Do you think the rich should pay more in taxes?

This has been a big debate in the debt situation and now with Warren Buffet coming out and saying the rich should be taxed more. Keep in mind he's one of the richest people in the country. Democrats want to close tax loopholes, so rich people and companies pay what they technically should in taxes, and Republicans say no way.

Personally, I think closing tax loopholes is the right thing to do. You have a $75 billion company like Bank of America that hasn't paid taxes, yet have people in the working class who pay 30% in taxes. Does that seem right?

And as for the argument that lower taxes = more growth, that's pretty much false. The past decade, we've had the lowest taxes in a long time, yet a stalling economy outside of the housing bubble. Yet, in the late 1970's - 1980's, taxes were high, yet the economy was booming. At worst case, there doesn't seem to be much of a correlation between taxes and growth.

  • Yes, I think they should.
    64% (7)57% (12)59% (19)Vote
  • No, I do not think they should.
    27% (3)33% (7)31% (10)Vote
  • Just want to see results, or other
    9% (1)10% (2)10% (3)Vote
And you are? I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|0
8|18

Most Helpful Girl

  • Here's my opinion and what is the centralized issue in my mind...You can raise taxes for the rich and make companies accountable for paying their taxes. This DOESN'T resolve the issue at hand of frivolous government spending on things like wars in countries where we don't belong, chartering a goddamn jet so the senator can get home earlier etc. You need to totally revamp the foreign policies we have that are outdated from WWI. In addition, there needs to be accountability for fruitful spending. Until that is done, we will be faced with another deficit or financial crisis.

    5|6
    0|0
    • Well the thing is, we're sort of in a bind Based on the 2010 budget, if we cut everything except medicare, medicaid, & social security, that's already 1.8 trillion of 2.3 trillion in revenue. So then you only have 500 billion to work with. Could potentially work, but that would put A TON of people out of work, and could make things worse, unless done over the long term (like a decade).

    • Show All
    • Very well said!

    • Second best answer. Even taking most of the money away from all the rich people in this country will not be enough to cover the deficit. Out of control spending has to stop.

What Girls Said 7

  • The problem is that a lot of wealthy companies aren't even paying the taxes they owe. The govt keeps giving them massive tax breaks for basically no reason over and over again under every administration. If super rich people just paid the basic taxes they owe, things would be a lot better.

    We don't need to overtax the rich or keep increasing taxes on them, we just need to have them actually PAY their taxes instead of the govt giving them all these freebees and handouts all the time, while making things crappier and crappier for the poor.

    1|3
    0|0
  • Of course not, they worked hard to get were they are today.

    Why should they be punished for that.

    2|7
    3|3
    • Not necessarily. Some people are born into it. And just because someone makes less money doesn't mean they don't work just as hard. It hurts people who don't make much money a lot more to pay taxes than it does someone who's very wealthy.

    • its not being punished its ensuring the society that allows you to work hard and get ahead is still there for other people, you are looking at the situations backasswards

  • "Personally, I think closing tax loopholes is the right thing to do. You have a $75 billion company like Bank of America that hasn't paid taxes, yet have people in the working class who pay 30% in taxes. Does that seem right?"

    I completely agree. Like I said in a comment, it hurts people who don't make much money a lot more to pay taxes than it does someone who's very wealthy. You need money to make money, so when you're not making much to begin with it's hard to get ahead. And paying a lot of taxes makes it that much harder. The people who are rich are already ahead, so they don't have to worry about that.

    1|0
    0|0
    • so they should be punished because there ahead? to make it easier for others to be wealthy, so basically a forced charity?

    • I quote Dudeman: "its not being punished its ensuring the society that allows you to work hard and get ahead is still there for other people, you are looking at the situations backasswards"

  • "People try to live within their income so they can afford to pay taxes to a government that can't live within its income." ~Robert Half

    "There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him" ~Robert A. Heinlein

    "We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle" ~Winston Churchill

    0|0
    0|0
  • Lol, French Revolution all over again.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I kinda think they should pay more

    0|1
    2|2

What Guys Said 18

  • i always beleived that just because some people became very successufl that they shouldn't be "punished" almost by raising taxes...

