The top 1% of households made 22% of all income in 2012 and paid 38% of all taxes: Is it fair to ask them to pay even more?

  • Absolutely. The rich benefit from a capitalist currency model through their ability to manipulate money itself; the average 9-5er does not.

    If we as average and relatively powerless citizens are forced by our governments and those with financial power to endorse and submit to a fiat-debt money paradigm wherein our only real option for providing ourselves with a comfortable level of sustenance is pursuance of expensive debt-bought education whose primary focus is ''How To Make It In Capitalist Society 101'', regardless of whether we opt into that system voluntarily or not, then those responsible for pushing us into that mould -- those who essentially dictate the value of the purchase power for the average Joe via manipulation of currency -- should make up the deficit when their system fails to deliver even the most basic human rights such as shelter, food and water for each and every citizen.

    None of us have any choice but to submit to the currency-for-purchase system that ultimately perpetuates the current global circumstance where a large percentage of the world's population live in poverty. The top 1% earners in the USA make vast sums of money by manipulating currency itself; they make so much money in fact that the top one percent make as much as the bottom 40% in America. The top 1% of earners on the planet have a cumulative wealth equal to that of the poorest three billion, and the currency system headed by banks is the reason for that astronomical gap.

    It's only fair that those with the power to perpetuate that paradigm take genuine responsibility for doing so. The ostensibly rich must inject that wealth back for the benefit of those whom have been rendered powerless to capitalize and succeed within this socioeconomic system.

  • Poverty Isn't Fair

    Nobody really needs a golden toilet or another private jet. The people with this much money, no matter how hard they may have worked to earn it, are no longer purchasing needs, they are purchasing luxuries; they can afford to pay a higher rate of taxes. Meanwhile, those at the bottom end of the pyramid are struggling to scrape by--forget a golden toilet, they're trying to find a house with any toilet at all. The sever poverty that overtaxing such individuals can lead to only hurts our nation--homelessness hurts us, drug use hurts us, crime hurts us--and so much of these are linked to poverty. It is time for those who have to suck it up and take care of those who are have-nots. Which is more important, your private jet or a human life?

  • Yes, It is fair because they can afford to pay more.

    There is a bare minimum amount required to live and a larger minimum amount required to live comfortably. Everything beyond that is gravy. The entire point of progressive tax rates that the percentage of your income dedicated to your personal and family needs decreases as your income increase. A person with a higher income can afford to pay a higher percentage of it in taxes without compromising his ability to live comfortably, while those with lower incomes might find it difficult to survive at all if their tax rates were similar.

  • Yes, it is fair to ask them to pay even more

    On one hand, the figures already seem out of proportion: why should the group who makes 22% of all income be forced to pay more than 38% of all taxes? But the fact of the matter is, these people are often nearly inseparable from the corporations where they work, of which they're either the owner or the CEO, and these corporations benefit from huge tax breaks negotiated by their influential political lobbies. Given this, shouldn't they be made to pay higher taxes?

  • No it is not fair.

    It is not fair that the percent of tax one has to pay is dependent on income. It encourages a lazy nation. We should have true flat rate tax where everyone must pay a minimum as computed via full time minimum wage salary. So everyone is at least pulling some weight.

  • Pay to have a job? That sounds capitalistic to me!

    Why? There is absolutely no reason that the rich should have to pay EVEN MORE taxes so that the government can continue to waste money supporting people that don't work. Yes, I know, some of those people CAN'T work. But most of them are just lazy. Also, I'd like to address the idea of luxury spending with an old story from my high school:
    There was one family with four kids. They were poor. So poor that the kids all wore the same clothes every day. So, the kids at the school decided to help out, since most of them were better off, and they pooled together some money and bought all 4 kids 5 new sets of clothes. Then the family sold the clothes and bought an Xbox.
    In short: shut up about luxury spending. At least the rich are spending their own money.

  • Why Not Cut Spending?

    Cut Spending. What a novel idea for the fiscally challenged in Washington D C. No one should be asked to pay another dime in taxes until they can prove to the citizens where every penny was spent. Problem is the government is so large the waste each year is enormous, and there is no accountability to do better.

  • It is not fair to ask them to pay even more.

    It is not fair to ask households with income to pay more taxes. They are already paying relatively more than they should be paying considering their income. The deficits in the government are not the responsibility of the top earning households. Cutting government spending would decrease the need for more taxes without hurting individuals who are financially successful.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.