• Home
  • Today
  • Advocacy
  • Forum
Donate
  • login
  • register
Home

Forum links

  • Recent changes
  • Member list
  • Search
  • Register
Search Forums
 
Advanced Search
Go to Page...
DAP Forums > Other Topics > Other Topics

Are the rich taxed enough in the U.S.?

  • View
  • Post new reply
  • Thread tools
#1
10-26-2012, 01:32 AM
Senior Member
Joined in Nov 2010
280 posts
yonah's Avatar
yonah
0 AP
I am not for sharing of wealth, but circumstances does obliges the rich to pay more in taxes.
Here is a great debate about the topic, just thought it would be good to share.
__________________
I "Had" a Dream... Then Trump became president....
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
yonah
View Public Profile
Send a private message to yonah
Find all posts by yonah
#2
10-26-2012, 02:53 AM
Senior Member
Joined in Jun 2008
1,912 posts
MDxOD's Avatar
MDxOD
0 AP
Looks very interesting, thanks for sharing. I'll have to watch it when i have an hour to kill. But what do people on here generally think about this issue?

I think the range of incomes assigned to a tax bracket can definitely be unfair.
__________________
DACA Timeline
||Vermont|| 9/14 -> 4/18||Approved||
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
MDxOD
View Public Profile
Send a private message to MDxOD
Find all posts by MDxOD
#3
10-26-2012, 01:57 PM
Senior Member
Joined in Aug 2012
498 posts
Justin2014
0 AP
I dont think its fair that rich people have to pay more taxes, but it makes the world go round. eh.
__________________
APPLICATION SENT: 8/28/2012 Send to Chicago Routed to TEXAS!
RECEIVED: 8/31/2012
I-797C NOTICE OF ACTION RECEIVED: 09/05/2012
BIOMETRICS: 09/17/2012
EAD: 4/15/2013
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Justin2014
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Justin2014
Find all posts by Justin2014
#4
10-26-2012, 06:08 PM
Senior Member
From PA
Joined in May 2012
936 posts
Rev_Scholar's Avatar
Rev_Scholar
0 AP
Why isn't it fair? They still have way more than enough money, after taxes, for their conspicuous consumption. So basically, if you want everyone to pay the "same" taxes, the rich will take loopholes and since the poor can't pay much taxes in the first place, you have no one doing their part in paying taxes, which run the government.

And with a gov. that can't even control its own spending, our deficit blows up. I acknowledge that if you create jobs and people get more money - that's more money for the government. But that's not going to happen fast enough for stabalizing the economy.

Anyways, we need to start reducing our deficit, or we'll have a depression that'll easily surpass the Great Depression.
__________________
"It is better to have a fair intellect that is well used than a powerful one that is idle."
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Rev_Scholar
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Rev_Scholar
Find all posts by Rev_Scholar
#5
10-27-2012, 10:24 AM
Senior Member
Joined in Aug 2012
498 posts
Justin2014
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev_Scholar View Post
Why isn't it fair? They still have way more than enough money, after taxes, for their conspicuous consumption. So basically, if you want everyone to pay the "same" taxes, the rich will take loopholes and since the poor can't pay much taxes in the first place, you have no one doing their part in paying taxes, which run the government.

And with a gov. that can't even control its own spending, our deficit blows up. I acknowledge that if you create jobs and people get more money - that's more money for the government. But that's not going to happen fast enough for stabalizing the economy.

Anyways, we need to start reducing our deficit, or we'll have a depression that'll easily surpass the Great Depression.
Just because they have more money, that makes it okay for the government to take it and use it towards programs that are being advantage of by middle class/poor? The only solution is close the loopholes so people like Romney don't try to hide their money to lower their taxes.

Yes who doesn't want to reduce deficit. Spending is easy so politicians solution to everything is spending, and expect the next guy to clean up the mess. US needs to stop borrowing money to aid other countries and needs to stop all these war tension with the middle eastern countries.
__________________
APPLICATION SENT: 8/28/2012 Send to Chicago Routed to TEXAS!
RECEIVED: 8/31/2012
I-797C NOTICE OF ACTION RECEIVED: 09/05/2012
BIOMETRICS: 09/17/2012
EAD: 4/15/2013
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Justin2014
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Justin2014
Find all posts by Justin2014
#6
10-27-2012, 11:08 AM
Senior Member
From MA
Joined in Apr 2010
1,069 posts
circasurvive's Avatar
circasurvive
0 AP
A slight bump in the highest tax bracket would not defer or tame consumption by the "rich". There has never been a sound investment that wasn't made because someone feared the tax implications. It just doesn't happen. However, I agree -- in a sort of moral way -- with the above poster. Those taxes generally go to pay for public services and public projects which, unarguably, are consumed more by the lower and middle classes. There has to be a limit there.

I've expressed my very own fierce objections to a tax on wealth not derived from direct income, so I won't even get into the implications of that again.
__________________
www.thayerholdings.com
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
circasurvive
View Public Profile
Send a private message to circasurvive
Visit circasurvive's homepage!
Find all posts by circasurvive
#7
10-27-2012, 03:33 PM
Senior Member
From PA
Joined in May 2012
936 posts
Rev_Scholar's Avatar
Rev_Scholar
0 AP
The government should be scaling back on things like "unemployment benefits." There's people who need it, yes. But when you offer things like this to a great extent like today, the people lose motivation to find another job. I mean, who would when you are paid to live without working?...and that money is coming from the taxes of people who actually get off their asses and work.

And very sadly, if a honest and good politician actually campaigned for election with advocating policies such as these, it would be hard to him to get elected, owning to the ignorance of the general public to comprehend such things. Politics is frustrating.

As for the taxes, I don't believe that the rich should be taxed like crazy. Just a bit above the average tax rate. They can more than manage it.
__________________
"It is better to have a fair intellect that is well used than a powerful one that is idle."
Last edited by Rev_Scholar; 10-27-2012 at 03:36 PM..
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Rev_Scholar
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Rev_Scholar
Find all posts by Rev_Scholar
#8
10-28-2012, 01:57 AM
Senior Member
Joined in Jun 2008
1,912 posts
MDxOD's Avatar
MDxOD
0 AP
When you guys think or say rich...are you all talking about people who make multi million dollars a year and/or have shares in large corporations that are worth millions?? Or starting from people who make 388k/year.

The highest bracket involves those who make 388k/year (which i dont consider "Rich" btw even though that is a relatively considerable amount of money) and they have to pay the same tax rate (i think around 35% not including state and etc...) as those who make 3.8m/year. A higher tax rate could equate to them making LESS than someone who makes in the upper range in the tax rate right below. That is NOT fair.

I dont think thats fair at all. There should be a larger tax bracket range to make it more fair. While i agree that multi millionaires can probably afford to pay more taxes, i would not make the same claims for someone who makes 400k (assuming that they're tax increases are the SAME as those who make multi mil's a year).
__________________
DACA Timeline
||Vermont|| 9/14 -> 4/18||Approved||
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
MDxOD
View Public Profile
Send a private message to MDxOD
Find all posts by MDxOD
#9
10-28-2012, 09:42 AM
Senior Member
From MA
Joined in Apr 2010
1,069 posts
circasurvive's Avatar
circasurvive
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDxOD View Post
When you guys think or say rich...are you all talking about people who make multi million dollars a year and/or have shares in large corporations that are worth millions?? Or starting from people who make 388k/year.

The highest bracket involves those who make 388k/year (which i dont consider "Rich" btw even though that is a relatively considerable amount of money) and they have to pay the same tax rate (i think around 35% not including state and etc...) as those who make 3.8m/year. A higher tax rate could equate to them making LESS than someone who makes in the upper range in the tax rate right below. That is NOT fair.

I dont think thats fair at all. There should be a larger tax bracket range to make it more fair. While i agree that multi millionaires can probably afford to pay more taxes, i would not make the same claims for someone who makes 400k (assuming that they're tax increases are the SAME as those who make multi mil's a year).
Right, and that's one of our points. The brackets need to be revised.
__________________
www.thayerholdings.com
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
circasurvive
View Public Profile
Send a private message to circasurvive
Visit circasurvive's homepage!
Find all posts by circasurvive
#10
10-28-2012, 09:43 AM
Senior Member
From MA
Joined in Apr 2010
1,069 posts
circasurvive's Avatar
circasurvive
0 AP
http://iconsofvanity.com/2012/10/the...it-should-die/
__________________
www.thayerholdings.com
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
circasurvive
View Public Profile
Send a private message to circasurvive
Visit circasurvive's homepage!
Find all posts by circasurvive


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page

Contact Us - DREAM Act Portal - Archive - Top
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.