Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
County:
These active users have achieved advanced knowledge of the terminology, history, and legal implications regarding the topic of
These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of
@ThatkidLexi4 8mos8MO
Top Agreement
Again, the rich have so much money that they could instead but giving away SOME to help the community. No one is asking them to get rid of a bunch of their money, just enough that if they all give some, it would be enough to make the places we live better.
@B8CYHQBRepublican7mos7MO
They earned the money just like everyone else and just because they work harder and smarter does not mean they should be punished.
@ThatkidLexi4 7mos7MO
@B8BZGTZ8mos8MO
@B8DSTBZ7mos7MO
So imagine sacrificing your own sanity, spending so much time alone building something from the ground up right? And when you finally hit that "gamble" people will say: He is nothing without his employees, he does nothing. I'm not against helping the people. But I'm against punishing someone who earned the right to be extraordinary and to earn more than effectively anyone. Because they paid the price.
@ThatkidLexi4 5mos5MO
Again, it's not a punishment, it's decency. If you think about someone with the wealth of, say, Elon Musk, he has BILLIONS of dollars. Genuinely, everything he needs, no one is asking him to give up what he worked for, but if more of that would go to our communities to help our people, with practically nothing affecting him, the world and our country would be moving forward so much faster.
You seem to be under the impression that Elon Musk has all that money sitting in his bank account. His net worth is literally tied up in the value he created in those companies. If the government forced him to pay billions more in taxes, he’d have to sell large chunks of Tesla or SpaceX stock, which would actually hurt the employees and people who's retirement accounts are invested in those companies.
@B8BXBG88mos8MO
@B8GH3TH 7mos7MO
Taxes raised on the rich will contribute to so much more funding, in state government funding, federal programs, and overall helpful causes, whereas if they didn't pay anything, their money would just multiply because that is the only thing they want, get richer.
@B8GN8TS7mos7MO
@B8H6G3Q 7mos7MO
Yes, I agree. I think that the ultra-rich (billionaires) are not benefiting society as much as they have the ethical and economic responsibility to in a supply side economics system. Also, their philanthropy tends to favor themselves in some way (e.g. Zuckerberg owning the non-profit he donate to). I also think that individuals that cannot get jobs due to physical, mental, or social reasons (like growing up poor and not getting an education), should be offered some aid, especially when it comes to education.
@B8GMXNM7mos7MO
@B8GMG927mos7MO
@9S664V9Independent 4mos4MO
Our standards on infrastructure, health, education, and safety have increased over time, but could be much higher. The wealthiest among us have the highest standards and have the greatest ability to contribute. Lower-income people cannot afford to sustain it alone, so it falls on the wealthy to fund them or lose them. We cannot keep running at a deficit. Through a progressive tax system, everyone benefits, including the wealthy, by creating a better society around them.
@BBQXT8Y 4mos4MO
Furthermore, I'm sure you've heard the doubling penny for 30 days scenario, essentially, overtime whoever is rich right now -- they're wealth will just double, and keep on doubling until the normal people and the rich get further and further away. Classes of wealth should not be this far divided. There shouldn't be billionaires.
@BBQZZ6L4mos4MO
@BBPPXG7 4mos4MO
@BBTTX4W3mos3MO
@BBSHTWJ4mos4MO
@B8JK6ZV 7mos7MO
Someone should answer "Yes" because, most people, probably you, will feel the taxes. The rich don't. Raising taxes on the rich would help the government keep money, and help you live your life with less worry.
@B8JRT8XRepublican7mos7MO
Raising taxes on the wealthy would only temporarily increase revenue. The wealthy will always find loopholes to avoid paying taxes, lowering taxes for everyone, wealthy included would incentivize them to not hide their earnings, actually bring more wealthy individuals to the country which then we increase our tax revenue in the long run.
@B8JZKZVIndependent7mos7MO
@B8JVTRNWomen’s Equality7mos7MO
@B8JVL5C7mos7MO
yes and no. We do need to tax the rich, most of the money sits in their bank accounts anyways. Lower-class citizens constantly struggle with living paycheck to paycheck, or simply just not having enough money to exist. The government uses tax payer money for everything they do, hence the argument of "tax the rich". If we raise taxes on the rich that means less of a burden is put of lower-class people. Which means they can start saving to better their lives. Everyone worries about everything, taxes being one of those nagging in the back of your head ones. So it wouldn't necessarily help lessen the worry, but it would be relieving to know that we aren't being squeezed for all our worth.
