Raise Taxes on America's Rich, it's the Patriotic thing to do!

[QUOTE="CRS98"][QUOTE="one_plum"]

From all the time I have spent posting on these forums, I have come to realize that American culture and values have less in common with Canadian and European values than I have first thought, so it's kinda pointless to keep arguing about all those taxes and healthcare topics.

one_plum

Precisely, that's why Americans do not understand something like universal healthcare and perhaps that's why Canadian can't understand privatized healthcare. Straying a bit off-topic, this is why there is so much tension between the West and the Middle East; not necessarily because of a right or wrong concept.

[QUOTE="Assassin1349"][QUOTE="Sajedene"] Moral duty perhaps. You have no legal obligation to do so unless you are a part of the accident.Sajedene

I should also be able to choose if I want to participate in a trial involving a crime I was not involved in, but It isn't my choice.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Sajedene"] There are two ways to look at it. The percentage of what you pay for out of your income and the amount that you actually put in that is put into use. So, how are we looking at this contribution of taxes to society? And which view is actually more useful to society?Sajedene

And a government calls for all (rich and poor) to contribute accordingly so that can happen.

If you desire to pay the same as the poor or if you want to get better treatment, neither of these will achieve this soothening of differences.

You heard it here first folks. Helping your fellow man and making sure your country has funds to help you is not patriotic. Looking out of numero uno! That's patriotic!

[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="Assassin1349"] Well, they can't contribute to society as much as you because they have a dead end job that doesn't pay too well. Someone's gotta do it! But seriously I think there should be some treatment that is UNIVERSAL no matter what your class. It would only be fair. theone86

You don't need help, you're already part of a wealthy elite that grants you privledges and opportunities beyond that of the average person. Let me introduce you to a couple of concepts, one is called tax burden. Let's put it this way, if person A is wealthy and has a wife and a child and person B is poor and has a wife and a child and it costs the same amount of money to feed both families it is harder for person B to feed his family because even though he pays the same amount of money as person A he has no wealth to fall back on in case of emergency. Should something happen, say he loses his job, his family will be in trouble whereas if person A loses his job he always has the option to cut back spending or dip into savings. This is tax burden, if everyone paid a flat tax the burden on poorer families would be disproportionate as it costs them considerably more in added value given that they need their income that much more.

Second concept is combined risk. What do you think insurance is in the first place? Communal risk. Everyone in the given pool pays a monthly rate to retain the ability to utilize certain services if necessary. The idea is that when one individual needs to utilize those services he/she will do so at a reduced cost, and that can happen due to the backing of the communal rates everybody is paying. The same concept can be applied to universal coverage, it's simply increasing the pool and expanding coverage to everyone.

Lastly, you do get more out of public services, you just don't realize it. You went to a school that got better funding than one in a poorer neighborhood, you probably live in an area with good emergency services response, which is inadequete or virtually non-existent in some poorer neighborhoods, you probably live in an area with a considerable amount of taxes going to beautification and community events and services.

Don't kid yourself, you get plenty more. If you want to make sure that only use what your tax dollars pay for it defeats the purpose of taxes, combined risk in a sense. All these things cost a lot of money, by pooling resources everybody is able to afford them. If that were not the case even the moderately wealthy would not be able to afford many of these things. Do you know how much an ambulance call costs? What if you're a shut-in with health problems? Even if you had money you couldn't afford to call an ambulance for help every time you needed it, at least not on an on-going basis. What about police presence? I'm assuming since everyone is getting exactly what they pay for police are going to have an increased presence in wealthier areas. Do you live in the wealthiest area around you? Would you like it if police pulled out because a nearby neighborhood had more money, or if fire response times were lower in your neighborhood?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Sajedene"] There are two ways to look at it. The percentage of what you pay for out of your income and the amount that you actually put in that is put into use. So, how are we looking at this contribution of taxes to society? And which view is actually more useful to society?Sajedene

And a government calls for all (rich and poor) to contribute accordingly so that can happen.

If you desire to pay the same as the poor or if you want to get better treatment, neither of these will achieve this soothening of differences.

