Do the rich really pay their fair share of taxes?

[landrun]

My fellow conservatives argue that the rich pay more than their fair share.
The upper 1% pay 40% of all taxes.
The upper 10% pay over 60% of all taxes. etc...

But to me that is irrelevant if they maintain 75% of all the wealth in the country.

So I'd like to find out just how much of the wealth in this country is controlled by the upper 1% and the upper 10%. How do your (or can you) get these numbers?

[picasso]

Not all of it is our money. They actually earned or inherited it.

keep your grubby hands off what isn't yours.

[badger]

I agree with the earning part, disagree with the inheritance part.

If they were born on third, I think Barry Switzer would agree that it's time to tag 'em out if they try to steal home plate :D

[King Crimson]

trickle-down economics is good for everyone. and the Outfield are an awesome rock band.

[MrJimBeam]

I agree with the earning part, disagree with the inheritance part.

If they were born on third, I think Barry Switzer would agree that it's time to tag 'em out if they try to steal home plate :D

What if they inherited a home or land or a family business?

[Fraggle145]

Not all of it is our money. They actually earned or inherited it.

keep your grubby hands off what isn't yours.

But how much more of what actually is ours do they use than the rest of us?

[picasso]

I agree with the earning part, disagree with the inheritance part.

If they were born on third, I think Barry Switzer would agree that it's time to tag 'em out if they try to steal home plate :D

so the government should get the largest part of one's inheritance? That's ludicrous.

And trickle down works in my world. Ain't no poor folks out there buying art.:)

[picasso]

But how much more of what actually is ours do they use than the rest of us?

so the gubment should be telling how to use it too? I'll pass Jerry.

[JohnnyMack]

In 1961 my father stepped off a bus from Hartshorne, OK and onto the streets of Tulsa. Having been raised in a small, stone house on the edge of town by a working class family he had next to nothing in terms of resources. He came to Tulsa with literally only a suitcase. He attended TU and worked a full time job. He got his law degree and spent the next 40 years working his way up the prosecutorial ladder, finally settling into a Federal Judgeship in Dallas before he retired. He came from almost nothing, but never reached his hand out and asked for his government to pay his way. Clearly he had certain advantages being born both male and white, but having spent time with my father visiting some of his old friends who still reside down in Hartshorne it's quite evident that some people simply don't have the enthusiasm or "want-to" that others do for work. My dad isn't rich, but the distance he's traveled from being a poor kid from a small Oklahoma town to where he is now is a testament to the positive rewards of hard work. His socio-economic evolution is something that many people who enjoy sitting on their *** waiting for the man to help them out could learn from, instead of crying about the inequity of wealth and the oppression of the poor.

[badger]

What if they inherited a home or land or a family business?

This was a debate that a certain Wisconsin senator tried to put to rest, that inheritance taxes would only be for estates above $100 million. No family home or family farm is (probably??) worth that much. If it's more than $100 mil, it's probably a "born on third base" situation.

If the person up for an inheritance truly earned that big of a sum through the family business, then that would fall under "they earned it," not "they inherited it." Paris Hilton's granddaddy got to keep the Hilton hotels for that reason, despite the fact that his dad willed it to the Catholic Church... he had worked at building up the Hilton line along with his dad, so he earned the right to keep the hotels after his father died... it wasn't just being handed to him.

See the difference?

[My Opinion Matters]

R. Kelly advocates the theory of trickle-down. That's all the endorsement I need.

[batonrougesooner]

This was a debate that a certain Wisconsin senator tried to put to rest, that inheritance taxes would only be for estates above $100 million. No family home or family farm is (probably??) worth that much. If it's more than $100 mil, it's probably a "born on third base" situation.

If the person up for an inheritance truly earned that big of a sum through the family business, then that would fall under "they earned it," not "they inherited it." Paris Hilton's granddaddy got to keep the Hilton hotels for that reason, despite the fact that his dad willed it to the Catholic Church... he had worked at building up the Hilton line along with his dad, so he earned the right to keep the hotels after his father died... it wasn't just being handed to him.

See the difference?

No. What gives the government and as an extention "the people" a right to those assets anymore than the person's family?

[badger]

As much right as the government has to tax us at all, I guess.

This issue's not really worth arguing over, because I don't see the inheritance tax changing anytime soon. All I know is my taxes are probably going to go up during the next several years and I don't expect any sizable inheritance ever :D

[NormanPride]

Damn. :(

[badger]

Damn. :(

:P

I'm not trying to argue with you all, just giving MHO... and I know that most of you won't agree, so I'll quit.

[walkoffsooner]

In 1961 my father stepped off a bus from Hartshorne, OK and onto the streets of Tulsa. Having been raised in a small, stone house on the edge of town by a working class family he had next to nothing in terms of resources. He came to Tulsa with literally only a suitcase. He attended TU and worked a full time job. He got his law degree and spent the next 40 years working his way up the prosecutorial ladder, finally settling into a Federal Judgeship in Dallas before he retired. He came from almost nothing, but never reached his hand out and asked for his government to pay his way. Clearly he had certain advantages being born both male and white, but having spent time with my father visiting some of his old friends who still reside down in Hartshorne it's quite evident that some people simply don't have the enthusiasm or "want-to" that others do for work. My dad isn't rich, but the distance he's traveled from being a poor kid from a small Oklahoma town to where he is now is a testament to the positive rewards of hard work. His socio-economic evolution is something that many people who enjoy sitting on their *** waiting for the man to help them out could learn from, instead of crying about the inequity of wealth and the oppression of the poor.
Vietnam would have slowed him down

[mdklatt]

...finally settling into a Federal Judgeship in Dallas before he retired. He came from almost nothing, but never reached his hand out and asked for his government to pay his way

Point of order....

:D

[mdklatt]

Not all of it is our money. They actually earned or inherited it.

keep your grubby hands off what isn't yours.

If they went to public school at least a little bit of it is ours, right? Or if they employ people who went to public schools. Or sell stuff to people who have jobs and money to spend because they went to public school. Or if they rely on highways, airports, or waterways. Or take advantage of the various federal, state, and local laws that protect private property and business rights. And the court system that enforces those laws. And so on and so forth. Nobody in this country is a self-made man unless they live in a cave and eat off the land (assuming that land isn't owned by somebody else).

In short, the Tea Bagger crowd needs to quit their ****ing whining about supporting a society that benefits them just as much as anybody else even if they're too selfish and/or ignorant to realize it.

[Harry Beanbag]

If they went to public school at least a little bit of it is ours, right? Or if they employ people who went to public schools. Or sell stuff to people who have jobs and money to spend because they went to public school. Or if they rely on highways, airports, or waterways. Or take advantage of the various federal, state, and local laws that protect private property and business rights. And the court system that enforces those laws. And so on and so forth. Nobody in this country is a self-made man unless they live in a cave and eat off the land (assuming that land isn't owned by somebody else).

In short, the Tea Bagger crowd needs to quit their ****ing whining about supporting a society that benefits them just as much as anybody else even if they're too selfish and/or ignorant to realize it.

Ah, the King of Minutia is back. This argument that you continually beat into the ground is weak, tired, and quite frankly...stupid.

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/icons/kerry.gifOMG, rich people use roads and go to school, they must pay!!!!111!!!1!

[landrun]

Not all of it is our money. They actually earned or inherited it.

keep your grubby hands off what isn't yours.

Fair enough.

But back to my original question which has been avoided. :)

What percent of the GDP then, or whatever measure you can fairly use, is in the hands of the upper 1% and 10%??

Can this be measured?

[NormanPride]

If rich people will help reduce the size of government, then they can pocket the reduction in overhead. How's that? Every penny.

[SoonerStormchaser]

His socio-economic evolution is something that many people who enjoy sitting on their *** waiting for the man to help them out could learn from, instead of crying about the inequity of wealth and the oppression of the poor.

But Johnny, the problem is that an overwhelming majority of those people who are lazy ****s awaiting their govt handouts are the Democrats bread and butter electorate...

[soonerscuba]

But Johnny, the problem is that an overwhelming majority of those people who are lazy ****s awaiting their govt handouts are the Democrats bread and butter electorate...The idea that 6% of the population of which it's likely a fraction vote is going to swing the outcome of national elections is absurd. While it's funny to create a welfare boogeyman, the facts don't bear out.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

[Fraggle145]

so the gubment should be telling how to use it too? I'll pass Jerry.

umm no not what I said at all.

All I was saying is that if you use more common goods and services you should pay an equitable amount to the common goods and services that you use.

[85Sooner]

My fellow conservatives argue that the rich pay more than their fair share.
The upper 1% pay 40% of all taxes.
The upper 10% pay over 60% of all taxes. etc...

But to me that is irrelevant if they maintain 75% of all the wealth in the country.

So I'd like to find out just how much of the wealth in this country is controlled by the upper 1% and the upper 10%. How do your (or can you) get these numbers?

Your premise requires that there be a finite amount of wealth to be divided up. Wealth is dynamic and based on production.

The problem is as the workers in this country work harder, the government keeps taking and taking and taking. Taking from the producers and giving to the non producers. Thus, if you can get by being a non producer, you will continue to see more non producers who at a point will outnumber the producers (where we are at about now.) Once this happens, the non producers are bought by the politicians because they have free reign to take from the workers and it goes downhill from there until..... Atlas Shrugged.

[85Sooner]

The idea that 6% of the population of which it's likely a fraction vote is going to swing the outcome of national elections is absurd. While it's funny to create a welfare boogeyman, the facts don't bear out.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

Hmmmmm Seems Whitey is in trouble.

[NormanPride]

Your premise requires that there be a finite amount of wealth to be divided up. Wealth is dynamic and based on production.

I'm not sure I understand this. There IS a finite amount of wealth. It changes over time, but at any one point in time there is a determined amount. That's what we're talking about here.

[JohnnyMack]

I'm not sure I understand this. There IS a finite amount of wealth. It changes over time, but at any one point in time there is a determined amount. That's what we're talking about here.

Tim Geithner disagrees with you.

[OklahomaTuba]

I just cannot imagine anyone trying to raise taxes in the middle of an economic collapse. Its one of the contributing factors that turned a recession into great depression.

If anything, Obama should use his super majorities to re-make our tax system from one that taxes hard work & investment to one that taxes consumption.

[Boomer Mooner]

My fellow conservatives argue that the rich pay more than their fair share.
The upper 1% pay 40% of all taxes.
The upper 10% pay over 60% of all taxes. etc...

But to me that is irrelevant if they maintain 75% of all the wealth in the country.

So I'd like to find out just how much of the wealth in this country is controlled by the upper 1% and the upper 10%. How do your (or can you) get these numbers?

Why would it be irrelevant if they maintain 75% of the wealth? Are you saying people should be taxed based on their present worth instead of taxing the income they make each year? So if a guy makes a million bucks and keeps $600k after taxes, and then the next year he spends $100k but doesn't make any money, then he should be taxed more because he still has $500k of accumulated wealth?

[JohnnyMack]

Vietnam would have slowed him down

Oh he was drafted into the army and spent his time at scofield barracks over in Hawaii.

[OklahomaTuba]

Why would it be irrelevant if they maintain 75% of the wealth? Are you saying people should be taxed based on their present worth instead of taxing the income they make each year? So if a guy makes a million bucks and keeps $600k after taxes, and then the next year he spends $100k but doesn't make any money, then he should be taxed more because he still has $500k of accumulated wealth?But the government knows how to spend people's money better than we do.

See cash for clunkers and porkulus.

[soonerscuba]

I think one of the worst aspects of the Obama administration is the yokels that pretend to have a grasp of objectivism.

[JohnnyMack]

I think one of the worst aspects of politics in America is that anyone pretends to have a grasp of objectivism.

Fixed.

[badger]

Fixed.

If only I could fix your avatar :mad:

;)

:mad: Seriously though, she is scary looking. Remove her, plzkthx

[Boomer Mooner]

If only I could fix your avatar :mad:

;)

:mad: Seriously though, she is scary looking. Remove her, plzkthx

Finally, something we can all agree on.

[KABOOKIE]

Ah, the King of Minutia is back. This argument that you continually beat into the ground is weak, tired, and quite frankly...stupid.

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/icons/kerry.gifOMG, rich people use roads and go to school, they must pay!!!!111!!!1!

What about the person that went to public schools and who uses roads to go to work for the government? By this logic shouldn't 100% of their pay go to taxes?

[Harry Beanbag]

What about the person that went to public schools and who uses roads to go to work for the government? By this logic shouldn't 100% of their pay go to taxes?

I don't know, ask mdklatt. :)

[OklahomaTuba]

Or what about the national oil companies of other countries that aren't the united states who use billions of our tax dollars, err, IOUs to drill for their own oil and not ours. Shouldn't they pay as well???