@B9QQST3 5mos5MO
@B9RFJNY 5mos5MO
- The rich are getting exponentially richer, while not providing exponential benefits to the average American.
- They're given numerous loopholes and often pay an effective tax rate lower than that of the average American.
- They receive a disproportionate amount of Government funding, while hoarding unreasonable amounts of wealth.
- Concerns of ultra wealth fleeing higher taxes are laughable, they're already using all available avenues to flee taxes.
- The wealth divide is increasing and will continue increasing, to the detriment of the majority of Americans if we don't do something to address it.
@B9RLSGS5mos5MO
@BCLCFF2Independent 3mos3MO
Elon Musk is worth close to a trillion dollars while we have so many people homeless, hungry, and starving. Taxing billionaires more and giving it to poor families could keep people alive.
@BCLQZ8F 3mos3MO
@BCLQZ8F 3mos3MO
@BCLSF4S3mos3MO
@BCLRKFDProgressive3mos3MO
@BC9Y2DJ 3mos3MO
imagine you had five bananas and someone else has twenty and there's a tax every year for one banana no matter how many you have so you having already less bananas is down to four the other person has 19 is this fair?
@BCBP6WC3mos3MO
No, this system isn't really fair. I think people should be taxed at a certain percentage. That being said, just like how this tax on bananas is unfair, raising the rate on higher earners would also be unfair. There should be a tax rate for everyone, which will end up making higher earners pay more, but percentage wise everyone will be equal in what they pay.
@BCC8X9R3mos3MO
In 2020, economists David Hope and Julian Limburg analyzed data from 50 years of trickle down economics in multiple countries and demonstrated that tax cuts to the rich only benefit the rich. It drives inflation and income inequality. The money does not go back into the economy. It does not trickle down to the working classes. In fact, the opposite holds true. When the working classes have money, there is a trickle up effect. The few that are super wealthy should not be rewarded for decreasing the quality of life for the masses.
@B8ZDTQL6mos6MO
@RIPCharlieRepublican6mos6MO
@B8TBB7Q 7mos7MO
all i want that the rich should pay the taxes and i say the lower and working class should have a relief tax.
@9FG58GJ 3yrs3Y
Top Disagreement
This would result in companies going bankrupt and seperation of wealth. hard working workers would be taxed harder, and their life would be hard. If buisnesses are not taxed, then they will be succesful and boost americas economy.
@Ign3usR3xSocialist1yr1Y
Little lost on your comment. You think raising the taxes on the richest few of Americans, akin to a tax rate of the 50s or 60s, would result in "hard working workers would be taxed harder", "and their life would be hard"... the rich?? What are you talking about. How would their life get marginally harder by taxing them at a fairer rate.
"If businesses are not taxed, then they will be successful and boost Americas economy." Now this part is just wrong on so many levels. Break it down piece by piece, businesses don't get taxed, we have no tax revenue, we have a budget deficit, we get more broke, we broke, interest goes up, that's a dang avalanche of issues by just ridding of taxes entirely.
@B8KX96B 7mos7MO
Taxes are needed for our government to work because our citizens receive work and pay, and in turn they give the government money to help keep them safe, and employed. They are mostly fair in the fact of deciding how much each individual should pay each year. And our country would not last without them.
@B8L35TC7mos7MO
@B8L43997mos7MO
@B8L4VWD7mos7MO
I do not agree to this because everything is taxed to the point where it's cheaper not to own an item and pay less for it than it is to own the item and pay more in taxes, thanks to owning said thing (i.e, owning certain things can make you pay property taxes. Houses and land are the biggest examples. If you don’t own them, you don’t pay those taxes)
@B8L383Z7mos7MO
By increasing tax rates on high incomes and large fortunes, governments can generate significant revenue without affecting most citizens, then invest that money in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and social programs that benefit society broadly and improve economic mobility.
@B9FRBN35mos5MO
@B9CLMSQ5mos5MO
@B9CGW3R5mos5MO
@B99PR855mos5MO
@BCLD344 3mos3MO
Taxes are important because they fund things people use every day like schools, roads, and healthcare, and countries like Norway and Denmark show that higher taxes can support better public services; they also help reduce inequality by making higher earners contribute more, so without taxes there would be fewer services and a bigger gap between the rich and poor.
