Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Taxing the Rich

ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 1:09:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What are your thoughts regarding this subject? Should the rich be taxed more? If so, should it be significantly increased, or small-scale? If not, why, and what should be done to mitigate inequality?

Here is some sample readings on the topic:
http://www.brookings.edu...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 1:17:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
A link to the actual paper referenced in the second source (Huff): http://economics.sas.upenn.edu...
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
lannan13
Posts: 23,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 1:48:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I can safely say that we're
Tax
Enough
Already
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 3:08:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 1:48:30 PM, lannan13 wrote:
I can safely say that we're
Tax
Enough
Already

Why? I'd generally agree, but I'd like to see why you say so.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
fire_man
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 11:21:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 1:09:15 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
What are your thoughts regarding this subject? Should the rich be taxed more? If so, should it be significantly increased, or small-scale? If not, why, and what should be done to mitigate inequality?

Here is some sample readings on the topic:
http://www.brookings.edu...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com... : :

The rich have been taxed up to 90% of their income in the past and it never stopped them from working. When they're taxed less, their tremendous profits cause their lazy workers to take advantage of them.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 11:42:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 11:21:22 PM, fire_man wrote:
At 11/2/2015 1:09:15 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
What are your thoughts regarding this subject? Should the rich be taxed more? If so, should it be significantly increased, or small-scale? If not, why, and what should be done to mitigate inequality?

Here is some sample readings on the topic:
http://www.brookings.edu...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com... : :

The rich have been taxed up to 90% of their income in the past and it never stopped them from working.

When? Can you show me a source/example? I'm genuinely interesting, since history tends to repeat itself (in most circumstances).

When they're taxed less, their tremendous profits cause their lazy workers to take advantage of them.

I don't necessarily see the correlation between their workers and them being lazy, or even how that necessitates advantageous actions, for that matter.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
fire_man
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 12:06:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 11:42:48 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/2/2015 11:21:22 PM, fire_man wrote:
At 11/2/2015 1:09:15 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
What are your thoughts regarding this subject? Should the rich be taxed more? If so, should it be significantly increased, or small-scale? If not, why, and what should be done to mitigate inequality?

Here is some sample readings on the topic:
http://www.brookings.edu...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com... : :

The rich have been taxed up to 90% of their income in the past and it never stopped them from working.

When? Can you show me a source/example? I'm genuinely interesting, since history tends to repeat itself (in most circumstances).

Google highest tax rates in history of U.S. and find out that the rich were taxed at a much higher rate during the 1950's thru 1970's.

When they're taxed less, their tremendous profits cause their lazy workers to take advantage of them.

I don't necessarily see the correlation between their workers and them being lazy, or even how that necessitates advantageous actions, for that matter. : :

It's very simple to see how the profits of major corporations are abused by those who work for them. CEO's are making tremendous salaries along with stock options and other benefits. Many workers in these corporations are lax at work because of the high profits they know the companies are making.

I'm sure if the owners of these corporations actually saw all the corruption and abuse of their profits, they wouldn't mind to see some of their money go to taxes to improve the infrastructure that's so badly needed in the U.s. and the quality of life for the poorer people.

If the corporations were taxed heavily and not able to leave the country of it's origin to seek low taxes by moving their companies to other countries, the workers of these companies would have to work more efficiently to keep those companies profitable. There would be much less abuse of the profits that way.

I've been in several businesses and have learned how difficult it is to keep them going without all the corporate tax breaks that the rich have. Most of the tax laws are corporate friendly because they help write the tax codes.
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 10:34:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 11:42:48 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/2/2015 11:21:22 PM, fire_man wrote:
At 11/2/2015 1:09:15 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
What are your thoughts regarding this subject? Should the rich be taxed more? If so, should it be significantly increased, or small-scale? If not, why, and what should be done to mitigate inequality?

Here is some sample readings on the topic:
http://www.brookings.edu...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com... : :

The rich have been taxed up to 90% of their income in the past and it never stopped them from working.

When? Can you show me a source/example? I'm genuinely interesting, since history tends to repeat itself (in most circumstances).

Claiming a 90% tax rate is misleading. In the Eisenhower era, there was a 90% top MARGINAL rate, not the total effective rate on top incomes. There were a whole slew of deductions available then as well...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 11:31:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 10:34:20 PM, Fly wrote:
At 11/2/2015 11:42:48 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/2/2015 11:21:22 PM, fire_man wrote:
At 11/2/2015 1:09:15 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
What are your thoughts regarding this subject? Should the rich be taxed more? If so, should it be significantly increased, or small-scale? If not, why, and what should be done to mitigate inequality?