    BUT

    i recently read an article about buffets idea behidn this...i mean the dude has a point...if you're making BILLIONS of $'s a year...what the hell is another 10million that we could potentially (IF DONE CORRECTLY) put towards the trillion$ deficite...everyone says WAHHHH 10 million is NOHTING compared to 1.4 trillion...yeah OK, but its a start right?

    buffett paid almost 7million in taxes last year and as he said it seems like a lot but to him it was only 17%...i mean come onnn, I make 40k a year and I see like half my money...

    1|1
    0|1
    • but do you think those rich people are really going to take a 10 million budget cut? don't you think they will merely make their employees pay for it through budget cuts...

    • Show All
    • Some might argue it's the principle of theaters. "why should the government take MY money, no matter how much I have?"

    • amen to that

  • In England that's how it works. Here people with lesser paid jobs pay around 20% (plus national insurance) and then the more you earn, the different threshhold you'll be put into. People who earn a ceratin amout (about 200.000 Per annum I think) have to pay super tax... 50% of your wage goes to the government, 50%! It's fair but I can see why some people will be pissed off. Some football players here earn between 100,000 - 200,000+ a week... they only see half of that money

    The pros of this are we get FREE HEALTHCARE, FREE SECONDARY EDUCATION and loans towards our degrees which only have to be paid back when you earn a decent amount (ie you earn the amount of money you got yoiur degree for in the first place, proffesional job, well paid etc)

    0|2
    0|1
  • I think we should be more aware of what our government spends the money on.

    I do like the limit of secret service protection of former politicians being 10 years. I feel we should ratchet back the protection for those who's time limit has gone beyond the 10 years.

    Money set aside to clean up the environment should have an investigation into what contributed to that and have those businesses pay fines. Some might say that this would encourage businesses to move to foreign countries if they feel that the fines would hurt the bottom line. Those governments should penalize those businesses as well but I doubt they would if they are faced with closing the plant and having unemployed workers.

    Invest more money into education and technologies. There is no reason why the U.S. can't be as technological as Japan.

    Close some of those overseas operation bases for the military and let someone else play big brother for awhile. Even if that force is NATO, so be it. That should cut the defense budget without reducing the amount of troops we have. We could set up a 'timeshare' style program where countries can visit and train in other countries and then hop to the next one.

    There should be a way to see the book for the government when we want. After all it should be a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

    3|0
    0|0
  • No. I'm not rich, but I still choose: No. Just because a person is smarter, and works harder to earn big money, does not make it fair for the government or whoever to take away more money that he earned, and less money from someone who is dumb, and lazy.

    1|1
    0|1
    • you only make more money because there are people bellow you, without those dumb people you wouldn't make so much

    • Show All
    • and firefighters make sh*t cash

    • "working hard" to get to the position where you earn a lot.

  • Short answer, yes, people who are wealthy should pay a higher tax rate than people who are less wealthy.

    But before I get into that, let me correct a couple misconceptions you seem to have.

    First of all, nobody likes tax loopholes, this whole "democrats say this and republicans say that" crap is one of the biggest problems with our county. Stop aligning yourself with a political ideology and learn to think for yourself. Tax loopholes come in two varieties.One is foreign tax shelters, which are difficult to deal with, but one of the ways to do so is to ensure that the taxes in our country are not so absurd as to make businesses go through this extra step. The other tax loophole comes from our nations tax codes. Which is, to put it simply, a godawful mess.

    Our nation's tax code is a staggering 72,000 pages long. Mind you, that is just federal tax, this isn't even looking at state taxes. One of the reasons is it so absurdly long is because congress keeps passing bills that ESTABLISH tax loopholes (did you think they just spontaneously appear?) Now, at the time these bills are passed, the loopholes SOUND good on paper. Tax breaks for businesses that hire minorities, tax breaks for businesses that rely on green energy, tax breaks for businesses that produce certain goods. But all these good intentions just get buried in 72,000 pages of jargon and the only business that can benefit from them are the huge corporations that can afford to hire an army of tax lawyers.

    Simply put, our system is rigged against the little guy and the individual, and the underlying problem is excessive government regulation from BOTH sides of the aisle. The solution is not MORE government regulation, but rather, a systematic dismantling of our entire tax code, replacing it with a very simplified version individuals can understand.

    Second, I'm pretty sure I remember reading that Bank of America had some serious negative profits for the year. No income generally means no income tax.

    Third, lower taxes DO cause more growth. This is an undisputed economic fact. Incidentally government spending also causes economic growth, often times even more than tax cuts. The problem is that these two growth mechanisms are mutually exclusive, you can't keep doing one, without doing the complete opposite of the other. If you are going to increase spending to grow the economy, as some point you need to increase taxes, which shrinks it, and if you are going to cut taxes to increase the economy, as some point you need cut the deficit, which shrinks the economy.

    Now that we have that cleared up, yes, rich people should pay a greater percentage than poor people, but everyone should pay SOME taxes, and there should always be an incentive to be successful. This isn't to punish the rich, but to give the poor a chance to improve their situation.

    0|0
    1|0
  • It`s the old fairy tale of the rich people and their state: higher taxes kill the economical growth. The reason for this is very simple. They all want to save their purse, so they can make bigger profits.

    Only a very stupid person don`t see such. All they others are swindler or other rascals else.

    In the times of the economic boom, all capitalistic countries have higher taxes than it the time of a baisse.

    It`s the tendencial fall of the profitrate, (yield) what make the decison of lower taxes in all western countries. The mass of the profits on the contrary is growing more and more, but this is not the orientation of the capital.owners.

    Read Marx volume III, chapter 23, then you will understand what I mean with tendencial fall of the profitrate. But one "thing" I will tell. The technical revolution let fall the profits.

    the bourgeois states work against the falling profit.rate by pushing sdown the taxes for firms and more or less by the rich people. But the last means not so much like lower taxes by firms.

    Also the social expenses get shorten in all western countries by the same reason.

    the capital demand such. The other reaction of the falling profit.rates is a flowing in a fictitious capital, which has no cover, no fundament. So the bubbles come again and again. And every bubble get worse.

    All western countries get more and more deindustrialized, so China is one such countries who get more and more industrialized in a stormy kind.

    0|0
    0|2
  • Closing tax loopholes is not the same as raising taxes for the rich. I think that loopholes should be closed so that the rich pay the amount that they would have otherwise, but after that issue is resolved, taxes shouldn't be increased further. If the only way to support our economy is by taking ridiculous amounts of money from the rich, or borrowing money that we can't afford to pay back, then something is seriously wrong with the way our country operates.

    0|0
    0|0
  • What is rich?

    How much should they pay?

    I could never agree to anything like this unless you put down specifics. Next year, they'll be asking for more and probably from people who make just a little less. Governments are always grabbing for more it seems.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Of course they should, they currently pay about 15% of their income in taxes, the poorer pay about 35% or more. Hell, even a lot of the mega rich (for example Warren Buffet) wonders why it is that he pays, proportionally, less than his secretary who makes considerably less.

    But ya, I agree we need to first close the loop holes.

    And yes lower taxes = more growth is VERY false. In fact, our largest growth has been during higher taxes. But thanks to Reaganomics (Reagan is the worst President ever...) and those who inherited that mentality (every Republican to date basically) our country is in the sh*tter. Thanks Reagan!

    0|1
    0|0
  • I personally believe in the "invisible hand of the market" and are taxes are low no? taxes are up to 40% of a persons income that's sh*t, lol I don't think we should have a graduated income because in my mind it discourages success...

    0|0
    0|1
    • Show All
    • Although I don't really like the wars myself and believe the US should pull out as fast as possible, if they pull out to fast they risk Afghanistan returning to how it was in the past. And that would be all those trillions of dollars spent for nothing. In Iraq the pull out has begun and it should be finished as fast as possible, that place can do well on it's own any way.

    • Qaddafi is a special case. The Libyans and Middle Easterners around here supported the aerial intervention. I don't agree with the way the US went in there legally in itself, but I agree with it's aim and so did many other nations apparently. The US was involved in that aerial war for about 2 months. All the planes flying sorties there are now mostly European and some Middle Eastern.

  • This is a highly controversial argument in many countries and with many economists.

    I believe, the answer depends on what the rich person does.

    1|2
    0|1
  • The blue violist workers work there ass off and don't get paid as much. I think. They should raise the taxes. I don't think they should raise them too much. But raising taxes on the lower-middle and lower class is like eating a dead horse. These people are already living paycheck to paycheck. It's not like it will hurt the upper class that bad. Sorry instead of getting that 300,000 dollar car you have to get a 175,000 dollar one. Lol. I don't think they should be punished but raising it a little bit is not bad.

    0|0
    0|0
    • is that fair though? I mean I know the whole robin hood ideal seems nice but isn't stealing still stealing? or is it OK because they got enough so they should be forced to be charitable?

    • Show All
    • Eating=beating.

      I don't think they need to be charitable. They make more money so they should put in more back into the economy.

    • @dudeman I'm glad I'm not as well because then id be accused of being a thief =P

      @baxicano I understand that, I meant they are forced to help others out by giving more money, like how people get helped when you pay a charity

      obvoiusly rich should pay more (but I'm talking a flat tax, as opposed to a graduated tax)

  • They should pay higher taxes, but not so high that they don't gain anything from being rich.

    1|3
    1|1
  • of course they should, progressive taxes have proven to work while flat and regressive taxes cripple a society, this has been shown and proven, it shouldn't even be a debate honestly its like asking if slavery is morally right

    0|0
    1|4
    • not really, but may I ask in what society it has been proven? I would just like to to see this

    • Show All
    • common sense if for little things, like don't touch hot metal, wear shoes in the summer because the pavement is hot, don put a fish tank above a 5000 dollar flat screen, don't spank other kids children, don't bring a knife to a gun fight,

    • ok so disregard common sense when talking politics.. point taken

  • How rich are we talking about? Someone who makes $100,000 a year after taxes worke hard to get to that position. It's unfair to take this persons money just as it is unfair to people who use food stamps. I think you should be taxed more if your salary is ridiculously large. Its still unfair in my opinion.

    I'm currently in one of the toughest college programs (6 years long) so that I can earn over $100k a year. It's completely unfair to tax me. It's not like I make millions of dollars. Athletes and a list actors should be taxed instead of me.

    0|1
    0|1
  • Everyone should pay taxes that's the bottom line. Now if you make more money than others that doesn't mean that you should have to more than what you owe, let's just say someone rich owes like $20,000 in taxes why should you tax them more just because they make more money?

    I have a job I get taxed and I pay my taxes, there are people out there who don't have jobs, and won't get a job and mine and your tax dollars are paying for them to have a free ride. So why should someone get taxed more so the people who don't do a thing get more money?

    The real problem is that people are abusing the welfare system, they have more kids so they get more money, and they are supposed to be using that money to for their kids, and that doesn't happen now does it. I have witnessed this, some of those people who are on welfare, have better appliances, tvs, and entertainment devices then the working person. Example I don't how someone on welfare can afford a 60 inch flat screen led tv, but they do.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Although I think loopholes should be tightened, I don't think people should be taxed more based on the amount of money they make. Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income, property, etc. Every household should be treated individually and not be subjected to tax brackets. I don't know. Maybe I'm naive. This just seems like the fairest way to go about it to me.

    0|0
    0|0
  • If you are rich then you should pay more taxes else not .LOL

    0|0
    1|1
    • No point diagreeing my point .

      You should pay more if you earn more as a responsible citizen .

      If you earn more then you should pay more even if the rule is made or not.

      If you don't pay more tax then you shouldn't be rich

Loading...