The rich paying their fair share

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Mar 11, 2006
1,644
1,354
1,743
#62
It ALWAYS shocks me as these conversations come up. There are people in the US with wealth that my brain can even comprehend and this BOARD will defend them like they are the ROYALTY of AMERICA.

It boggles the mind?

I think people are more pissed at the people that are poor and don't pay taxes. It seems like an 'attach' on the wealthy folks is a opportunity to rip on the poor.

The whole dang system is designed around the Wealthy.... to keep them wealthy and to obtain more wealth. That is why they should pay more. They 'benefit' the most by the way the whole capital system is designed.

Spending need to be reigned in big time too.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t shock me the amount of ENVY and GREED by some. That feel like it is fair to use the government to take from individuals.

Although I certainly agree spending needs to be reigned in.
 

Duke Silver

Find safe haven in a warm bathtub full of my jazz.
A/V Subscriber
Sep 17, 2004
25,563
13,481
1,743
Cozy's Bar
#65
That just means you are cheap and have bad taste in cars. That is possible whether you are rich or poor.
Maybe he drives a lot and didn't want to pay for an expensive car that will get abused and be upside down in due to high mileage. At least that is my excuse. Plus I don't care.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
15,708
23,446
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#66
It ALWAYS shocks me as these conversations come up. There are people in the US with wealth that my brain can even comprehend and this BOARD will defend them like they are the ROYALTY of AMERICA.

It boggles the mind?
I don't know why it should shock you....it's pretty simple. I believe in individual liberty and property rights and think it should apply to everybody equally, rich or poor. I badly paraphrased the poem "First they came..." earlier in this discussion but I think it applies to this topic. You may not be rich but that doesn't mean the government won't want to make you pay more tomorrow after they make the rich pay more today and it isn't enough (and it never will be).

The whole dang system is designed around the Wealthy.... to keep them wealthy and to obtain more wealth. That is why they should pay more. They 'benefit' the most by the way the whole capital system is designed.
The system of crony capitalism is designed around the wealthy and that's what we have today, you don't fix that by giving the government more power. Do you really think the politicians aren't just going to create more loopholes and subsidies for their buddies if the rest of us give them carte blanche to tax the rich as much as they want? We'd end up just as we are now except the wealth would be concentrated in an even smaller more elite group...the 0.25%.

Spending need to be reigned in big time too.
We agree completely on that one.
 

NotOnTV

BRB -- Taking an okie leak
Sep 14, 2010
7,270
5,648
743
Gondor
#68
For the poverty pimps on the board, yes, there are some rich old guys who post here and they are going to vote in their self-interest whether or not you like it. I also happen to know that they give generously to charities well in excess of the contributions they make to gubmint charities.

"The 1%" That term does not mean what you think it does.
 

Brad M

Wrangler
Jan 16, 2017
69
71
68
55
Wisconsin
#69
It ALWAYS shocks me as these conversations come up. There are people in the US with wealth that my brain can even comprehend and this BOARD will defend them like they are the ROYALTY of AMERICA.

I think people are more pissed at the people that are poor and don't pay taxes. It seems like an 'attach' on the wealthy folks is a opportunity to rip on the poor.
It may seem like that but to me, the amount an individual makes is irrelevant. People should be taxed by an even rate across the board. It would be ok if taxation didn’t start until after an individual earned a certain amount, say the poverty level, but after that everyone was taxed equally.
Say the poverty level was $20K and the tax rate was 10%. If a family earned $35K you would subtract $20K and tax the remaining $15K at 10% ($1500). If a family earned $500K, subtract $20K and tax them 10% of the remaining $480K ($48000). I would have no problem with a system like that.
It shouldn’t matter if a guy earns $35000 or $1.5 million, they should be treated the same.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,903
2,106
743
Where else but Stillwater
#70
It may seem like that but to me, the amount an individual makes is irrelevant. People should be taxed by an even rate across the board. It would be ok if taxation didn’t start until after an individual earned a certain amount, say the poverty level, but after that everyone was taxed equally.
Say the poverty level was $20K and the tax rate was 10%. If a family earned $35K you would subtract $20K and tax the remaining $15K at 10% ($1500). If a family earned $500K, subtract $20K and tax them 10% of the remaining $480K ($48000). I would have no problem with a system like that.
It shouldn’t matter if a guy earns $35000 or $1.5 million, they should be treated the same.
The big problem for some people is that the wealthy would still be paying more taxes than every other group. Supporters of wealthy people feel their great income should not be penalized with an income tax. Instead, it should be with a tax they have more individual control, such as sales taxes.
 
