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

(1)Right: Constitutionally-protected freedom or naturally understood freedom.
(2)Right: Judgment based upon a rational, justifiable process (a.k.a. "Justification")

Now, which definition do you think that I meant when I was saying "right?" Do you honestly think that I meant that those who whine and state that rich people "pay too little taxes" have no freedom to make such a silly statement and should be promptly thrown in jail?

Clearly when I was referring to "right," I was referring to definition #2.

 

It's called free speech, so yes, they can express it.

But they have to prove it.

And for the most part they can't.

In America the progressive tax rate, the rich are paying the highest tax rates.

In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.

The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.

The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 27 percent as compared to a 13 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.

The White House has announced it will lobby Congress to pass legislation making most of President Bush's tax cutting measures permanent.




The thing is though, the complaints are just a smokescreen. What the complainers really want is to strip everybody of all wealth. They will not be happy unless everybody is poor and in the doghouse.

They tend to ignore things that if the government is powerful enough to take away your money, you have no rights at all and you are just a slave.

But who cares about rights and liberty as long as you stick it to the (wealthy) man, right?

 

We are all comparatively rich. We live in a wealthy nation. If you want to live here and have all of the advantages of living in a wealthy nation chances are you will have to pay for it. People are angry at the "rich" because our accustomed style of life is threatened, and the privileged class feel no responsibility for it.

That being said, I for one do empathize with people who have worked hard, stayed within the rules, and now find themselves demonized.

Judging others most often stems from ignorance. The rich judge the poor and vice versa. We would all be better served by trying to understand one another and stop trying to place blame.

 

Why must some people pay a disproportionate amount more than others for essentially the same services? I thought we are supposed to live in a nation of equality?

The "rich" have no responsibility for your life, my life, or anyone else's life. We live as independent citizens, not subjects of an aristocracy. Hence, wealthy citizens bear absolutely ZERO responsibility because the "accustomed lifestyles" of some of the middle class and poor is "threatened" (whatever that means).

Those are the people that I was referring to.

Agreed, but what we are dealing with now goes way beyond judging. Now we have a large entitlement class of people demanding to their representatives that other citizens should give up their hard-earned money because they are not willing to make lifestyle changes. The sad part is that, in our supposed "free" society, they are getting away with their demands for the most part.

 

LOL!!! Funny stuff that is just too silly to waste time commenting on. Absurdities, like the quote above, are good for a laugh though.

 

You are not understanding the argument. First of all, the federal government makes interstate roads to benefit the GENERAL POPULATION. Second of all, most bridges are paid for by state and local taxes (not federal taxes). Let's look at a better example: Interstate roads (which are paid for by federal taxes). A rich person driving his Ferrari on an interstate road is benefiting the same as the poor guy driving his 1988 Dodge Aries on an interstate road . A rich person eating an apple that was transported via truck through 2 states is benefiting from those roads the same way was a poor person who buys a similar apple. Do you get it now?

You seem to nitpick at minucia rather than look at the general sense of the argument. Of course some people, like the owner of a taxi cab service, will benefit more since their occupation directly involves the use of these roads. However, this has nothing to do with wealth, and everything to do with occupation. The owner of the taxi cab service may make a signicantly amount less than a uber rich investment banker, and yet, according to you, the taxi cab station owner benefits more from the existence of roads. Hence, wealth has nothing to do with this. Also, the taxi cab owner owns a fleet of cars, and due to the rapidly accumulating mileage, he needs to frequently repair and replace these automobiles. This causing him to pay MORE in sales tax than others not involved in the same line of work. Hence, the owner of the taxi service is indeed paying more to the government for use of the roads than the average driver.

Regardless of all of the above, you just keep on missing the big picture that the federal government provides services to the GENERAL POPULATION, and one class of citizen does not get more than another. That's a fact.

Both are horrible examples: Most bridges are paid by state taxes. Police and firefighters are paid by local taxes, not FEDERAL TAXES. Big errors here on your part.