Here is some sample readings on the topic:
http://www.brookings.edu...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com... : :

The rich have been taxed up to 90% of their income in the past and it never stopped them from working.

When? Can you show me a source/example? I'm genuinely interesting, since history tends to repeat itself (in most circumstances).

Claiming a 90% tax rate is misleading. In the Eisenhower era, there was a 90% top MARGINAL rate, not the total effective rate on top incomes. There were a whole slew of deductions available then as well...

Ah, okay. :)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 2:38:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 12:06:06 AM, fire_man wrote:
When they're taxed less, their tremendous profits cause their lazy workers to take advantage of them.

I don't necessarily see the correlation between their workers and them being lazy, or even how that necessitates advantageous actions, for that matter. : :

It's very simple to see how the profits of major corporations are abused by those who work for them. CEO's are making tremendous salaries along with stock options and other benefits. Many workers in these corporations are lax at work because of the high profits they know the companies are making.

I don't really agree that makes them "lazy."

I'm sure if the owners of these corporations actually saw all the corruption and abuse of their profits, they wouldn't mind to see some of their money go to taxes to improve the infrastructure that's so badly needed in the U.s. and the quality of life for the poorer people.

Large corporations provide lower-end and upper-end jobs alike.

If the corporations were taxed heavily and not able to leave the country of it's origin to seek low taxes by moving their companies to other countries, the workers of these companies would have to work more efficiently to keep those companies profitable. There would be much less abuse of the profits that way.

Then they wouldn't be "profitable" companies if overtaxed, right?

I've been in several businesses and have learned how difficult it is to keep them going without all the corporate tax breaks that the rich have. Most of the tax laws are corporate friendly because they help write the tax codes.

Okay.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 1:39:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here's an article I found interesting, that closely relates to the OP. In explaining his economic agenda for the office of POTUS, Ted Cruz notes a lot of things, but I found this bit particularly interesting:
"Giant corporations will lose their loopholes and instead pay the exact same Business Flat Tax as small businesses. And billionaire hedge-fund managers will no longer pay a lower rate than working men and women." [http://www.wsj.com...]

Thoughts?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 5:45:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 1:17:07 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
A link to the actual paper referenced in the second source (Huff): http://economics.sas.upenn.edu...

That study was lol. If they seriously think the Laffur Curve for wealthy people is 86-98%, they are crazy.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 5:49:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 11:31:34 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/3/2015 10:34:20 PM, Fly wrote:
At 11/2/2015 11:42:48 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/2/2015 11:21:22 PM, fire_man wrote:
At 11/2/2015 1:09:15 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
What are your thoughts regarding this subject? Should the rich be taxed more? If so, should it be significantly increased, or small-scale? If not, why, and what should be done to mitigate inequality?

Here is some sample readings on the topic:
http://www.brookings.edu...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com... : :

The rich have been taxed up to 90% of their income in the past and it never stopped them from working.

When? Can you show me a source/example? I'm genuinely interesting, since history tends to repeat itself (in most circumstances).

Claiming a 90% tax rate is misleading. In the Eisenhower era, there was a 90% top MARGINAL rate, not the total effective rate on top incomes. There were a whole slew of deductions available then as well...

Ah, okay. :)

Refer to my trickle down debate.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 1:50:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 5:45:57 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 11/2/2015 1:17:07 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
A link to the actual paper referenced in the second source (Huff): http://economics.sas.upenn.edu...

That study was lol. If they seriously think the Laffur Curve for wealthy people is 86-98%, they are crazy.

*Laffer, but okay. Wasn't entirely sure. :)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 1:50:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 5:49:28 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 11/3/2015 11:31:34 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/3/2015 10:34:20 PM, Fly wrote:
At 11/2/2015 11:42:48 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/2/2015 11:21:22 PM, fire_man wrote:
At 11/2/2015 1:09:15 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
What are your thoughts regarding this subject? Should the rich be taxed more? If so, should it be significantly increased, or small-scale? If not, why, and what should be done to mitigate inequality?

Here is some sample readings on the topic:
http://www.brookings.edu...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com... : :

The rich have been taxed up to 90% of their income in the past and it never stopped them from working.

When? Can you show me a source/example? I'm genuinely interesting, since history tends to repeat itself (in most circumstances).

Claiming a 90% tax rate is misleading. In the Eisenhower era, there was a 90% top MARGINAL rate, not the total effective rate on top incomes. There were a whole slew of deductions available then as well...

Ah, okay. :)

Refer to my trickle down debate.