@BCMRNCX3mos3MO
@BCMQRNR 3mos3MO
@BCMP5KL3mos3MO
@BBY45JH 3mos3MO
As of March 2026 total gross debt is about $38.86 trillion with an average daily increase of $6 billion. This total debt is equal to about 96% of the annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the US! Tax cuts imposed by Trump and congress reduced tax revenues and if left in place will allow the national debt to increase dramatically in future years with some estimates showing the national debt growing to 143% of GDP within 10 years. These deficits are non-sustainable and will create massive instability in our economy and overall standard of living, and will force the government to cuts progr… Read more
@BBZNTQT3mos3MO
I fully support many of the points said in this arguement. However the government uses over 800 billion dollars on the military. So much of that money can be used on the social programs that so many americans use and need. Yes, there is a need to have a strong military but this is an over exaggeration.
@B94L3QSIndependent 6mos6MO
The ultra wealthy have more money; power and therefore have higher impact on how the world operates, access to resources to have best possible outcomes for their ambitions, etc.
It should be their civic duty to do more because they have more
@9GGKQ9C 6mos6MO
@B94TRZL6mos6MO
@B94TMMQIndependent6mos6MO
@B9JX9H4 5mos5MO
Studies show that the very wealthy often pay a lower effective tax rate than middle-income earners for instance some billionaires might pay an effective tax rate that's lower than a firefighter a teacher even though those teachers and firefighters are less money than a billionaire because a lot of their income comes from Investments which are lower tax rates. There have been reports and Analysis showing the top 1% can sometimes play a smaller share of their income taxes Than People further down the income ladder. Some organizations like the institute on Taxation and economic policy which… Read more
@B9KS8SB5mos5MO
@BBR22RX 4mos4MO
All I have to say is if you have common sense, kindness in your heart, and the safety of others to think about, then you have the knowledge to agree with something such as this. But, at the end of the day everyone does have their own opinion and I can't force them to change it for my liking.
@BBTTX4W3mos3MO
@BBS73TJ 4mos4MO
@BBQZZ6L4mos4MO
@BBPPXG7 4mos4MO
@BD74ZQS 2mos2MO
The top 1% owns about 31–38% of all U.S. wealth
The bottom 50% owns only ~2.5%
The top 1% holds roughly as much wealth as the bottom 90% combined
Since the 1970s, about $50–80 trillion has shifted from the bottom 90% to the top 1%
The top 0.1% alone has seen massive gains in just the last few years
About 68% of Americans say wealth inequality is too high
When wealth concentrates this much, it doesn’t just sit there—it shapes access to housing, education, healthcare, and even political power.
@BD796PL 2mos2MO
@B9BYWYW 5mos5MO
The top 1% of households hold around 30% of the nation's wealth, therefore as previously stated the rich have a large amount of wealth that can be expended to the about 37-38 million people living in poverty.
@B9FZLWB5mos5MO
@B96DKDY 6mos6MO
Inequality is extreme: The top 1% owns ~32% of U.S. wealth, while the bottom 50% owns ~2–3%. That level of concentration historically correlates with lower mobility and instability.
They’re taxed less than you think: Billionaires often pay lower effective tax rates than middle-class workers because most of their income is capital gains, not wages.
Higher taxes used to work: From the 1940s–1970s, top marginal tax rates were 70–90%, yet the U.S. saw strong growth, rising wages, and massive infrastructure expansion.
Raising taxes doesn’t kill growth: OECD and IMF resea… Read more
The rich hold a massive majority on the company and just raising the taxes slightly on them, can give the government a lot more money for funding programs and for grants to improve the country.
@BD2YP442mos2MO
This way of thinking is what started the Communist Party. It starts off as a little taxation on the rich, and then it grows and grows until the wealth is "distributed," when really it is just the government holding all the money, and the economy would fail. We need to ensure that people who worked hard for their money are able to keep it instead of being forced to give their earnings and their years of hard work to the government.
@BD452972mos2MO
@9FSWPPH3yrs3Y
Taxing the rich isn't fair considering they worked hard to get to where thy are. If anything everyone should have equal taxes.
@VulcanMan6 3yrs3Y
“Taxing the rich isn't fair considering they worked hard to get to where thy are.”
The rich quite literally did not work for their money; they got their money via property ownership and by taking the profits of other people's labor.
