Thread: Do rich people get more from the Government?

A rich person and a poor person get to ride the same Federal highways.

A rich person and a poor person get to cross over the same Federal bridges.

A rich person and a poor person get to enjoy the same National Parks.

A rich person and a poor person get to enjoy the same security from our Armed Forces.

Do rich people benefit more from the Federal government as do poor people?

The answer is no.

In fact, the more money you earn, the fewer benefits you qualify for.

So, why is there so much whining and complaining about the "rich" not paying their fair share?

It seems that the rich pay more than their fair share and receive less from the Federal Government.

That is not fair.

The problem is that "entitlements" are skewed on both ends of the spectrum.

If you make below 10k you get many benifits along with credits
This decreases until about 50k (depends on number of children you have)

People making between 50k to about 250k receive few compared to the other classes.

Once someone make over 250k-350k they begin to start investing heavily (15% flat) along with getting high priced cpa's and financial advisers to reduce their tax burden. Not to mention the other means they use.

In the business world smaller companies get zilch, medium sized companies get a little, and large corporations pay almost nothing.

30 Major Corporations Paid No Income Taxes In The Last Three Years, While Making $160 Billion

Our system is so f'ed up, anyone that says the rich do not benefit are not paying attention. The same can be said about the poor - the middle class is being strangled out of existence.

Do rich people benefit more from the Federal government as do poor people?

The answer is no

The answer is indisputably yes. They get their share of the tax burden decreased, they get to buy off congress to pass the bills they want, they get to use public resources to make tons of money at a lowball price, they get governments and militaries to open new markets for them. Just look at sports stadium financing, or logging leases where the government pays for all the up front costs while the rich rake in millions. Who pays to rescue commercial ships from somali pirates? Not the (*)(*)(*)(*) companies we do.

The government loses money on logging leases because they end up paying for the roads so spoiled business people can make money for almost nothing.

Oh, and those roads and bridges benefit a worker once, while a business owner benefits from them for every customer who can drive to their store or office. They get way more benefit than most of us ever will.

Originally Posted by CarlB

The answer is indisputably yes. They get their share of the tax burden decreased, they get to buy off congress to pass the bills they want, they get to use public resources to make tons of money at a lowball price, they get governments and militaries to open new markets for them.

If that's a perk of paying more taxes, then is it a right? Or would you be willing to give up corporate cronyism in return for the current taxes or even lower taxes on the rich?

Oh, and those roads and bridges benefit a worker once, while a business owner benefits from them for every customer who can drive to their store or office. They get way more benefit than most of us ever will.

The customers don't benefit from being able to drive to the store? Now you are asking for double taxation to pay for the same service.

Originally Posted by MolonLabe2009

A rich person and a poor person get to ride the same Federal highways.

A rich person and a poor person get to cross over the same Federal bridges.

A rich person and a poor person get to enjoy the same National Parks.

A rich person and a poor person get to enjoy the same security from our Armed Forces.

Do rich people benefit more from the Federal government as do poor people?

The answer is no.

In fact, the more money you earn, the fewer benefits you qualify for.

So, why is there so much whining and complaining about the "rich" not paying their fair share?

It seems that the rich pay more than their fair share and receive less from the Federal Government.

That is not fair.

The problem with the argument is that taxes have nothing to do with service. Governments take money. In order to prevent uprising, they provide some level of services. They also seek to provide certain things, like roads, fire protection, police "protection" (which is often police harm), and welfare in order to create dependency.

If taxes had anything to do with service, your government wouldn't assert the right to tax you long after you leave its jurisdiction.

Originally Posted by MolonLabe2009

A rich person and a poor person get to ride the same Federal highways.

A rich person and a poor person get to cross over the same Federal bridges.

A rich person and a poor person get to enjoy the same National Parks.

A rich person and a poor person get to enjoy the same security from our Armed Forces.

Do rich people benefit more from the Federal government as do poor people?

The answer is no.

In fact, the more money you earn, the fewer benefits you qualify for.

