"Giving" versus "Not taking"

Recently I have noticed that a lot my more liberal friends say that taxes should be raised because tax cuts "give" rich people money. I disagree, believing that there is a fundamental difference between not taking and giving. Thoughts?

I strongly believe that taxes should be raised on the wealthy. I'm actually doing a debate on it right now.

But I believe it is called giving, because society helped the wealthy got rich from all of us. The average taxpayers paid for the internet, highways, roads, educational system, financial resources, judicial system, medical and scientific establishments, and our infrastructure, and the rich used it to become wealthy. All we ask is that they pay somewhat more, and are able to keep a good amount of it.

At 5/26/2012 10:04:53 AM, Contra wrote:
I strongly believe that taxes should be raised on the wealthy. I'm actually doing a debate on it right now.

But I believe it is called giving, because society helped the wealthy got rich from all of us. The average taxpayers paid for the internet, highways, roads, educational system, financial resources, judicial system, medical and scientific establishments, and our infrastructure, and the rich used it to become wealthy. All we ask is that they pay somewhat more, and are able to keep a good amount of it.

I really really really don't understand that argument. Did the wealthy not contribute to taxation too? And couldn't your argument be used for higher taxation on the poor? They use governmental services even more than the wealthy do, correct?

It isn't as if the wealthy didnt contribute vast amounts of the money to fund those things in the first place.

At 5/26/2012 10:04:53 AM, Contra wrote:
I strongly believe that taxes should be raised on the wealthy. I'm actually doing a debate on it right now.

But I believe it is called giving, because society helped the wealthy got rich from all of us. The average taxpayers paid for the internet, highways, roads, educational system, financial resources, judicial system, medical and scientific establishments, and our infrastructure, and the rich used it to become wealthy. All we ask is that they pay somewhat more, and are able to keep a good amount of it.

Fine. If a tax cut was proposed, you wouldn't oppose it on the grounds that it "gives money to the rich" would you? Maybe you might feel they shouldn't get the cut because they should pay more, but you wouldn't say the tax cut gives them money, right? It's just taking away less.

At 5/26/2012 10:16:33 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:

At 5/26/2012 10:04:53 AM, Contra wrote:
I strongly believe that taxes should be raised on the wealthy. I'm actually doing a debate on it right now.

But I believe it is called giving, because society helped the wealthy got rich from all of us. The average taxpayers paid for the internet, highways, roads, educational system, financial resources, judicial system, medical and scientific establishments, and our infrastructure, and the rich used it to become wealthy. All we ask is that they pay somewhat more, and are able to keep a good amount of it.

Fine. If a tax cut was proposed, you wouldn't oppose it on the grounds that it "gives money to the rich" would you? Maybe you might feel they shouldn't get the cut because they should pay more, but you wouldn't say the tax cut gives them money, right? It's just taking away less.

Many folks on the left, even if subconsciously, are of the belief that ultimately all property and people belong to the government. That would explain the rhetoric that it's "giving" the wealthy money by not stealing more of what they've legitimately earned.

At 5/26/2012 10:07:11 AM, thett3 wrote:

At 5/26/2012 10:04:53 AM, Contra wrote:
I strongly believe that taxes should be raised on the wealthy. I'm actually doing a debate on it right now.

But I believe it is called giving, because society helped the wealthy got rich from all of us. The average taxpayers paid for the internet, highways, roads, educational system, financial resources, judicial system, medical and scientific establishments, and our infrastructure, and the rich used it to become wealthy. All we ask is that they pay somewhat more, and are able to keep a good amount of it.

I really really really don't understand that argument. Did the wealthy not contribute to taxation too? And couldn't your argument be used for higher taxation on the poor? They use governmental services even more than the wealthy do, correct?

The wealthy did contribute, but the middle class invested in the institutions that the wealthy used to get rich.

And the wealthy use more governmental services than the poor. Example: Having 4 mansions requires more water than the poor. It requires more defense than the poor do whom have a shack. It requires more capital than the poor need by far. Which gives them more influence in government affairs, etc.