For one, don't get me started on the term patriotic, it has no place in intelligent discussion. Discussions such as these should appeal to logos, not pathos. Second, if you want to talk about patriotism talk about what exactly it was that the colonies were rebelling against in the first place. It wasn't taxes, it was marginilization of their opinions within a monarchial government that, yes, manifested negative consequences in the form of higher taxes but also seeing no return on those taxes. You see plenty of return, in fact the people who see the least return on their taxes today are the less wealthy. What they were really rebelling aginst, though, was a government that gave them no say. The only thing that prevents a society like ours from turning into an oligarchial one is progressive taxation, without it the poverty gap in this country will continue to increase exponentially and the opinions and concerns of anyone not possessing wealth will become further marginlized. Also contemplate this, the wealthiest nations in the world are the ones with the greatest saturation of indutry, yet the workers who fuel industry are less wealthy than those who manipulate it and reap the rewards. One could easily say that they don't get everything they should for their work, so how is it a bad thing that it be evened out by giving them more than they pay for through taxation?

[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Oh but thats why such a system actually tries to soothen the differences between the rich and the poor, not make them more visible.

And a government calls for all (rich and poor) to contribute accordingly so that can happen.

If you desire to pay the same as the poor or if you want to get better treatment, neither of these will achieve this soothening of differences.

Pixel-Pirate

You heard it here first folks. Helping your fellow man and making sure your country has funds to help you is not patriotic. Looking out of numero uno! That's patriotic!

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]B... b... but a 3% tax raise is teh socialism! :oPixel-Pirate

And we know socialism is the devil. I know this by reading books from the library, which is free!

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]B... b... but a 3% tax raise is teh socialism! :oentropyecho

And we know socialism is the devil. I know this by reading books from the library, which is free!

You know who we should really feel sorry for? Residents of Washington, D.C. - Taxation without representation!

[QUOTE="Assassin1349"][QUOTE="Sajedene"] Moral duty perhaps. You have no legal obligation to do so unless you are a part of the accident.Pixel-Pirate

I remember a year or so when a man had a heart attack or something in a store in the middle of a bunch of people. No one helped him and basically just let him lie there and die as they didn't want to be bothered. Quite a few were found guilty for not helping the man and were indeed punished by a judge.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="Assassin1349"]Don't know where you live, but it's definitely a legal obligation here in Texas. Sajedene

I remember a year or so when a man had a heart attack or something in a store in the middle of a bunch of people. No one helped him and basically just let him lie there and die as they didn't want to be bothered. Quite a few were found guilty for not helping the man and were indeed punished by a judge.

[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

I remember a year or so when a man had a heart attack or something in a store in the middle of a bunch of people. No one helped him and basically just let him lie there and die as they didn't want to be bothered. Quite a few were found guilty for not helping the man and were indeed punished by a judge.

Assassin1349

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Sajedene"] There are two ways to look at it. The percentage of what you pay for out of your income and the amount that you actually put in that is put into use. So, how are we looking at this contribution of taxes to society? And which view is actually more useful to society?Sajedene

And a government calls for all (rich and poor) to contribute accordingly so that can happen.

If you desire to pay the same as the poor or if you want to get better treatment, neither of these will achieve this soothening of differences.

It's actually quite arguable that the wealthier you are, the more you have invested in the system, meaning you should be willing to pay more to keep the order of the current system. Just a thought...

Anyway, paying taxes is just a part of society. The rich have to contribute more because they can. If you don't like it, vote for someone like Ron Paul. But trust me, paying for our federal budget will not happen without a progressive income tax, which I get the impression you're against.

And yes, the rich paying more in taxes is patriotic-it's supporting your country. And before you say anything, my parents are fairly wealthy and my grandparents are rich, so don't even think about pulling a "well you'd agree with me if you were rich"...

[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Oh but thats why such a system actually tries to soothen the differences between the rich and the poor, not make them more visible.

And a government calls for all (rich and poor) to contribute accordingly so that can happen.

If you desire to pay the same as the poor or if you want to get better treatment, neither of these will achieve this soothening of differences.

chessmaster1989

It's actually quite arguable that the wealthier you are, the more you have invested in the system, meaning you should be willing to pay more to keep the order of the current system. Just a thought...

Anyway, paying taxes is just a part of society. The rich have to contribute more because they can. If you don't like it, vote for someone like Ron Paul. But trust me, paying for our federal budget will not happen without a progressive income tax, which I get the impression you're against.

And yes, the rich paying more in taxes is patriotic-it's supporting your country. And before you say anything, my parents are fairly wealthy and my grandparents are rich, so don't even think about pulling a "well you'd agree with me if you were rich"...

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Sajedene"] All I am saying is its insane to ask the "rich" to pay more than they are already paying now when they already pay more than the "poor" and the "poor" still get the same public services as the "rich" - that is NOT patriotic.Sajedene

It's actually quite arguable that the wealthier you are, the more you have invested in the system, meaning you should be willing to pay more to keep the order of the current system. Just a thought...

Anyway, paying taxes is just a part of society. The rich have to contribute more because they can. If you don't like it, vote for someone like Ron Paul. But trust me, paying for our federal budget will not happen without a progressive income tax, which I get the impression you're against.

And yes, the rich paying more in taxes is patriotic-it's supporting your country. And before you say anything, my parents are fairly wealthy and my grandparents are rich, so don't even think about pulling a "well you'd agree with me if you were rich"...

Okay then well I though you were making a different argument entirely... moving on then...

And yes, referring to the rich as "evil" is asinine... although I think there are legitimate arguments for raising taxes, just not ones that stem from that idea.

[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

It's actually quite arguable that the wealthier you are, the more you have invested in the system, meaning you should be willing to pay more to keep the order of the current system. Just a thought...

Anyway, paying taxes is just a part of society. The rich have to contribute more because they can. If you don't like it, vote for someone like Ron Paul. But trust me, paying for our federal budget will not happen without a progressive income tax, which I get the impression you're against.

And yes, the rich paying more in taxes is patriotic-it's supporting your country. And before you say anything, my parents are fairly wealthy and my grandparents are rich, so don't even think about pulling a "well you'd agree with me if you were rich"...

chessmaster1989

Okay then well I though you were making a different argument entirely... moving on then...

And yes, referring to the rich as "evil" is asinine... although I think there are legitimate arguments for raising taxes, just not ones that stem from that idea.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Sajedene"] No, I get why we pay more - I just think its absurd that we're seen as the evil "rich" people but we want you to pay more taxes so you can help us "poor" people. I don't go around demanding that the "poor" need to pay for their own stuff and making threads about it. I only say it when threads like this pop up.Sajedene

Okay then well I though you were making a different argument entirely... moving on then...

And yes, referring to the rich as "evil" is asinine... although I think there are legitimate arguments for raising taxes, just not ones that stem from that idea.

Unless there's some way we OTers can actually punish the rich, I think the word you're looking for is "demonized" :P

That'd be pretty sweet though if we could muster the power of OT and punish people as we saw fit...

[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Okay then well I though you were making a different argument entirely... moving on then...

And yes, referring to the rich as "evil" is asinine... although I think there are legitimate arguments for raising taxes, just not ones that stem from that idea.

chessmaster1989

Unless there's some way we OTers can actually punish the rich, I think the word you're looking for is "demonized" :P

That'd be pretty sweet though if we could muster the power of OT and punish people as we saw fit...

If the government would just spend the tax money better, I wouldn't mind a tax increase.JustPlainLucas

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Sajedene"] I work with what is provided in the threads and base my responses on that (a lot of times playing devil's advocate) - and it just gets tiring to see the "rich" punished in OT.Sajedene

Unless there's some way we OTers can actually punish the rich, I think the word you're looking for is "demonized" :P

That'd be pretty sweet though if we could muster the power of OT and punish people as we saw fit...

What, you don't like the idea of OT uniting to punish transgressors? :P

Three points why I think higher taxation for the rich makes sense:

• Capitalist systems need poor people to function properly. Therefore, it makes sense that people who benefit from the capitalist system (the rich) help bridge the gap which the system they benefit from creates.
• Rich people can enjoy a better society moreso than others. Most government services are generally made to help protect property; the more property you have the more you benefit from the protections the government supplies. Furthermoreprograms that lower crime rates, raises education levels, lowers poverty levels, etc,all allows rich people to flourish more; they may enjoy better neighbourhoods, employ higher skilled employees and enjoy the results of other's work and innovations.
• It just kind of makes sense. Here's a metaphor; you have two people who need to carry 60 pounds of suppliesfor onemile. One young lad is a bodybuilder and the other one has a broken leg. Of course it makes more sense for the bodybuilder to shoulder more of the burden. Having the bodybuilder carry more isn't punishing him, it just makes sense. Yes, he may carry 50 pounds, and if things were perfectly equal both people would only carry 30 pounds. But the extra weight isn't a punishment, because the50 pounds puts no more strain on him than the 10 pounds strains the guy with the broken leg. I mean that makes sense right? Any reasonable person certainly wouldn't expect the guy with the broken leg to carry the same amount as the bodybuilder, considering the bodybuilder could carry it all and then some without breaking a sweat?

[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Unless there's some way we OTers can actually punish the rich, I think the word you're looking for is "demonized" :P

That'd be pretty sweet though if we could muster the power of OT and punish people as we saw fit...

chessmaster1989

What, you don't like the idea of OT uniting to punish transgressors? :P

[QUOTE="JustPlainLucas"]If the government would just spend the tax money better, I wouldn't mind a tax increase.Ultimas_Blade

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"][QUOTE="JustPlainLucas"]If the government would just spend the tax money better, I wouldn't mind a tax increase.JustPlainLucas

the problem with that is that what you are essentially doing is punishing rich people for success.chopperdave447

Why seek success when you can be given complacency?

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Sajedene"] I would love to have a button that I can press that can facepalm someone like they do on the V8 commercials. /facepalm chessmaster1989Sajedene

What, you don't like the idea of OT uniting to punish transgressors? :P

Sounds about right Don't forget Miley Cirus/Hannah Montana/The Jonas Brothers/etc :P

I have a feeling certain conservative TV/radio hosts would be in trouble as well... lulz

[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

What, you don't like the idea of OT uniting to punish transgressors? :P

chessmaster1989

Sounds about right Don't forget Miley Cirus/Hannah Montana/The Jonas Brothers/etc :P

I have a feeling certain conservative TV/radio hosts would be in trouble as well... lulz

the rich should not pay more just because they have money. I dont care if they are multi billionaires, they earned it, just like most middle class people earn what they earn. Also im not rich, im middle class.

Wait, I'm confused. This argument seems to veer between "our current progressive tax system is good" to "the rich don't pay enough even with our current tax system." If the topic is about the first point, I will agree considering the way our government is currently being run. If the topic is about the second point, please indicate why their already hefty income tax isn't enough and they need to pay even more.

Are we just going to tax them until they are poor too? I don't think that's a particularly healthy long term economic policy. Just saying "they have tons of loot, give it!" is incredibly short sighted.

the rich should not pay more just because they have money. I dont care if they are multi billionaires, they earned it, just like most middle class people earn what they earn. Also im not rich, im middle class.

njean777

Some earned it, some didn't. Some do more work than a factory work, some basically sit around all day living the easy life.

There's an incredibly easy way to get more tax money from the rich: get rid of tax havens.

Some earned it, some didn't. Some do more work than a factory work, some basically sit around all day living the easy life.Pixel-Pirate

There are actually some really good counter-arguments as to why the rich should pay LESS in taxes

My Short Version:
-it basically boils down to the fact that the rich generate more 'good' with their money than the poor ever could
-the more money we leave in their pockets, the more 'good' they can generate ...
'good' being defined as: jobs, new industry, increased investments which lead to the money multiplier effect http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/multipliereffect.asp , more charitable donations (even if it is to increase tax write offs), trickle down economics (related to money multiplier)

Aricle 1:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Should-wealthy-people-pay-less-tax

They create employment for millions of people. With out them creating businesses we would have nowhere to work.
They also take on the job of collecting tax and national insurance for the government.
They build the homes for people to work in. More homes are built by the private sector than the government. If you want to live in a house who will build it for you?
They take risks that the employed never will. So deserve the benefits.
They donate more to charity and good cause than the employed are able to.
They have a far higher financial literacy. That they have paid for.
It is true that the rich do have more legal tax loop holes than the employed. Why do you think this is? because the government knows the score and creates the tax laws this way. They realise the benefits of the super rich business owners and reward them for all their hard work.
The reason that the wealthy pay less tax is because they contribute to the country economy more that the poor will ever realise and that's fair.