A better example would be looking at the FBI or CIA, which are indeed federally funded. Clearly they act to serve the country as a whole, and not merely specific classes of wealth.

That why I have repeatedly stated that I do not included things like Welfare, Medicare/Medicaid, SS, and other things that are not sanctioned by the US Constitution. To be honest and fair, we must only look at the Constituionally-sanctioned purposes of the federal government. These include the National Guard, Armed Services, interstate roads, and some other things. If we just include these Constitutionally-sanctioned aspects of the federal government, then clearly is can be demonstrated that the federal government's purposes benefit the GENERAL POPULACE, and not only the "rich."

 

That is not a fact…it is a lie. The degree to which government spending benefits individuals can be accurately measured by observing land values. As a general rule, the closer the lands location is to public infrastructure and services the more valuable the land will be. Therefore it is landowners who benefit from government spending.

As an example, a new road or bridge will increase accessibility to the nearby land. As a result, that land will become more productive and this will be reflected in the lands rental or sale values. The individual who owns that nearby land at the time of the government spending will see his income and wealth increase dramatically. This government spending will be a net loss to everyone else, because while they helped pay for the project it was only the landowner who pocketed the economic benefits of that particular spending.

Contrary to common thought, roads and bridges cannot make truck drivers or taxicab drivers, or their employers, more money. If anything new or improved roads and bridges will make those occupations more competitive, as it takes fewer drivers to deliver more goods. Consider a hypothetical whereby all the roads suddenly became twice as efficient starting tomorrow morning. What would happen to truck drivers wages? Being that each driver could deliver twice as many goods, the industry would experience a glut of excess truck drivers, and truck driver wages would fall until this glut of excess labor was purged from that occupation. Continuing with that hypothetical, at the same time the improved road systems devastated the wages of truck drivers, you would see land values rise dramatically at all locations which had access to those improved roadway systems. That’s because it would suddenly take less labor to move the lands produce to market, resulting in increased profits for the landowner.

"Landlords grow rich in their sleep without working, risking or economising. The increase in the value of land, arising as it does from the efforts of an entire community, should belong to the community and not the individual who might hold title." — John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873), English philosopher and social reformer, and one of the major intellectual figures of the 19th century

 

The word "justification" is a matter of 1913 Websters, "a showing or proving to be just or conformable to law," pay attention to the word "or," "or conformable to law," so since there is an income tax and no Constitutional law forbidding higher progressive taxes than we have now or had before Reagan, and we have the right to amend our Constitution and a RIGHT to say anything to get it done for any level of ECONOMIC PARITY, therefore, there is justification to make a judgment call that the rich do not pay a fair share.

You said, "...'rich aren’t paying their fair share.' That’s BS of course, since the wealthy pay a disproportionately larger percentage of the tax burden."

If subject "A" makes a million selling an invention, and subject "B" makes a million inheriting wealth, and subject "C" works for their wealth and pays any tax, if subject "A" and "C" pay "a disproportionately larger percentage" than subject "B," then "A" and "C" both have a right and justification to say, "the rich aren’t paying their fair share."

If subject "C" pays no taxes, and that is because subject "B" will not hire them, then subject "C" still has a right and justification to say, "the rich aren’t paying their fair share." Read and weep:

"The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise." (The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826, Property and Natural Right) http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl41.htm

"A disproportionately larger percentage of the tax burden" could be the result of rich not hiring domestically and and paying high enough wages, and excessive unregulated usury being a burden on the less fortunate, for a supply (wealth) and demand (jobs) disproportion of tax burden. If the rich do not like the burden, hire more here, pay more here, and then their burden would be lifted; supply wealth (jobs) or demand for the higher burden on the rich is a right; if the rich god/king does not make it rain and bring bounty to the land the peasants have a right and justification to overthrow their gods. That is the way it has always been.