Link?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 2:09:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 1:50:34 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/11/2015 5:49:28 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 11/3/2015 11:31:34 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/3/2015 10:34:20 PM, Fly wrote:
At 11/2/2015 11:42:48 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/2/2015 11:21:22 PM, fire_man wrote:
At 11/2/2015 1:09:15 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
What are your thoughts regarding this subject? Should the rich be taxed more? If so, should it be significantly increased, or small-scale? If not, why, and what should be done to mitigate inequality?

Here is some sample readings on the topic:
http://www.brookings.edu...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com... : :

The rich have been taxed up to 90% of their income in the past and it never stopped them from working.

When? Can you show me a source/example? I'm genuinely interesting, since history tends to repeat itself (in most circumstances).

Claiming a 90% tax rate is misleading. In the Eisenhower era, there was a 90% top MARGINAL rate, not the total effective rate on top incomes. There were a whole slew of deductions available then as well...

Ah, okay. :)

Refer to my trickle down debate.

Link?

http://www.debate.org...

Also this study is on the opposite extreme, saying optimal taxation for capital income is 2%. I prefer a round 0% though :P
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 2:26:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 1:09:15 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
What are your thoughts regarding this subject? Should the rich be taxed more? If so, should it be significantly increased, or small-scale? If not, why, and what should be done to mitigate inequality?

Here is some sample readings on the topic:
http://www.brookings.edu...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

The Rich should be taxed more. If you benefit more from the capitalist system, you should pay more.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
TheProphett
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 2:33:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 1:09:15 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
What are your thoughts regarding this subject? Should the rich be taxed more? If so, should it be significantly increased, or small-scale? If not, why, and what should be done to mitigate inequality?

Here is some sample readings on the topic:
http://www.brookings.edu...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Whenever we are talking some time, I should really try to convert you into a Left-winger.
Topics I would like to debate: https://docs.google.com...

Epic Quotes:

She's a cunning linguist, but I'm a master debater - Austin Powers


Economic Forum Revival Co-Leader

If you are interested in starting a political journal for the site, please contact me.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:16:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 1:09:15 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
What are your thoughts regarding this subject? Should the rich be taxed more? If so, should it be significantly increased, or small-scale? If not, why, and what should be done to mitigate inequality?

Should we raise taxes on the highest income earners? I'd say yes and no.

The marginal tax rate (39.6%) is way too high, I think this should be cut. However, the effective income tax rate for the top 20% is 14.2%, which is relatively low (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...). I would be for cutting the top marginal tax rate (to say, 20%) while raising the effective income tax rate. The system should be cleaned out, and if we had a net tax increase on the wealthy by a few percentage points, I think that the effects would be minimal and still much more beneficial than the current system.

Now, when it comes to taxing "rich" individuals who are actually small businesses, I definitely think raising their taxes is a bad idea. Plenty of small businesses pay their taxes through the individual income tax - lawn care, landscapers, firms that remove snow, restaurants, etc. oftentimes have to pay the high individual income tax rate, and these groups should have tax cuts if we want to encourage more hiring and investment.

So taxing small businesses and high-income earners are different areas, the way I see it. I'd much rather have a tax increase for the latter if we could get a budget compromise that invests in infrastructure and reduces America's debt load.

Fantastic topic choice, by the way :)
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:37:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 2:09:15 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 11/11/2015 1:50:34 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/11/2015 5:49:28 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 11/3/2015 11:31:34 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/3/2015 10:34:20 PM, Fly wrote:
At 11/2/2015 11:42:48 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/2/2015 11:21:22 PM, fire_man wrote:
At 11/2/2015 1:09:15 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
What are your thoughts regarding this subject? Should the rich be taxed more? If so, should it be significantly increased, or small-scale? If not, why, and what should be done to mitigate inequality?

Here is some sample readings on the topic:
http://www.brookings.edu...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com... : :

The rich have been taxed up to 90% of their income in the past and it never stopped them from working.

When? Can you show me a source/example? I'm genuinely interesting, since history tends to repeat itself (in most circumstances).

Claiming a 90% tax rate is misleading. In the Eisenhower era, there was a 90% top MARGINAL rate, not the total effective rate on top incomes. There were a whole slew of deductions available then as well...

Ah, okay. :)

Refer to my trickle down debate.

Link?

http://www.debate.org...

Also this study is on the opposite extreme, saying optimal taxation for capital income is 2%. I prefer a round 0% though :P

Lol, okay. :) I voted. xD
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:38:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 2:26:14 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 11/2/2015 1:09:15 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
What are your thoughts regarding this subject? Should the rich be taxed more? If so, should it be significantly increased, or small-scale? If not, why, and what should be done to mitigate inequality?