Article 2
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html

Top 50% of Wage Earners already Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes

If you are going to benefit from the rich paying more taxes, due to progressivity, on the upside, you are going to lose more revenue from these people on the downside. This is a good argument for reducing progressivity.

NOTE: i do not agree with his politics...just the facts presented

EDIT: Glitchspot screwd up my links abd font

Wait, I'm confused. This argument seems to veer between "our current progressive tax system is good" to "the rich don't pay enough even with our current tax system." If the topic is about the first point, I will agree considering the way our government is currently being run. If the topic is about the second point, please indicate why their already hefty income tax isn't enough and they need to pay even more.

Are we just going to tax them until they are poor too? I don't think that's a particularly healthy long term economic policy. Just saying "they have tons of loot, give it!" is incredibly short sighted.

guynamedbilly

Well, it's really not all that hefty of a tax, in fact I believe it's somewhere near an all-time low. We've had Republican presidents for almost the past 30 years and most of them have cut taxes on the rich, even Clinton didn't have any major increases. Meanwhile factors like inflation and accumulation of wealth come into play, so really we should be raising taxes over time and instead we're cutting them. Also, there's been a trend in effect since the 70's where the income of those in the upper cla$$ have gone up steadily more than adjusting for inflation whereas the incomes of the lower and middle cla$$es have increased at a rate that fails to keep up with inflation. This means the, "good," that the wealthy are doing benefits them far more than it benefits the rest of society. In short, the wealthy are making more money than ever before, they're hoarding more money than ever before, they're being taxed less then ever before, and the less wealthy are making less money than ever before, and yet that still doesn't seem to satisfy some people who reside in the upper cla$$.

Who cares? I hope the world blows up.

Assassin1349

The problem is the income tax. People need income in order pay for things. Tax the value of land. Tax on land cannot be avoided. You can't move land. Land just exists, you are not taxing production(income).

And also get ride of money as debt altogether, unless you like the fact that private banks control the public's money supply colluding with government. Get ride of the FIRE economy and allow people who produce like engineers and artists be rewarded, instead of rewarding people who do not produce like banks, CEOs, and politicians, all the bloodsuckers of modern society.

There's an incredibly easy way to get more tax money from the rich: get rid of tax havens.

11Marcel

Get ride of the FIRE economy and allow people who produce like engineers and artists be rewarded, instead of rewarding people who do not produce like banks, CEOs, and politicians, all the bloodsuckers of modern society.

dmc333

As soon as you start to REALLY reward art you will get a ton of people trying to make money that way...subsequently lowering the overall quality
-it is bad enough already

Who do you think provides employment opportunities for engineers...that would be CEO's

How do you think CEO's get the money to start a company/add a product line/start a new venture to hire said engineers and pay said art...that would be the banks

The problem is the income tax. People need income in order pay for things. Tax the value of land. Tax on land cannot be avoided. You can't move land. Land just exists, you are not taxing production(income).

dmc333

Do you mean property taxes...that both businesses and home owners pay?

EDIT:
yes, I did read the link
-but it is just:
a tax that "ignores buildings, improvements, and personal property."

-do you mean an additional tax (in addition to property tax) or instead of property tax...basically just the same thing...taxing the same people...only the land tax would be less b/c it is worth less than the property tax

You know what I wish? I wish that I get more out of these public services since I pay more. The more I pay, the more services I should be entitled to. Why should I pay more and get the same treatment as someone who isn't contributing as much to society as I am?Sajedene

[QUOTE="njean777"]

the rich should not pay more just because they have money. I dont care if they are multi billionaires, they earned it, just like most middle class people earn what they earn. Also im not rich, im middle class.

Pixel-Pirate

Some earned it, some didn't. Some do more work than a factory work, some basically sit around all day living the easy life.

doesnt matter, ever hear of "life isnt fair" nor should it be. Alot of poor people dont work neither but they get welfare so its can go both ways ;)

i do not mean all poor people when i say this.

rawsavon - honestly now, do you genuinely believe trickle-down economics works as advertised?

rawsavon - honestly now, do you genuinely believe trickle-down economics works as advertised?

entropyecho