Now if you want to ask, "do you have the justification to say that a 'rich' person isn’t paying enough taxes?," then ask that, it is just 5th grade to get it right and since propaganda is a fifth grade word, it must be much less to get it wrong.

We the People also have the right under our Constitution to amend it, say anything we like to get it done, and then redistribute wealth as we see fit all the way to an Obamanation congregation working toward ECONOMIC PARITY.

Now I do not want that, I intend to vote for Newt, but if you insist on making me mad by insulting my intelligence I just might vote for Obama for the fun of watching the rich squeal like little piggies.

 

Nothing "nitpicky" about this change. The topic of discussion is FEDERAL TAXES, so it would be irrelevant to the dicussion to talk about bridges, most of which are paid by STATE TAXES. Hence, I corrected the error in your analogy by making a slight change to focus of interstate highways, which are funded by federal taxes. Why so sensitive?

Pure immaturity and/or projectionism.

Not at all. Constitutionally-sanctioned purposes of the federal government are supposed to benefit the general populace. Even your bridge/road example does not hold up because a relatively poor taxi driver "benefits more" from the bridge/road than a wealther executive who lives within walking distance from his office, since the taxi driver's entire means of income is largely dependent upon the road/bridge.

 

First, are all wealthy people landowners? No. Hence, my statement stands as fact. Second, there are already PROPERTY TAXES imposed on landowners that are directly proportional to the amount of property owned. Hence, landowners are indeed paying back the government (and then some).

And it will increase property taxes as well for landowners.

What about the wealthy people that rent apartments? What about the wealthy people that have bought homes/land outside of these rural areas that you speak of, where roads and bridges are already developed? It seems that your example only holds true in referrence to a person who buys a quantity of land in a rural area, and then a bridge or interstate highway is built nearby in the near future. However, the same "benefit" will hold true for a poorer person or a wealthier person owning land in a rural area. Hence, landowners, regardless of wealth, are benefitted: A wealthy person who rents a luxury apartment would not benefit, while a poor person who owns land would benefit.

Wrong. The government creating new interstate highways benefits the GENERAL POPULACE, since these new highways are a source of transportation and commerce that can be utilized by anyone in the population.

Is society the same today in America as it was in England in the early-mid 1800s? Do we have the same economic system as 200 years ago? I didn't think so.

 

Continue with your land example, assume the land closer to "infrastructure" is more valuable. Here in Florida, that means the person that buys that land pays more in sales tax in the purchase, and pays more property tax every year. If the owner builds a factory on that land, the value of the property increases and he pays even more in property/tangible/intangible taxes.

The taxes reflect the value of the land exactly as you desire in this thread.

Of course, the "community" did not take the risk of buying the land, building a factory, hiring people, and going into business. The owner did. But your arguement works both ways. If the "community" is to receive the benefits resulting from the businessman, then the community must accept some risk. If the owner sinks all his money into that operation and it fails, well then the community should just cough up some money and repay his expenses.

 

When did facing hardships become justification for paying less tax? If that is the case, I think that the single mother of twins who is trying to work her way through college while working for minimum wage at a big box retailer should pay just a little less tax than the guy who has a seat on the board of the big box retailer that was paid for with money he inherited from his father on his 18th birthday, went to an Ivy League school where he had the best tutors help him pass his courses, and regularly has dinner with celebrities and politicians.

As for expenditure, well the tax code actually already takes care of that. That new computer in the young man's office? Business expense. His brand new smart phone? Business expense. Of course the he has an army of expert accountants who make sure that he gets all the tax write-offs he is entitled to.


Of course single mother can't write off the fees for check cashing businesses because she doesn't have enough money for a bank account or the high interest rate of a "secure" credit card to buy herself a computer for school. Neither can she write the higher per minute price she pays for cell phone service since she can't qualify for the mobile company's monthly plan so she is stuck with prepaid phone service.