So, why is there so much whining and complaining about the "rich" not paying their fair share?

It seems that the rich pay more than their fair share and receive less from the Federal Government.

That is not fair.

So much of what we debate at this forum is founded upon differences of opinion, based on different normative assumptions. Then other times, people decide to just say objectively untrue things, and make the job of the other side that much easier. The rich as a collective, get no more than everyone else. As individuals, not only do they get more, they get exponentially more benefits. If the basic services provided by government were made private, the rich would still pay more for just the basic services they require, because it costs more money to provide them. That doesn't even take into account the fact that on top of the basic services they get bailouts. When was the last time the average person was given 700 billion dollars? A lot of people lost their houses since 2007, did they get bailouts? There are subsidies, which again aren't given to average people by and large, and when they are, the amounts are much smaller. No bid government contracts enrich the wealthy by billions. Then here comes the big thing that government provides, that is worth billions of dollars. The government uses it's resources to provide copyright and patent protection. Are you at all aware of how much money that alone provides to rich people? That protection alone is so much more valuable to say Bill Gates than anything the average person receives, that only a person who completely misunderstands this question could ever think they don't receive more. Then on top of all that, you also need to consider our foreign military adventurism. Who is helped by that? I certainly see none of the benefit from going into Iraq or Libya, but Halliburton, Lockhead Martin, Boeing, etc, etc, etc most definitely do!!


So as I said, the only way to reach the conclusion you reached, would be to fundamentally misunderstand the question. The answer is absolutely, no question yes the rich do receive more benefits from government.

Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKen

If that's a perk of paying more taxes, then is it a right? Or would you be willing to give up corporate cronyism in return for the current taxes or even lower taxes on the rich?

I can't speak for Carl, but I would say the answer for me is definitely yes. Well, not just corporate cronyism. The government will almost inevitably provide the wealthy with services that are more valuable, but I would be fine with making the tax code flatter(Not flat) if the benefits the wealthy received didn't so massively outweigh the benefits received by everyone else.

Let's look at it from a macro perspective. The very rich of America are living in a society which is allowing them not only to remain very rich but to increase their wealth (both absolutely and relatively) faster than the rest of us. Since they are benefiting more from living in the USA, why are they paying less taxes than the rest of us (taxes which are supposed to support the maintenance of that society)? Don't miss the forest by peering closely at a few trees.

Other than communal use of 'highways, bridges and national recreation facilities'. If a poor guy comes up with an idea for a product and want's to go into business; he has to pitch the banks, friends and family in order to finance his endeavor. A rich man, on the other hand, can get government loan guarantees and huge tax credits. This is referred to as an 'unlevel playing field'. It's funny that Obama keeps bringing up that unlevel playing field (out of one side of his mouth) while doling out those loan guarantees to his rich (supportive) cronies.

Originally Posted by MolonLabe2009

A rich person and a poor person get to ride the same Federal highways.

A rich person and a poor person get to cross over the same Federal bridges.

A rich person and a poor person get to enjoy the same National Parks.

A rich person and a poor person get to enjoy the same security from our Armed Forces.

Do rich people benefit more from the Federal government as do poor people?

The answer is no.

In fact, the more money you earn, the fewer benefits you qualify for.

So, why is there so much whining and complaining about the "rich" not paying their fair share?

It seems that the rich pay more than their fair share and receive less from the Federal Government.

That is not fair.

If what you say is true, and they get the same benefits the rest of us do, can they at LEAST pay the same tax rates we do? At LEAST that much? I'd be fine if they paid a full 25% after deductions, but they simply don't right now.

And before you get on me about wanting the poorest to pay something as well, give yourself a choice. Would you rather the poorest pay a fair percentage in taxes, only to be paid back in social services that they simply can't afford (Medicaid, unemployment benefits, housing subsidies, etc), or would you prefer a reduction in those programs by letting the poorest WORKERS pay less in taxes as a way to prevent further exchange of tax dollars?