Last edited:
May 21, 2007
417
193
1,593
Tulsa, OK
#71
It may seem like that but to me, the amount an individual makes is irrelevant. People should be taxed by an even rate across the board. It would be ok if taxation didn’t start until after an individual earned a certain amount, say the poverty level, but after that everyone was taxed equally.
Say the poverty level was $20K and the tax rate was 10%. If a family earned $35K you would subtract $20K and tax the remaining $15K at 10% ($1500). If a family earned $500K, subtract $20K and tax them 10% of the remaining $480K ($48000). I would have no problem with a system like that.
It shouldn’t matter if a guy earns $35000 or $1.5 million, they should be treated the same.
I don't disagree with this... but your example sheds light on the paradigm question.

You can either tax that one family $48,000 or 32 families $1,500. I guarantee that the $1,500 is more important to those 32 families than the $48,000 is to the one. Keeping people at or just above poverty just creates more poverty.

It really doesn't matter anyways as we are probably heading to a breaking point.

For all those wealthy people who didn't want to pay a little bit more % in taxes will probably regret it when the mob drags them from their homes.
 

Duke Silver

Find safe haven in a warm bathtub full of my jazz.
A/V Subscriber
Sep 17, 2004
25,563
13,481
1,743
Cozy's Bar
#72
I don't disagree with this... but your example sheds light on the paradigm question.

You can either tax that one family $48,000 or 32 families $1,500. I guarantee that the $1,500 is more important to those 32 families than the $48,000 is to the one. Keeping people at or just above poverty just creates more poverty.

It really doesn't matter anyways as we are probably heading to a breaking point.

For all those wealthy people who didn't want to pay a little bit more % in taxes will probably regret it when the mob drags them from their homes.
Nah. They pay for security guards
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
12,050
16,371
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#73
You paid taxes. Got a great return in doing so by benefiting greatly. You certainly shouldn't see it as wrong. You say taxation is theft, but a voluntary tax system would only create an even greater lack of fairness.

I don't see the nation adopting the Fair Tax. As much as so many people love Trump, I wish he would become obsessed with it and always hawking it. The problem is not enough rich people support the Fair Tax, even though they would benefit from it.
Like most people I have no say in gvt programs that I’ve benefited from and yes every program I’ve benefited from I consider wrong, it’s taking from someone else to give to me, there’s no justification for it.
I do have a question for not just you but everyone, what difference does it make what someone else earns / makes, what business of it is yours what they drive or where they vacation.
Finally I hope most on here understand that when they talk of millionaires they’re not talking about people who make a million or even close per year and in most cases they’re not talking about cash on hand or even liquid assets. Net worth has nothing to do with how much you make, this whole discussion reminds me of over hearing a conversation between a group of ancap liberals at a coffee shop in Berkeley.
 
Last edited:

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
24,968
31,178
1,743
oklahoma city
#74
Doesn’t matter. Read the article. The rich are paying WAY more than what should be considered a fair share.
There is no way to determine what a "fair share" is for someone making $100 million a year in comparison to someone making $77000 a year. Fair share is not a mathmatical concept. It is an opinion.

On one hand, if you were looking at it as simple percentages, then clearly the billionaire in our current system is paying at least a fair share. On the other hand, if you looked at it based on how much the government is impacting your life liberty and pursuit of happiness by extracting money from you, then it isn't so clear. Taking $7000 from someone that made $70000 impacts that person's life and pursuit of happiness far more than taking $28 million does from someone that made $100 million. And, being that our tax rates top out at a mere $500000, taking 37% from someone making $700K impacts that person far more than it impacts the person at $100 million.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
24,968
31,178
1,743
oklahoma city
#75
It may seem like that but to me, the amount an individual makes is irrelevant. People should be taxed by an even rate across the board. It would be ok if taxation didn’t start until after an individual earned a certain amount, say the poverty level, but after that everyone was taxed equally.
Say the poverty level was $20K and the tax rate was 10%. If a family earned $35K you would subtract $20K and tax the remaining $15K at 10% ($1500). If a family earned $500K, subtract $20K and tax them 10% of the remaining $480K ($48000). I would have no problem with a system like that.
It shouldn’t matter if a guy earns $35000 or $1.5 million, they should be treated the same.
Then the people with less wealth would be supplementing the lifestyles of those with a lot of wealth. Contrary to belief around here, the more wealth you have, the more you utilize what government provides. The wealthy pay more because they make more and utilize more. It isn't linear.