So now I turn it back onto you. Do you personally know every “poor” person on the planet on an intimate basis? Do you know each hardship and expenditure that each and every “poor” person faces? Of course not.

 

Taxing the rich is a song played by bureaucrats to make weak minded people losing prosperity feel good about having less prosperity each year that passes.

The only way that taxing the rich will help any of us on this site is in piece of mind and not in our wallets.

I didn’t buy into that crap when Jimmy (20% interest rates) Carter said it and I am not buying into it now.

If you vote for Obama because he is threatening to tax the rich you fall in the weak minded category. So long as bureaucrats keep printing money like its going out of style taking worthless money from people will make no difference for anybody.

Tax the rich all you want it won’t help you and I.

 

???? What exactly are you trying to say here? Please try to use better (and correct) sentence structure so that your point can be understood. I can’t respond to gibberish.

Indeed I did.

No ,they don't have the right. Person A does not know if Person B has a costly health condition or $250,000 in law school and college debt. Person C does not know if Person B has 4 children with developmental impediments or has a wife undergoing costly chemotherapy. Hence, my post stands true. Since people do not have an intimate knowledge of the lives of everyone around them, they are unjustified in making blanketed comments like, "You aren't paying your fair share."

Even if you inherit money, SOMEONE worked hard for it at one point in time (and hence income taxes were paid by someone). Similarly, if someone inherits incredible athletic abilities from his parents, it is wrong for him to capitalize on his natural gifts?

So because an out of work plumber cannot find a job, it is the rich patent lawyer's fault for not hiring him to work in his firm? This is an absurd "blame the rich" mentality with not even an inkling of logical reasoning.

This is already being done in something called PROPERTY TAXES. You don't have property taxes where you are? Where I live, they are astronomically high.

This is nonsensical speculation on your part with nothing of substance to back it up.

What if the “rich” person does not own a business, and thus cannot hire anyone himself? You do know that most “rich” people in America are merely hardworking employees, right? Only a small minority of rich are business owners, and most of them are just small business owners (like the owner of a local hardware store)

Nope. It is nothing more than unjustified envy by a class of people with an ever-growing chip on their shoulder who feel entitled to the monetary rewards of the hard word of others.

More nonsensical ramblings.

Are you really trying to defend the idiocy of your prior post where you actually somehow thought I believe that people didn’t have a Constitutional right of free speech? Are you really trying to defend your error of failing in every sense to understand the very simple context of my argument (and the term “right&#8221? If you have any speck of intelligence, you would have admitted your obvious error, and I would just let it be. However, you choose to continue to dig yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.

 

I am not at all surprised you have a problem understanding others, as the topic question was about "a 'rich' person." And many of us know "a 'rich' person" who did not pay a fair share of taxes.

"What we have here is a failure to communicate."

Talking to you would be a waste of time, so the rest is for anyone else that wants to give you an education.

"Property" and "Real Property" are two different terms to a Real Estate Agent, so Jefferson and Thomas Paine were not talking about Real Property, a hint to the unwashed as to Jefferson's meaning would be the phrase "the descent of property of every kind."

Yes, everyone, I know "a rich."

When Zig Zag Zell ran for re-election they said, "he lowered taxes," but even with the mill rate decrease the Democrats had ordered the reappraisal of all REAL property obviously for the express purpose of raising taxes, my taxes increased 26% when "a rich" taxes did not increase. The Atlanta Constitution had a story where another "a rich" had something like a 250% increase in taxes on his pasture land, while I repeat my special "a rich" did not have an increase.

A former employee of the County tried to enforce the law on "a rich," and what got in the paper was the former employee saying the County attorney "used zoning laws to reward friends and punish enemies." The editor of the local newspaper once said, "the owners are afraid of retaliation," so a story about ethics and "a rich" (that the reporter and the editor were excited about just minutes before) never ran.

