Try the political quiz
+

Filter by type

Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.

Expert Pundits

These active users have achieved advanced knowledge of the terminology, history, and legal implications regarding the topic of

Engaged Voters

These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of

683 Replies

 @ThatkidLexi4  from Kentucky  agreed…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.

 @B8CYHQBRepublican from Maine  disagreed…7mos7MO

They earned the money just like everyone else and just because they work harder and smarter does not mean they should be punished.

 @ThatkidLexi4  from Kentucky  disagreed…7mos7MO

They aren't being punished; they're just being asked to give more of their MILLIONS of dollars. If they pay more taxes, which will likely affect them only slightly, then the community they ALSO live in will benefit.

 @B8BZGTZ from Virginia  disagreed…8mos8MO

They should be taxed at the same rate because they are still giving more money than the poor and it allows equality

 @B8DSTBZfrom Virgin Islands  disagreed…7mos7MO

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  from Kentucky  disagreed…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.

 @PublicPolicyHaileyLibertarianism from Pennsylvania  disagreed…3mos3MO

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.

 @B8BXBG8 from Georgia  disagreed…8mos8MO

Text Asian is already punitive to the rich in a disincentive to earn money worsening that would only exacerbate the situation we already have

 @B8GH3TH  from Virginia  agreed…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.

 @B8GN8TS from New York  disagreed…7mos7MO

In America, anyone could become rich at any time. We shall not tax people just because they outworked others and made more money than the rest. Although federal funding is ideal, there is no reason why the government should just tax one group of people for the better of everyone else.

 @B8H6G3Q  from New York  agreed…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.

 @B8GMXNM from California  agreed…7mos7MO

I agree. The rich have more than enough money to live, and all the excess can be used for social programs that benefit society.

 @B8GMG92 from North Dakota  agreed…7mos7MO

I agree with this statement. There is no reason why the rich should not be taxed. They can afford it, and that wealth should be spread

 @9S664V9Independent  from Arizona  agreed…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  from Illinois  agreed…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.

 @BBQZZ6L from Pennsylvania  agreed…4mos4MO

I agree that one or a group of people shouldn't be very rich if others are not doing well. However, getting rid of rich people seems like socialism. I believe we should tax them more and make sure monopolies are divided if found.

 @BBPPXG7  from Ohio  agreed…4mos4MO

I agree. I think we are so separated because of labels. It just makes it seem like people want to be seen as a higher title, which explains millionaires, billionaires, and such.

 @BBTTX4W from North Carolina  agreed…3mos3MO

I agree there shouldn't be people barely being able to afford living expenses or living paycheck to paycheck and then have people live extremely comfortably and not having to worry about anything

 @BBSHTWJ from California  agreed…4mos4MO

I agree, billionaires ARE unethical. The wealthy used to help fund projects to benefit the community and if your net worth is in the billions it's clear you're not doing that. There is no reason a single person should hoard wealth that could help millions live better lives.

 @B8JK6ZV  from Michigan  agreed…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.

 @B8JRT8XRepublican from California  disagreed…7mos7MO

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.

 @B8JZKZVIndependent from Nebraska  disagreed…7mos7MO

People that make more money and have worked for it or had parents/grandparents work for it shouldn't have to pay more money for taxes just because they have more money in general.

 @B8JVTRNWomen’s Equality from Utah  disagreed…7mos7MO

I say no because its not fair and we talk about equality for everyone but I get that people want to tax the rich more just because their rich although it's not fair but we could reduce tax for lower income individuals instead of trying to take the hard earned money from the rich.

 @B8JVL5C from Utah  agreed…7mos7MO

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  from South Carolina  agreed…5mos5MO

Many billionaires dodge taxes, when if we taxed the top people in the US, we could reduce debt by a huge number, and not place the burden of taxes on the lower class

 @B9RFJNY  from Georgia  agreed…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.