@9S8MS8CRepublican 2yrs2Y
They did work for their stuff; they started the companies and did a lot of work when they first began. Yes, they deserve the money because they take all the risk. If the company goes bankrupt, the owner is the one who will lose all their money, not the employees, who can just get another job and not face bankruptcy. For the owner, they lose everything, while the employees only have the tools they use to work because the owner bought all the supplies. For example, in a pencil shop, employees do make the pencils, but they wouldn’t have the graphite, wood, or machines if it weren’t for the owner buying the supplies. That’s why the owner takes all the risk, and if the company goes under, so does the owner, not the employees.
@Ign3usR3xSocialist1yr1Y
“not the employees, who can just get another job and not face bankruptcy.”
The idea that only business owners take risks ignores the truth of how employment even works. Employees may not invest capital, but they do invest their time, skills, livelihoods, etc. into their career or job. If a company goes bankrupt, the owner loses money, but employees lose their source of income. That's life man. This can mean eviction, loss of healthcare, financial ruin. Unlike business owners, who often have assets, investments, and safety nets, many workers (most Americans) live paycheck to paycheck.
And while an employee can look for another job, that doesn’t mean it&rsqu… Read more
That can only be the case if you subscribe to the low-IQ Marxian economic principle of the labor theory of value, which has been proven to be false...
@NameIGuessLolSocialist 2yrs2Y
Mr. @Patriot-#1776 ... there is no way Jeff Bezos did $211 billion worth of cold, hard labor.
If a businessperson profits off another worker's labor, that worker did not get the whole fruit of said labor. It would essentially be the same thing if the worker actually did get the fruit of their labor, but then the businessperson stole a portion.
@UnhappyLynxCapitalism2yrs2Y
What most socialists don't understand about financial outcomes, is that your potential return will always be based on what you are personally willing to risk and the amount of personal stress and uncertainty you take on, not just cold hard labor. You will either pay the price, or reap the benefits of how much risk you took on. Intelligent, cold hard labor will increase your chances of maximizing the potential return.
Read a biography about Jeff Bezos through the lens of how much uncertainty and personal risk he took on, then you will definitely see why he is worth that much money.
Read more
But labor does not produce value. Value is subjectively evaluated by individuals – that's why trade even happens. That's why, for example, buying a box of apples from a farmer is possible. The farmer values the money more than the apples, and you value the apples more than the money. If labor was the determinate of value, then value would be objective, making all economic transactions senseless and disincentivizing anyone from participating in trade. The same works for employees and their employers. The employee values his pay check more than the time he spends to attain it, while the employer regards the worker performing a certain task/tasks as more valuable than the money with which he compensates the employee. "Surplus value theft" is a myth. The very fact that people work at all debunks it.
You're thinking of labor done to get rich, but I think of it as the education done. Yes, Jeff Bezos isn't personally delivering his packages to make the money, but he did go to Princeton. He did put in the work of his education. And then... he did it again when he wanted to start a business. You don't have to go to college or probably even graduate high school to work for Amazon. And whether that's the person's choice or if something happened to prevent them from going, that's the reality of how it works.
@BC59P633mos3MO
Elon musk makes an estimated 35-40 billion a year and he gets taxed 37% of his income which is 12.9 billion leaving 22.1 billion. people start getting taxes 37% of their income at 626,000 a year which would be 231,620 in taxes leaving 394,380. 394,380 is .00178452489% of 22.1 billion, the billionaires could absolutely afford to be taxed more.
@B8BSK9R 8mos8MO
Every year, America's richest citizens paper over their earnings with losses use other creative accounting strategies to shelter their fortunes, as the tax code allows them to do. After the refund, Trump had an average tax bill of $1.4 million per year over the 18 years. In 2016, Trump paid only $750 in federal income tax, and in 2017, he paid another $750 in federal income tax. This was much less than other recent presidents paid while in office.
@B8BYZBQProgressive 8mos8MO
I agree that the richest people in the American society do get tax-breaks way easier than the average citizen and I believe they should have a proportionate percentage of their total yearly income taxed similar to a middle or lower class citizen as they have the means to prove more for the nation but don't while the poorer classes are stolen away millions to even billions that could be solved by lowering taxes on the less fortunate classes and raising them on the higher ups and top 1% of citizens.
@B8BYY7M8mos8MO
@B8BXBG88mos8MO
@BD6P2T2Peace and Freedom 2mos2MO
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.