"If a complaint is received by the clerk of the board of commissioners which alleges a violation of the code of ethics by a member of the board of commissioners, an independent review board will be formed if the complaint alleges sufficient facts which, if proven to be true, would be a violation of the code of ethics. The county attorney of any county within the Griffin Judicial Circuit, except the county attorney for Fayette County, shall make the determination of whether or not a review board should be impanelled. If a review board is needed, three (3) county attorneys within reasonably close geographical proximity to the county will be requested to conduct a public hearing based upon the complaint. A majority vote, based on clear and convincing evidence, will determine the existence of a violation."
http://library.municode.com/HTML/11841/level3/PTIICOCO_CH2AD_ARTVIIICOET.html

[ame="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7429570444378092708"]Former County Commission Chairman Jerry Barronton talks about County Attorny Bill McNally[/ame]

So when someone questions anyone's "right to say that a 'rich' person isn’t paying enough taxes," you can (*)(*)(*)(*) well bet I am going to get MAD, especially if there is any question whatsoever about anyone's free speech or the freedom of the press.

A young Republican at a zoning board meeting said, "if I were you I would have taken the law into my own hands." The newspaper reporter sitting right there in the front row of an empty meeting did not put it in the paper, and the minutes of the meeting did not say that he said it. All evidence of ethics violations presented, which had caused the Republican to say, "if I were you I would have taken the law into my own hands," did not make it into the paper.

Yes, I do not know every rich person, but he said, "a rich" in the topic question, and then had the gall to say, "You are either purposefully being obtuse or have the reading comprehension level of a 6-year-old," when I pointed out the First Amendment freedom of speech, after many citizen's rights had been violated by "a rich's" criminal bootlicking minions.

I also knew "a 'rich' person" who I told the equipment was not ready for sale, he sold the equipment anyway, twice before I quit over that practice; he and his spawn who inherited will never be able to say they pay a fair share in taxes, until they compensate those they stole money from, and the fire department that risked their lives, and the widows of the firemen...over the equipment that was electrically faulty.

If "a rich" wants to claim they are paying "a disproportionately larger percentage of the tax burden," they can figure what percentage of their net worth they pay in taxes, and publish it in the paper, for only when that happens can we all figure our own taxes in relation to "a rich."

Person "A" who got a million for his invention does not care if Person "B" who got his million from daddy's work "has a costly health condition or $250,000 in law school and college debt," because Person "A" had the common sense to not get all that much debt after making a million, so all person "A" knows is he made his million and Person "B" did not make his.

If anyone feels "entitled to the monetary rewards of the hard word [sic] of others," it is those for no "death tax."

Income Taxes only pay for the Jeep to defend that year's income that the old fart made, those old taxes do not pay for the Humvee to defend silver spooned inheritor's INCOME of a million he did not make. It is obvious that daddy's money was daddy's money, and daddy's taxes are daddy's taxes paid to defend daddy's money, and junior's income is junior's income (inheritance) which could be taxed at the same rate as anyone who worked for their income. And until "a rich" who inherits close to 13 million pays the exact same percentage as another who made their own money, with interest Mr. Mouth of the South, everyone has the right and justification to say those who did not work for the money and had both "natural gifts" and an unfair shot are not paying a fair share of taxes.

My special "a rich" once bragged that he put his kids though college at taxpayer expense by claiming losses that were not losses. So for all time until those taxes are paid in full, with interest, the spawn of "a rich" who inherited will never be able to say they paid their fair share in taxes.

Every rich person is different, it is with law we are all created equal not by "natural gifts"; the taxes though, whether a tenth of income or a Zakat involving wealth, are in justification also a matter of religious sentiments where the commie may see redistribution a god given right to make up for the "natural gifts." "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" or "we all must sacrifice for the common good," or "more of us must give so we all may benefit" or "an economy where everyone gets a fair shot" are both commie and Democrat; such sentiments are based upon one's idea of social and economic justice, justification and rights, and no amount of insults of intelligence are going to remove them.