 @B9RLSGS from New York  agreed…5mos5MO

I agree with this article because it highlights the growing disparityin wealth distribution and the potential consequences for the majority of Americans

 @BCLCFF2Independent  from Missouri  agreed…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  from Nebraska  agreed…3mos3MO

I agree that the rich people should be taxed on their money just like our low incomed people living from paycheck to paycheck are taxed but even more.

 @BCLQZ8F  from Nebraska  agreed…3mos3MO

I agree that the rich people should be taxed just as much as us low incomes people living from paycheck to paycheck

 @BCLSF4S from Georgia  agreed…3mos3MO

Yes. Theres no reason for a single person with that much money to horde it instead of sharing it either with taxes or actually subsidizing programs that help people

 @BCLRKFDProgressive from North Carolina  agreed…3mos3MO

I agree, I also believe that there is no reason to need that amount of money at all so adding a cap should be implemented and all earned above the cap should be taxed at 100%

 @BC9Y2DJ  from Texas  agreed…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?

 @BCBP6WC from North Carolina  disagreed…3mos3MO

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.

 @GovernmentPeacock_486Republicandisagreed…3mos3MO

Expert Taxes

That is literally the opposite of how the American tax system works.

To use your analogy as it applies to the American tax system - If someone has five bananas then they would have to give one to the government. If someone has 20 bananas they would have to give 12 to the government.

 @BCC8X9R from Missouri  agreed…3mos3MO

No, the other person should pay more because they have more. If we both paid the same the tax would take away 20% of my income and only 5% of the other person’s income. To make it fair the other person should pay at least 20% of their income in taxes.

 @BCC62RHNo Labels from Virginia  agreed…3mos3MO

all taxes should be fair if one person has twenty and the average person has five the better off person should pay one fourth of their twenty.

 @B8PG8HFSocialist  from North Carolina  agreed…6mos6MO

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.

 @B8ZDDZKDemocrat from California  agreed…6mos6MO

I agree with this author. The rich are only getting richer, and the poor are even less. The decrease in funding taxes should be fair between all classes.

 @B8ZDTQL from Arizona  agreed…6mos6MO

i agree the rich will get richer if we allow them to have cuts we must rely on the money of the rich so that low income citizens can survive as they can.

 @RIPCharlieRepublican from Pennsylvania  commented…6mos6MO

Engaged Taxes

The most important thing to understand about the trickle down theory is that there is no such theory and no conservative economist has ever defended it. Rather, it is the creation of new wealth.

 @B8TBB7Q  from North Carolina  agreed…7mos7MO

all i want that the rich should pay the taxes and i say the lower and working class should have a relief tax.

 @B8TJDM5 from Alabama  agreed…7mos7MO

I think the richer people should pay more taxes and keep the midlec class groups at a reasonable tax group

 @B8TFSCX from Pennsylvania  agreed…7mos7MO

i agree with that, taxes should be raised for the rich to help fund opportunities to help lower-income families

 @9FG58GJ  from North Carolina  disagreed…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.

  @Ign3usR3xSocialist from Washington  disagreed…1yr1Y

Engaged Taxes

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  from Washington  agreed…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.

 @B8L35TC from Colorado  disagreed…7mos7MO

Taxes are needed, sure! But there is no need to tax the rich cosmically higher than everybody else. That's not fair to them who have worked their whole lives to be successful.

 @B8L4399 from Texas  disagreed…7mos7MO

i have personally seen no benefits from our government that affects me positively. every bit of experience i have with the government is negative

 @B8L4VWD from South Carolina  agreed…7mos7MO

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)

 @B8L383Z from California  agreed…7mos7MO

I agree partially, taxes are helpful for paying for citizens' services. However, the rate of taxes is extremely unfair, and often the money goes towards things it should not go to.

 @B9BZCTFDemocrat  from Georgia  agreed…5mos5MO

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.

 @B9FRBN3from Guam  commented…5mos5MO

People rich enough to financially control the country can be taxed enough to fund public services and infrastructure and be accountable for where their funds are coming from and going to, such as monopolies to subsidize the creation of competitors.