[Johnny Utah]

If rich people will help reduce the size of government, then they can pocket the reduction in overhead. How's that? Every penny.

Great idea ... OU education?

[mdklatt]

Ah, the King of Minutia is back. This argument that you continually beat into the ground is weak, tired, and quite frankly...stupid.


How's it hanging, Earl of Empty Response?

[mdklatt]

What about the person that went to public schools and who uses roads to go to work for the government? By this logic shouldn't 100% of their pay go to taxes?

All I'm saying is that nobody gets wealthy in a vacuum. Every dollar you earn would not be possible without the backbone of infrastructure, judicial systems, and just about everything else that makes up society. So, it's not out of the realm of possibility that just maybe your benefit from society isn't in a linear relationship with how much money you make. That's been the rationale behind our progressive tax structure since the beginning.

Trickle down economics is a pipe dream, and the Laffer curve is a purely theoretical construct because nobody can quantify the tangent point at which revenues start to decrease. And that point is so variable based on a billion other tangible and intangible variables in the economy that it's pointless to try.

[KABOOKIE]

All I'm saying is that nobody gets wealthy in a vacuum. Every dollar you earn would not be possible without the backbone of infrastructure, judicial systems, and just about everything else that makes up society. So, it's not out of the realm of possibility that just maybe your benefit from society isn't in a linear relationship with how much money you make. That's been the rationale behind our progressive tax structure since the beginning.

Trickle down economics is a pipe dream, and the Laffer curve is a purely theoretical construct because nobody can quantify the tangent point at which revenues start to decrease. And that point is so variable based on a billion other tangible and intangible variables in the economy that it's pointless to try.


So in short, yes rich people and companies pay their fair share of taxes.

[mdklatt]

So in short, yes rich people and companies pay their fair share of taxes.

So they paid more than there fair share of taxes under Reagan?

[KABOOKIE]

Yep.

[Veritas]

Ya know, sometimes I want to respond in a thread, but then I read through the posts and realize that folk's perspectives are so hopelessly skewed that my time would be better spent on my to-this-point unsuccessful quest to convince my wife to do anal.

[KABOOKIE]

So you're saying your wife doesn't pay her fair share?

[landrun]

Your premise requires that there be a finite amount of wealth to be divided up. Wealth is dynamic and based on production.


No I understand what you're saying, the economy is dynamic.

But What NormaPride is saying makes my point. At any one time (let's say monthly) you can take a snapshot of the economy. It grows/shrinks in proportion to what it was last month. But at that point, you can take a measurement.

When you take this measurement (base on what I don't know. The GDP or something) what percentage of the wealth at that point is controlled by the upper 1% and 10%?

And Boomer Mooner is right it his analysis of what I'm was suggesting - which would be wrong. So let's say we don't measure the collective amount of wealth in the whole economy. Let's only measure the change that occurred in that month.

So, let's say the economy is a pie.
Bill Gates would control a large piece of the pie that was generated this month than any of us. Maybe, all of us combined.

Can anyone determine what size of the pie (GDP or whatever is the best thing to measure that period) he has as compared to us?

If he pays 75% of the taxes, does he get 75% of the pie that month? Or would he get like 95%? In which case, I would argue that he's not paying his fair share. If his piece is only 50% and he's paying 75% of the taxes, I'd say he's paying more than his fair share.

I'm beginning to guess there's no real way to determine this? :pop:

[MrJimBeam]

If they went to public school at least a little bit of it is ours, right?

If an American went to public school and still got rich it was despite public education, not because of it.

[Boomer Mooner]

Ya know, sometimes I want to respond in a thread, but then I read through the posts and realize that folk's perspectives are so hopelessly skewed that my time would be better spent on my to-this-point unsuccessful quest to convince my wife to do anal.

This is my favorite post on this thread.

[JohnnyMack]

Ya know, sometimes I want to respond in a thread, but then I read through the posts and realize that folk's perspectives are so hopelessly skewed that my time would be better spent on my to-this-point unsuccessful quest to convince my wife to do anal.

Try breaking her in with The Shocker.

[NormanPride]

Try breaking her in with The Shocker.

Or you could just "miss"... Though this seems like a bad idea.

[mdklatt]

If an American went to public school and still got rich it was despite public education, not because of it.

So where'd you go to school, smart guy?

[Harry Beanbag]

How's it hanging, Earl of Empty Response?

Earl is a cool name, I like it. :)

[mdklatt]

Earl is a cool name, I like it. :)

I was going for alliteration.

[NormanPride]

Alliteration isn't a very cool name, though.

[Harry Beanbag]

No, not at all. Earl is much better.

[mdklatt]

Alliteration isn't a very cool name, though.

Actually, it's not even good alliteration now that I think about it because the sounds aren't very similar.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Exodus 20:17
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

Interpretation - Mind your own business and don't worry about what other people have versus what you have.

[JohnnyMack]

Exodus 20:17
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

Interpretation - Mind your own business and don't worry about what other people have versus what you have.

Careful, when you start introducing concepts like "covet" and "donkey" into a thread that already contains the words "anal" you're gonna get Harry all excited.

[mdklatt]

Exodus 20:17
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

Interpretation - Mind your own business and don't worry about what other people have versus what you have.

That's fine and dandy in Randian fanboy dreamworld, but real life is not that simple. What you have is to a large degree thanks to society at large.

[Veritas]

That's fine and dandy in Randian fanboy dreamworld, but real life is not that simple. What you have is to a large degree thanks to society at large.
Yeah, that and not buying homes and cars on credit, saving money, accommodating the risk of failure, and 80+ hour workweeks.

I like you mdk, but you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

[Harry Beanbag]

Careful, when you start introducing concepts like "covet" and "donkey" into a thread that already contains the words "anal" you're gonna get Harry all excited.

Too late. :hot:

[Boomer Mooner]

Yeah, that and not buying homes and cars on credit, saving money, accommodating the risk of failure, and 80+ hour workweeks.

I like you mdk, but you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Another freakin' Bingo for Veritas!

What a lot of people don't seem to get is the playing field is already pretty damn level and you shouldn't be punished for being successful. This country has prospered on the backs of people that have worked their asses off to get ahead, because you can get ahead in America by working your *** off.

Taking from the rich to give to the poor is often the same as taking from the responsible hard workers and give to the lazy ****ers.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

If they went to public school at least a little bit of it is ours, right? Or if they employ people who went to public schools. Or sell stuff to people who have jobs and money to spend because they went to public school. Or if they rely on highways, airports, or waterways. Or take advantage of the various federal, state, and local laws that protect private property and business rights. And the court system that enforces those laws. And so on and so forth. Nobody in this country is a self-made man unless they live in a cave and eat off the land (assuming that land isn't owned by somebody else).

In short, the Tea Bagger crowd needs to quit their ****ing whining about supporting a society that benefits them just as much as anybody else even if they're too selfish and/or ignorant to realize it.

So what about the poor people that use the roads and pay no taxes? Are they not chipping in their fair share?

[MrJimBeam]

So where'd you go to school, smart guy?

I earned a 2.7 GPA at Government High School.

[Taxman71]

So what about the poor people that use the roads and pay no taxes? Are they not chipping in their fair share?

Assuming they buy gasoline and a car tag, they are paying for some of the road, but there is always a bit of inequality in every tax system.

[picasso]

In short, the Tea Bagger crowd needs to quit their ****ing whining about supporting a society that benefits them just as much as anybody else even if they're too selfish and/or ignorant to realize it.

:rolleyes:


I support society just fine thanks. I also give money and time to charity work.

I'm not rich by any means but I have the potential to be. So in turn I don't want to punish those who are and are successful at what they do.

If you want to spread the wealth then fine. No whining needed.

[picasso]

All I'm saying is that nobody gets wealthy in a vacuum. Every dollar you earn would not be possible without the backbone of infrastructure, judicial systems, and just about everything else that makes up society. So, it's not out of the realm of possibility that just maybe your benefit from society isn't in a linear relationship with how much money you make. That's been the rationale behind our progressive tax structure since the beginning.

Trickle down economics is a pipe dream, and the Laffer curve is a purely theoretical construct because nobody can quantify the tangent point at which revenues start to decrease. And that point is so variable based on a billion other tangible and intangible variables in the economy that it's pointless to try.
wealthy small businessmen employ most of the people in the area where I'm from. Tax them more and those jobs will dry up. That's no pipe dream.

Try moving up the tax bracket and see just how much you'll be paying.:)