A "fair shot" at doing well is somewhat impossible without redistributing wealth, due to the very fact that some have "natural gifts" and inheritance that makes those gifts easier to do well.

I do not have a problem with rich people, I have a problem with a lack of a free press and speech and the criminal bootlickers of "a rich."

Yes, I used to vote for Newt, before the redistricting, and would again, but the number of conservatives with learning disabilities makes me think that they need more public remedial education administered by Democrats.

 

That's the exception, not the rule. The top 10% pay 68% of the taxes. For context, that means that the bottom 90% have to cover approximately 30% of the taxes.

Yes, your government is really spending that much.

 

I wasn't asking about feeling "entitled." I was asking about legitimate justification for someone demanding that another person pay a higher rate of taxation just because they earn more money.

The analogy was perfectly apt.

 

Flat income tax senario:

EXT. CASTLE RAMPARTS DAY {i will skip the formating}

Action: A few archers are on watch paying at dice. An archer sticks his head up between throws and jumps to his feet.

PRIVATE PUSS IN BOOTS
Sir, Hagar the Funny is raiding a nearby home. He is running away with the Golden Goose.

LIEUTENANT JUSTIFICATION
Is he taking any golden eggs?

PRIVATE PUSS IN BOOTS
No sir, he is only stealing the Golden Goose.

LIEUTENANT JUSTIFICATION
Stand down Lieutenant, we only recieved fifteen percent of the golden eggs not a percentage of the golden eggs and Golden Goose.

 

"if the rich god/king does not make it rain and bring bounty to the land the peasants have a right and justification to overthrow their gods. That is the way it has always been." (me)

"More nonsensical ramblings." (drj90210)

Too bad drj90210 cannot see that what I said could also apply to the "anointed one."



Justification is based upon law (both secular and religious), law is based upon our rights, our rights are based upon "consent of the governed," and "consent of the governed" depends upon the people of the States making sure that our Senators advise and consent correctly, and try when the tyranny of nine justices make law and the House has impeached them for it.

The simple sentence is not always enough.

Our rights give us justification to judge what is a fair share of taxes.

That is simple.

What is "fair share" or simply "fair" is not simple. Life is inherently unfair; it rewards crime, punishes the innocent, gives advantage to some, discriminates on basis of looks, makes a man a Prince with gifts from gods and another a commoner forsaken by the gods, as all are not really created equal in mind or body nor are they given a fair shot at anything.

Society has to make a judgment on "fair," compromise, or otherwise it is simply left to the fates the outcome of one's burden.

If the fates are cruel and there is no compromise people will want change, and that is their right. Too much of a burden on any part of society, class if you will, when that society's rights are based upon "consent of the governed," does not set in stone what is "fair."

Logic and the skeptics cannot purely define what is "fair."

Too much of the wealth held by too few results in change, too much change can result in less for all; there simply must be some compromise. Sometimes those with unfair advantages do great things that benefit those with less, so too many attempts to make life a fair shot for all can harm the vary ones that change wants to help.

Equilibrium of a fair shot for all and no unfairness to the blessed, cannot be accomplished logically without compensating for deficiencies that cannot be undone; some things are simply impossible with current technology; you could dump money into the hands of the damaged attempting to achieve Economic Parity and not give a fair shot to anything but a needle in the park instead of a poor man with a solar powered computer in his palm 3G'd to the total wealth of human knowledge. Equilibrium of a reasonable shot for all with some unfairness to the blessed can be accomplished logically. Society can compensate somewhat for the unfairness of life by a few social programs; public education, libraries (say e-book kind too), unemployment insurance, social security insurance, basic health care, and some welfare. Otherwise, without a breeding program and final solution for the (*)(*)(*)(*)ed, or the taking away of "consent of the governed," there simply is no way to avoid being somewhat unfair to the rich and blessed.

 

Oops, should be changed to "private" thingy. Oh, and an i before e except after c... I guess I am falling short of the glory of the articulate Obamanation.