Here is some sample readings on the topic:
http://www.brookings.edu...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

The Rich should be taxed more. If you benefit more from the capitalist system, you should pay more.

Okay. ;P
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:40:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 2:33:50 AM, TheProphett wrote:
At 11/2/2015 1:09:15 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
What are your thoughts regarding this subject? Should the rich be taxed more? If so, should it be significantly increased, or small-scale? If not, why, and what should be done to mitigate inequality?

Here is some sample readings on the topic:
http://www.brookings.edu...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Whenever we are talking some time, I should really try to convert you into a Left-winger.

No easy task, and no, won't happen. ;) Besides, how would we be "devoid of bias" in our economic analyses if I was a libby too?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 4:41:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 3:16:28 AM, Contra wrote:
At 11/2/2015 1:09:15 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
What are your thoughts regarding this subject? Should the rich be taxed more? If so, should it be significantly increased, or small-scale? If not, why, and what should be done to mitigate inequality?

Should we raise taxes on the highest income earners? I'd say yes and no.

The marginal tax rate (39.6%) is way too high, I think this should be cut. However, the effective income tax rate for the top 20% is 14.2%, which is relatively low (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...). I would be for cutting the top marginal tax rate (to say, 20%) while raising the effective income tax rate. The system should be cleaned out, and if we had a net tax increase on the wealthy by a few percentage points, I think that the effects would be minimal and still much more beneficial than the current system.

Hmm. What do you think of a flat tax? That'd "clean" the system, and also raise taxes for upper-class.

Now, when it comes to taxing "rich" individuals who are actually small businesses, I definitely think raising their taxes is a bad idea. Plenty of small businesses pay their taxes through the individual income tax - lawn care, landscapers, firms that remove snow, restaurants, etc. oftentimes have to pay the high individual income tax rate, and these groups should have tax cuts if we want to encourage more hiring and investment.

So, you'd propose something like individual tax rates and business taxes? Cruz said something like this in the WSJ: http://www.wsj.com...

So taxing small businesses and high-income earners are different areas, the way I see it. I'd much rather have a tax increase for the latter if we could get a budget compromise that invests in infrastructure and reduces America's debt load.

I see.

Fantastic topic choice, by the way :)

Thanks! :) Thanks for your contribution. You might want to follow this thread [http://www.debate.org...], as we'll be doing some tax analysis in the future.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 8:46:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 3:07:23 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
no they should not be taxed more, actually they should be taxed significantly less or better still not at all

Why?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 9:17:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 1:09:15 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
What are your thoughts regarding this subject? Should the rich be taxed more? If so, should it be significantly increased, or small-scale? If not, why, and what should be done to mitigate inequality?

Here is some sample readings on the topic:
http://www.brookings.edu...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Taxing should in my view be all about trying to make as much money in tax revenue as possible without hindering economic growth, discouraging business or scaring rich people out of the country. On the whole I think taxes are relatively fair. Rather than increasing taxes effort should be put into reducing tax avoidance and eliminating tax loopholes. Currently clever people with good accountants pay very little relative tax while people who keep things straight and pay their share of tax are unfairly made to pay more relative to their income. This is the area to work on not raising taxes. Raising taxes s implyy sends wealthy people and business out of the country reducing overall tax revenue.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 4:02:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 9:17:30 PM, beng100 wrote:

A couple of things here:

Taxing should in my view be all about trying to make as much money in tax revenue as possible without hindering economic growth, discouraging business or scaring rich people out of the country.

I think that's reasonable, and generally the view of everyone knowledgeable about economics and taxation.

On the whole I think taxes are relatively fair.

In the status quo? I take issue to that, not necessarily in the fact that tax revenue isn't fair (loopholes and such), but that it's also too complex. Tax code needs simplified.

Rather than increasing taxes effort should be put into reducing tax avoidance and eliminating tax loopholes.

You advocate for remedying the status quo rather than implementing a straightforward policy?

Currently clever people with good accountants pay very little relative tax while people who keep things straight and pay their share of tax are unfairly made to pay more relative to their income.

Yeah.

This is the area to work on not raising taxes. Raising taxes s implyy sends wealthy people and business out of the country reducing overall tax revenue.

Generally, I'd agree to an extent. However, I think it'd be more flat to have a flat business tax and a flat tax for individuals, as well.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 4:07:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Taxing the rich isn't necessarily a cure all for the gov, so I don't see why a different policy isn't better.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW