definition of “rich” should be taken very seriously, right?

Second, I'm not saying they are rich, but I'm not saying they aren't rich...

Don’t you think it’s important to make a distinction?

Again, rich is a relative term, those people who make a lot of money are richer than other people who make less, they are also poorer than people who make more.

Absolutely right, but Obama has a bit more of an influence over monetary policy than you, and since he DID define “rich,” I will argue my point regarding the “rich” using his black-and-white distinction of “rich” rather than your wishy-washy description. No offense.

If it weren't for governments and unions, corporate bosses would effectivly have all of the control.

How? I had a job where I felt my massive amount responsibilities was too much to expect from a single employee and that another employee was required. I spoke to my boss. He told me that he could not hire another employee to assist me. I then put in my quitting papers, and got a better job. So let me ask you again, how exactly did my “corporate bosses” have power over me in this case? How would a union or government influence have been of any help to me?
Unions (and government involvement) are the problem in our country, and certainly solutions to anything.

Those who own the means of production have a great amount of control over their income and over the income of others.
The only thing that challenges their control is the government, and to a much smaller extent, unions.

I disagree. Government and unions have a MUCH greater impact in all of our lives than the ultra-rich.

Wait...um,..what? What are you disagreeing with???
Are you disagreeing with something I wrote, or something you imagined me to write?

I’m not sure where your confusion is here.
You appear to be saying that the “owners of means of production” have a “great amount of control over the income of others,” right? You then state that the government and unions are a solution to this problem, that they act to “challenge their control.” I merely stated that I disagree for the same reasons that I had stated many times: I feel that the ultra-rich (the owners of the means of production) have very little (if any) control over our lives, and government involvement and unions create a TON more problems that they could ever solve.

Originally Posted by drj90210

What exactly do you mean by this inarticulate mess that you wrote?

I mean your views are absurd and indefensible.

Are you saying that a “rich” physician saving lives is getting paid for “doing nothing” or that an investment banker working 80 hours per week is “doing nothing?” Explain yourself.

You are dishonestly trying to change the subject from "rich" to "high-earned-income," but yes, I am saying an investment banker who works 80 hours a week trying to get something for nothing is doing nothing because he is doing nothing in the same sense that a criminal who works 80 hours a week trying to get something for nothing is doing nothing. The only difference is that the thieving investment banker is enabled by government and admired as a financial success story.

I never came remotely close in saying that people who aren’t “rich” are losers

Coulda fooled me....

(I personally am not “rich”)

Then you are a nincompoop who is trying to derogate people who are trying to protect your rights.

so please stop this strawman argument BS.

Your posts reek of contempt for anyone who is not rich.

If you had the brainpower to understand my OP, then you would realize that I feel that in a free society, you have no justification for advocating that SOMEONE ELSE should pay more taxes than you, just because they are richer than you.

If you knew any logic, you would realize that is an ad hominem fallacy, while if you knew any economics, you would realize I have every justification for advocating that someone else should pay more taxes than me just because they are richer than me.

Regardless of income, we are all benefiting from Constitutionally-sanctioned government services (interstate roads, military, etc) equally, and thus there is no justification for demanding that the “rich” pay more in taxes.

No, we are not all benefiting equally, such a claim is just cretinous nonsense:

"The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation, is like the expense 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. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists, what is called the equality or inequality of taxation." -- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

Demanding that another group pay more than you for the same federal services

From which they benefit far more than I...

is the epitome of inequality and is a childish argument because you are seperating youself from the group that you pass judgment on.

See above re inequality. As to separating myself from them, yes, and I also separate myself from child molesters when I advocate that they should be imprisoned -- as anyone who isn't a child molester or as stupid as a bag of hammers does.

Unless you state that EVERYONE (including yourself) should pay more in taxes, then you are advocating a juvenile position of inequality where you exclude yourself from another part of the population that you deem should be punished by higher taxation.

Paying for what you take from society is not punishment, and objectivity MEANS separating yourself from what you are discussing.

This is 100% false.

It is 100% true, and is the only way working people can work hard and get nowhere while rich, greedy parasites get rapidly richer for doing nothing.

Again, what in the world are you talking about? The point that I was making is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to know the intimate details of the lives of an entire population.

I don't care about any intimate details, and I'd tax them without knowing any intimate details.

Heck, you probably do not know the intimate details of the lives of you close friends. That’s my point. Since you are not a member of the cross-section of the population that you pass judgment on AND since you cannot possibly know the intimate details of their lives, then how can you possibly make such sweeping judgment on so many people?

By being willing to know the facts of economics that say they should be paying more tax.

Originally Posted by starcraftzzz

Anyone who owns land, factories, or capital controls the means of production.

So anyone who owns land controls the means of production? So every home owner controls the means of production. Makes perfect sense

Unions (and government involvement) are the problem in our country, and certainly aren't solutions to anything.

That is only true if you've missed the last 100 years of history and know very little about reality

Private unions had a purpose many years ago, but even these private sector unions have way too much power today and are much more of a detriment than a benefit for our society.

Originally Posted by Roy L

I mean your views are absurd and indefensible.

For "indefensible" views, I do a pretty darn good job of defending them.

You are dishonestly trying to change the subject from "rich" to "high-earned-income,"

No dishonesty on my part. From my earlier posts, I have been extremely consistent: I utilize the definition of "rich" as illustrated by the current POTUS. If you took the time to actually read my prior posts before going on your rants, then this would have been obvious to you.

but yes, I am saying an investment banker who works 80 hours a week trying to get something for nothing is doing nothing because he is doing nothing in the same sense that a criminal who works 80 hours a week trying to get something for nothing is doing nothing.

Ah yes, so investment bankers are "criminals" according to you. Wonderful argument