Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[bripat9643]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?

About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change. And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world. We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.

Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)

They should pay 11% of all income taxes.

 

[bripat9643]

The rich, supposedly, do pay more. In fact, we must make that so.

Supposedly.................lol..................go to the irs site and look at income versus amounts received by the irs and get that supposedly out of your head. They do, and it's in black and white at their site for all to see.........

Unless you just don't want to look there.

The counter to that equation of those who pay no taxes at all is that they forget to see the other side of the equation on other taxes.......property, sales taxes, licensing fees and taxes...........and etc............People of all incomes pay taxes in some way................just not so on the irs forms via the final payments to the Irs........

The only real exception being the tax credits which pay out over 200 Billion a year to the lower wage earners with children.

As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.

As the rich become super-rich they pay lower taxes. For real. - The Washington Post

You can blame mass immigration from Mexico and India for that.

 

[Dad2three]

We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves

What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.

Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes

Idiots like you have kicked and screamed every time it has been tried.

Bullshit

Agree to a necessary spending level and THEN set your tax rate to cover it.

Starving the beast does not work

Starving the beast has never been tried...Reagan tried to cut spending and was lied to by the democrats.

The BIG LIE makes an apprentice. Shocking

The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts


The Pinocchio Test
It is time to abandon this myth. Reagan may have convinced himself he had been snookered, but that belief is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the deal he had reached.

Congress was never expected to match the tax increases with spending cuts on a 3-to-1 basis. Reagan appeared to acknowledge this in his speech when he referred to outlays (which would include interest expenses), rather than spending cuts. In the end, lawmakers apparently did a better job of living up to the bargain than the administration did.

If people want to cite the lessons of history, they need to get the history right in the first place

The historical myth that Reagan raised 1 of taxes in exchange for 3 of spending cuts - The Washington Post

 

[rightwinger]

Having the rich pay more in taxes only helps the poor if the government spends the extra money in a wise and responsible way something they do not have a very good history of doing.

A WELFARE STATE = GOVERNMENT BUY THE PEOPLE

No it doesn't

It is just helping people who need help

Wrong. It's organized plunder and crony capitalism.

A civilized society raising revenue is not plunder

Wrong. Taxation is theft. No one has ever demonstrated any moral difference between them.

Taxation without representation

 

[Dad2three]

Worked before

One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure

No it hasn't, it was successful what has been a failure is government, they waste, steal or lose our tax money.......and then that effects the economy....18 trillion in the hole means 18 trillion not being used to create an economy.

We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves

What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.

Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes

You need to cut taxes before you cut spending...otherewise they will just keep spending. Or, both at the same time.

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spendingby cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.




Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."


Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?

About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change. And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world. We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.

Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)

They should pay 11% of all income taxes.

Yes, since income taxes are 100% of fed revenues *shaking head*

 

[rightwinger]

No it hasn't, it was successful what has been a failure is government, they waste, steal or lose our tax money.......and then that effects the economy....18 trillion in the hole means 18 trillion not being used to create an economy.

We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves

What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.

Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes

You need to cut taxes before you cut spending...otherewise they will just keep spending. Or, both at the same time.

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spendingby cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.




Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."


Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Somehow, "The Beast" always seems to be social spending

 

[2aguy]

What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.

Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes

Idiots like you have kicked and screamed every time it has been tried.

Bullshit

Agree to a necessary spending level and THEN set your tax rate to cover it.

Starving the beast does not work

Starving the beast has never been tried...Reagan tried to cut spending and was lied to by the democrats.

Reagan escalated spending on the military

So. that is an actual Constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

 

[Dad2three]

The rich, supposedly, do pay more. In fact, we must make that so.

Supposedly.................lol..................go to the irs site and look at income versus amounts received by the irs and get that supposedly out of your head. They do, and it's in black and white at their site for all to see.........

Unless you just don't want to look there.

The counter to that equation of those who pay no taxes at all is that they forget to see the other side of the equation on other taxes.......property, sales taxes, licensing fees and taxes...........and etc............People of all incomes pay taxes in some way................just not so on the irs forms via the final payments to the Irs........

The only real exception being the tax credits which pay out over 200 Billion a year to the lower wage earners with children.

As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.

As the rich become super-rich they pay lower taxes. For real. - The Washington Post

You can blame mass immigration from Mexico and India for that.

lol, Sure Bubba, sure...

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I think everyone who registers as a Democrats should pay a federal income tax rate of 50% since what they advocate for everyone else.

 

[rightwinger]

Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes

Idiots like you have kicked and screamed every time it has been tried.

Bullshit

Agree to a necessary spending level and THEN set your tax rate to cover it.

Starving the beast does not work

Starving the beast has never been tried...Reagan tried to cut spending and was lied to by the democrats.

Reagan escalated spending on the military

So. that is an actual Constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

Says nothing about unlimited spending. Thrifty Reagan escalated military spending

 

[rightwinger]

I think everyone who registers as a Democrats should pay a federal income tax rate of 50% since what they advocate for everyone else.

Then every Republucan should enlist in the military. That is what they advocate for everyone else

 

[2aguy]

We had no debt until we adopted supply side economics. After all, Reganites claimed deficits don't matter and all tax cuts pay for themselves

What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.

Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes

You need to cut taxes before you cut spending...otherewise they will just keep spending. Or, both at the same time.

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spendingby cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.




Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."


Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Somehow, "The Beast" always seems to be social spending

I'm more than happy to stop funding shrimp running on treadmills...besides, there is a well known equation in government. If the tax payers demand you cut spending you make it a choice between a vital service and something frivolous, then cut the vital service...then the tax payers will demand you keep funding the service and they keep the junk they wanted to keep as well.

Notice how in local election cycles the first thing they threaten to cut is police, fire, and education.......and then the tax payers fall in line for whatever tax increase they want.....that is why you cut the tax revenue...they have more than enough for the essentials but refuse to cut their pet projects...force them to cut their crap and leave the vital services alone.

 

[2aguy]

Idiots like you have kicked and screamed every time it has been tried.

Bullshit

Agree to a necessary spending level and THEN set your tax rate to cover it.

Starving the beast does not work

Starving the beast has never been tried...Reagan tried to cut spending and was lied to by the democrats.

Reagan escalated spending on the military

So. that is an actual Constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

Says nothing about unlimited spending. Thrifty Reagan escalated military spending

Yes, we were facing an aggressive
Soviet Union....a real threat, and he collapsed our enemy with our military without firing a shot at them....money well spent.

 

[rightwinger]

What do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.

Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes

You need to cut taxes before you cut spending...otherewise they will just keep spending. Or, both at the same time.

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spendingby cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.




Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."


Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Somehow, "The Beast" always seems to be social spending

I'm more than happy to stop funding shrimp running on treadmills...besides, there is a well known equation in government. If the tax payers demand you cut spending you make it a choice between a vital service and something frivolous, then cut the vital service...then the tax payers will demand you keep funding the service and they keep the junk they wanted to keep as well.

Notice how in local election cycles the first thing they threaten to cut is police, fire, and education.......and then the tax payers fall in line for whatever tax increase they want.....that is why you cut the tax revenue...they have more than enough for the essentials but refuse to cut their pet projects...force them to cut their crap and leave the vital services alone.

What was wrong with shrimp running on treadmills?

 

[rightwinger]

Bullshit

Agree to a necessary spending level and THEN set your tax rate to cover it.

Starving the beast does not work

Starving the beast has never been tried...Reagan tried to cut spending and was lied to by the democrats.

Reagan escalated spending on the military

So. that is an actual Constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

Says nothing about unlimited spending. Thrifty Reagan escalated military spending

Yes, we were facing an aggressive
Soviet Union....a real threat, and he collapsed our enemy with our military without firing a shot at them....money well spent.

Actually, they had been collapsing for 30 years
By the time Reagan took office, the Soviet military was old, antiquated and poorly staffed

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I think everyone who registers as a Democrats should pay a federal income tax rate of 50% since what they advocate for everyone else.

Then every Republucan should enlist in the military. That is what they advocate for everyone else

Sounds like a good compromise to me.

 

[bripat9643]

Fine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes

You need to cut taxes before you cut spending...otherewise they will just keep spending. Or, both at the same time.

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spendingby cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.




Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."


Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Somehow, "The Beast" always seems to be social spending

I'm more than happy to stop funding shrimp running on treadmills...besides, there is a well known equation in government. If the tax payers demand you cut spending you make it a choice between a vital service and something frivolous, then cut the vital service...then the tax payers will demand you keep funding the service and they keep the junk they wanted to keep as well.

Notice how in local election cycles the first thing they threaten to cut is police, fire, and education.......and then the tax payers fall in line for whatever tax increase they want.....that is why you cut the tax revenue...they have more than enough for the essentials but refuse to cut their pet projects...force them to cut their crap and leave the vital services alone.

What was wrong with shrimp running on treadmills?

Nothing, so long as I don't have to pay for it.

 

[bripat9643]

Starving the beast has never been tried...Reagan tried to cut spending and was lied to by the democrats.

Reagan escalated spending on the military

So. that is an actual Constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

Says nothing about unlimited spending. Thrifty Reagan escalated military spending

Yes, we were facing an aggressive
Soviet Union....a real threat, and he collapsed our enemy with our military without firing a shot at them....money well spent.

Actually, they had been collapsing for 30 years
By the time Reagan took office, the Soviet military was old, antiquated and poorly staffed

That's not what all the Marxist professors were saying. They agreed with Khrushchev that the USSR was going to bury us.

 

[Dad2three]

I think everyone who registers as a Democrats should pay a federal income tax rate of 50% since what they advocate for everyone else.

"I think"

No you don't!

EVERYONE? Or to go back to the rates that had the top 1/10th of 1% paying 60%+ EFFECTIVE rates 1945-1980? I mean the "job creators" at the top 1/10th of 1% has only tripled their share of income since 1980 WHILE gutting their effective tax rates by about half. Nothing wrong there right? lol