It isn't as if the wealthy didnt contribute vast amounts of the money to fund those things in the first place.

At 5/26/2012 10:16:33 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:

At 5/26/2012 10:04:53 AM, Contra wrote:
I strongly believe that taxes should be raised on the wealthy. I'm actually doing a debate on it right now.

But I believe it is called giving, because society helped the wealthy got rich from all of us. The average taxpayers paid for the internet, highways, roads, educational system, financial resources, judicial system, medical and scientific establishments, and our infrastructure, and the rich used it to become wealthy. All we ask is that they pay somewhat more, and are able to keep a good amount of it.

Fine. If a tax cut was proposed, you wouldn't oppose it on the grounds that it "gives money to the rich" would you?

I would oppose it for other reasons, it would reduce revenue for the government being the number 1 reason.

Maybe you might feel they shouldn't get the cut because they should pay more, but you wouldn't say the tax cut gives them money, right? It's just taking away less.

Yeah it takes less.

What I don't get, is why they think the wealthy should give a higher percentage of their income than everyone else.

At 5/26/2012 10:20:38 AM, Contra wrote:

At 5/26/2012 10:07:11 AM, thett3 wrote:

At 5/26/2012 10:04:53 AM, Contra wrote:
I strongly believe that taxes should be raised on the wealthy. I'm actually doing a debate on it right now.

But I believe it is called giving, because society helped the wealthy got rich from all of us. The average taxpayers paid for the internet, highways, roads, educational system, financial resources, judicial system, medical and scientific establishments, and our infrastructure, and the rich used it to become wealthy. All we ask is that they pay somewhat more, and are able to keep a good amount of it.

I really really really don't understand that argument. Did the wealthy not contribute to taxation too? And couldn't your argument be used for higher taxation on the poor? They use governmental services even more than the wealthy do, correct?

The wealthy did contribute, but the middle class invested in the institutions that the wealthy used to get rich.

And the wealthy use more governmental services than the poor. Example: Having 4 mansions requires more water than the poor. It requires more defense than the poor do whom have a shack. It requires more capital than the poor need by far. Which gives them more influence in government affairs, etc.

Except that the wealthy got their wealth by contributing to society. They did not steal it. LOL @ the wealthy using more governmental services than the poor...are you trolling? Ever heard of medicare, medicaid, welfare, or foodstamps? They probably consume more, but that's because they produce more as well.

The top 1% pays 37% of taxes, and the bottom 50% pays 2.25% of taxes (http://ntu.org...). Your argument followed to its full conclusion makes us tax the poor more, since they've contributed less net revenue but still utilize public utilities. your argument basically boils down to all wealth is owned by society since there is a backdrop of social conditions when it comes to acquiring any wealth. That belief is the cornerstone of Communism.

It isn't as if the wealthy didnt contribute vast amounts of the money to fund those things in the first place.

The rich already give enough. The top 10% make 36% of all charitable donations. Also, The top 10% of households pay 45% of all U.S. taxes, a higher tax burden on upper income earners than any other industrialized nation.

Now how about the economic effects? The President's new taxes could threaten to destroy up to 1.2 million jobs per year and would cost small businesses $74 billion annually. Americans making more than $150,000 spend an average of $125,000 per year – enough to support more than two middle-class jobs. Also, The top 5%, those making about $150,000 or more, account for 37% percent of all consumer spending, about as much as the bottom 80% put together. That would be a significant reduction in GDP and in money flowing in the economy.

Does it work? Despite marginal tax rates as high as 90% and as low as 28%, federal tax revenues have remained fairly constant around 18% of GDP.

As we can see, the Rich already give enough, and taxing them more would hurt the economy while not really fixing the deficit.

At 5/26/2012 10:04:53 AM, Contra wrote:
I strongly believe that taxes should be raised on the wealthy. I'm actually doing a debate on it right now.

But I believe it is called giving, because society helped the wealthy got rich from all of us. The average taxpayers paid for the internet, highways, roads, educational system, financial resources, judicial system, medical and scientific establishments, and our infrastructure, and the rich used it to become wealthy. All we ask is that they pay somewhat more, and are able to keep a good amount of it.

Forcibly taking money from someone is giving?

I was under the impression that giving was "Freely transfer the possession of (something) to (someone)."

You also make it seem like the wealthy, if they get their money from selling(let's say a product) are the only ones that benefit. Sadly, if you buy something from a wealthy person, you both benefit.

Besides, the top 1% pay 24% in taxes. The bottom 50% pay 1.85% in taxes. The rich are already taxed enough.

At 5/26/2012 10:24:59 AM, OberHerr wrote:
What I don't get, is why they think the wealthy should give a higher percentage of their income than everyone else.

The real question is:

Why they think the wealthy should give an even higher percentage of their income than they already do. The wealthy pay a tax rate that is 13 times greater than the bottom 50% of Americans.

At 5/26/2012 10:34:08 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:

At 5/26/2012 10:24:59 AM, OberHerr wrote:
What I don't get, is why they think the wealthy should give a higher percentage of their income than everyone else.

The real question is:

Why they think the wealthy should give an even higher percentage of their income than they already do. The wealthy pay a tax rate that is 13 times greater than the bottom 50% of Americans.

I didn't know the bottom 50% even paid taxes!

The wealthy are a sign of social degradation.

At 5/26/2012 10:37:54 AM, Lasagna wrote:
The wealthy are a sign of social degradation.

The poor are a sign of social degradation.

At 5/26/2012 10:34:59 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 5/26/2012 10:34:08 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:

At 5/26/2012 10:24:59 AM, OberHerr wrote:
What I don't get, is why they think the wealthy should give a higher percentage of their income than everyone else.

The real question is:

Why they think the wealthy should give an even higher percentage of their income than they already do. The wealthy pay a tax rate that is 13 times greater than the bottom 50% of Americans.

I didn't know the bottom 50% even paid taxes!

Yup, it's a true story. It includes people up to about 35,000. Almost any family in that range though will pay a negative rate due to earned income credit.

Bottom 50% actually contribute 2.2% of all federal tax revenues! Those dam rich people getting a free ride!!!

At 5/26/2012 10:37:54 AM, Lasagna wrote:
The wealthy are a sign of social degradation.

Your mom is a sign of social degradation. Aren't assertions fun?

At 5/26/2012 10:39:14 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:

At 5/26/2012 10:34:59 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:

At 5/26/2012 10:34:08 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:

At 5/26/2012 10:24:59 AM, OberHerr wrote:
What I don't get, is why they think the wealthy should give a higher percentage of their income than everyone else.

The real question is:

Why they think the wealthy should give an even higher percentage of their income than they already do. The wealthy pay a tax rate that is 13 times greater than the bottom 50% of Americans.

I didn't know the bottom 50% even paid taxes!

Yup, it's a true story. It includes people up to about 35,000. Almost any family in that range though will pay a negative rate due to earned income credit.

Bottom 50% actually contribute 2.2% of all federal tax revenues! Those dam rich people getting a free ride!!!

+1. That makes sense. Even at that rate, handouts to them exceed the tax rate.

At 5/26/2012 10:40:31 AM, thett3 wrote:

At 5/26/2012 10:37:54 AM, Lasagna wrote:
The wealthy are a sign of social degradation.

Your mom is a sign of social degradation. Aren't assertions fun?

+1.

At 5/26/2012 10:37:54 AM, Lasagna wrote:
The wealthy are a sign of social degradation.

People that live on federal cash assistance with federal food assistance in federal subsidized housing while doing nothing to improve their situation are THE sign of social degradation.

Some people honestly don't care about improving themselves.

What is so wrong with the rich that they don't deserve money?

I question the vengeful attitude of liberals. It sounds more like jealous policy to punish the rich just because they are rich. Yeah, when taxes are raised, they should mostly be raised on the rich, but tax raises and cuts should apply to everyone.

Taxing the rich for being rich isn't a good way to go about things IMO.

At 5/26/2012 10:04:53 AM, Contra wrote:
I strongly believe that taxes should be raised on the wealthy. I'm actually doing a debate on it right now.

But I believe it is called giving, because society helped the wealthy got rich from all of us. The average taxpayers paid for the internet, highways, roads, educational system, financial resources, judicial system, medical and scientific establishments, and our infrastructure, and the rich used it to become wealthy. All we ask is that they pay somewhat more, and are able to keep a good amount of it.

Ah the illusion that we all had a say in the government using extorted wealth to bring us all these nice things.

Soo, I was kind of hoping someone who supported the claim "tax cuts give money to the rich" would show up to advocate for their point of view so I could understand it better.

It doesn't really look like anyone here believes that, though.

At 5/26/2012 10:45:19 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
What is so wrong with the rich that they don't deserve money?

I question the vengeful attitude of liberals. It sounds more like jealous policy to punish the rich just because they are rich. Yeah, when taxes are raised, they should mostly be raised on the rich, but tax raises and cuts should apply to everyone.

Taxing the rich for being rich isn't a good way to go about things IMO.

Some of it is from jealousy, and some of it is from a sense of social justice. Basically, people think that if the rich don't give all of their money to the poor, then they don't deserve to be rich anyway. Besides, who needs $400 million? Never mind that the rich employ everyone in luxury industries.

I think the vast majority of anti-rich people are just jealous. To those people I say, come up with an idea for As-Seen-On-TV and you'll be one of them too. Heck, if you come up with the right idea you can find someone to finance or buy the idea from you and you don't have to do any work.

But, it's easier to complain than to change your future.

At 5/26/2012 10:53:16 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
Soo, I was kind of hoping someone who supported the claim "tax cuts give money to the rich" would show up to advocate for their point of view so I could understand it better.

It doesn't really look like anyone here believes that, though.

Go ask that question on Hubpages :P

At 5/26/2012 10:54:20 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Hubpages

What's that?

I understand though the liberal suspicion of the wealthy. I agree full well that the wealthy have a much larger say in political affairs than the poor and that many (if not the majority) of the wealthiest Americans got so through some sort of government assistance (subsidies, tariffs, regulations, patents, etc.). I don't think though that this requires government assistance to correct. Just stop supporting the rich through governmental favouritism.

We know through public choice that any large scale democracy will have special interests having more power over the rationally ignorant voter (put simply, politicians have incentive to use special interest money and influence to stay in power, special interests spend little money compared to the relative pay off of subsidies, patents and other corporate strongholds given by the government, and citizens are rationally ignorant of politics for the most part due to the surprisingly little effect that anything they do will effect change like voting or campaigning). Also, having a large amount of wealth and capital makes one much more likely to be invested in using the government to attain more or protect that wealth. Large scale democracies = oligarchies controlled by the wealthy.

This is why I get annoyed at liberals who support more government to control corporations when it's government itself who props them up to begin with. But since conservatives are more recognizable when they support an institution which helps the wealthy attain social control, people are left thinking liberals MUST have it right because they're against conservatives. Both systems though are a part of the problem. Protect the poor and let the free market eat the rich (can't for the life of me remember who said that).

At 5/26/2012 10:53:16 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
Soo, I was kind of hoping someone who supported the claim "tax cuts give money to the rich" would show up to advocate for their point of view so I could understand it better.

It doesn't really look like anyone here believes that, though.

Because it's obviously false. It's just rhetoric.

I believe in no taxes whatsoever.

At 5/26/2012 10:59:34 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:

At 5/26/2012 10:54:20 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Hubpages

What's that?

hubpages.com/forum/

It's a site for publishing articles, but it has a lot of really stupid liberal people active in the politics forum. The kind where you can say the sky is blue, show them a picture, and they'll say 'No it's not, that's just right-wing conspiracy propoganda and it's Bush's fault'.