@ksupoke's idea makes the most sense to me. Make what you can make while you are here. Settle up at the end.
 
Jul 20, 2018
695
97
28
58
77539
#76
Then the people with less wealth would be supplementing the lifestyles of those with a lot of wealth. Contrary to belief around here, the more wealth you have, the more you utilize what government provides. The wealthy pay more because they make more and utilize more. It isn't linear.

@ksupoke's idea makes the most sense to me. Make what you can make while you are here. Settle up at the end.

I wish I could understand what you and ksu are referring to. I'd like to know how a person making $5 million per year uses more federal government resources than a person making $500000 per year.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
12,050
16,371
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#77
I wish I could understand what you and ksu are referring to. I'd like to know how a person making $5 million per year uses more federal government resources than a person making $500000 per year.
I’ve tried explaining it several times but I’ll try it once more and make it as simple as I can.
I’ll use 2 current person(s) as examples:
Elon Musk has received over $6B in taxpayer funds, his net worth is, or at least did, approach or even exceed $1B, I don’t know his salary nor do I care. What I care about is the taxpayer funded all his endeavors, all his companies profits combined don’t equal $500M. His companies routinely are unprofitable and routinely receive gvt benefits.
Jeff Bezos, his company has received massive subsidies by way of the taxpayers, prominent among those is his sweetheart deal with the post office, remember we pay the usps shortfalls.

These (as a % of the total) are proverbial drops in the bucket of the corporate welfare program in this country, those programs create substantial net worth for the primary shareholders in these companies.

Then there’s the bank bail (hand) outs, the airline bail (hand) outs, the auto bail (hand) outs, the rail road bail (hand) outs. Frankly, even this doesn’t do the gvt’s crony handouts list justice. The list is long and beneficiaries are mostly incredibly wealthy to begin with, that they’re wealthy is of no concern that the gvt uses my money to increase that wealth, with no returning benefit, is of great concern. As I mentioned I’ve benefited as well, as have many/most, that doesn’t make it any less wrong.
 
Last edited:

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
24,968
31,178
1,743
oklahoma city
#78
I’ve tried explaining it several times but I’ll try it once more and make it as simple as I can.
I’ll use 2 current person(s) as examples:
Elon Musk has received over $6B in taxpayer funds, his net worth is, or at least did, approach or even exceed $1B, I don’t know his salary nor do I care. What I care about is the taxpayer funded all his endeavors, all his companies profits combined don’t equal $500M. His companies routinely are unprofitable and routinely receive gvt benefits.
Jeff Bezos, his company has received massive subsidies by way of the taxpayers, prominent among those is his sweetheart deal with the post office, remember we pay the usps shortfalls.

These (as a % of the total) are proverbial drops in the bucket of the corporate welfare program in this country, those programs create substantial net worth for the primary shareholders in these companies.

Then there’s the bank bail (hand) outs, the airline bail (hand) outs, the auto bail (hand) outs, the rail road bail (hand) outs. Frankly, even this doesn’t do the gvt’s crony handouts list justice. The list is long and beneficiaries are mostly incredibly wealthy to begin with, that they’re wealthy is of no concern that the gvt uses my money to increase that wealth, with no returning benefit, is of great concern. As I mentioned I’ve benefited as well, as have many/most, that doesn’t make it any less wrong.
On a much smaller scale, I've made three overseas trips this year using airports, customs, TSA, etc. While airport fees cover some of this expense, the taxpayer covers the rest. Some low-income people may fly overseas once or even never. And the guy making $5-10 million is using these airports for his (or his company's) jet.