 @B9CLMSQ from Ohio  agreed…5mos5MO

I do agree that the government should tax more on rich people, because lower income people can barely afford taxes now a- days. We need to put more funding for more affordable healthcare. Other countries have FREE HEALTHCARE or cheap healthcare, while American of course have to pay for healthcare.

 @B9CGW3R from Illinois  agreed…5mos5MO

This is true. Large companies are only going to be able to distribute their wealth and they'll all be middle class and maybe the lower class will rise.

 @B99PR85 from Nebraska  agreed…5mos5MO

If we are able to tax more of the wealthy people in lower classes than them are actually able to save up and have more money.

 @BCLD344  from Arkansas  agreed…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.

 @BCMRNCX from Virginia  disagreed…3mos3MO

If taxes were spent as intended instead of treating them like a slush fund, there would be no issues

 @BCMQRNR  from Illinois  agreed…3mos3MO

Yes, it's clear from observation of Western Euro countries that the implementation of certain taxes at certain rates works in expanding the opportunities for the working class in the long run.

 @BCMP5KL from Tennessee  disagreed…3mos3MO

Taxes are extremely important to fund for natural disasters, schools, etc. I believe that I draw the line at taxes being raised on the rich. They worked hard and earned their money.

 @BBY45JH  from Arkansas  agreed…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

 @BBZYN8JDemocrat from Arkansas  agreed…3mos3MO

We need to tax the wealthy and put the money to good use like school and help feed and house the poor

 @BBZNTQT from California  commented…3mos3MO

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.

 @B9WFDVRDemocrat  from Ohio  agreed…5mos5MO

It only makes sense. Why would the gov keep working citizens paying more and more taxes when they're barely getting by when there's a Jeff bezos out there that could dump 10 million today and have it back by next week? Maybe I just don't understand that much about taxes yet.

 @B94L3QSIndependent  from California  agreed…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  from Nebraska  agreed…6mos6MO

The ultra wealthy cannot be trusted to recontribute their wealth to society. Heightened taxes must be put in place to ensure capital, including that unrealized, is meaningfully redistributed to those who would benefit.

 @B94TRZL from Alabama  disagreed…6mos6MO

I agree, but it should not be a government mandate. The people need to hold the wealthy accountable and stop utilizing their products/services if they do not agree with their political stace.

 @B94TMMQIndependent from Arizona  agreed…6mos6MO

Any chance of being wealthy is a chance to help those in need instead of being greedy and hoarding money that they’re never gonna use is what makes most sense.

 @B9JX9H4  from California  agreed…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

 @B9KS8SB from Maryland  disagreed…5mos5MO

I think they should pay more taxes or at least treat them like everyone else and pay the same, though they have more incomes so they can pay taxes based on how much they make and based on how much they spend on their life so there must be more left than needed.

 @BBR22RX  from Louisiana  agreed…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.

 @BBTTX4W from North Carolina  agreed…3mos3MO

You can't change anyones opinions unless they want to change their opinions, but everyone should have some common sense and kindness in their heart

 @BBS73TJ  from Maine  agreed…4mos4MO

you can never really change anyone's opinion without providing why it might be wrong to believe in certain things and don't give help to learn right from wrong in many instances.

 @BBQZZ6L from Pennsylvania  agreed…4mos4MO

I believe this person is insulting people who disagree with them. They are insinuating that if you disagree with them, you aren't kind, don't think about others, or don't have knowledge; it seems manipulative.

 @BBPPXG7  from Ohio  agreed…4mos4MO

I agree. I do think speaking up about it may have people think on it more though. This statement is incredibly true.

 @BD74ZQS  from Wisconsin  agreed…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  from Michigan  disagreed…2mos2MO

If they earned their money in a fair way, they can do whatever they want, they worked for it so they deserve it.

 @B9BYWYW  from Georgia  agreed…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.

 @B9FZLWB from Illinois  agreed…5mos5MO

I think the rich should be taxed and given to help the nation instated of them being allowed to keep it all

 @B96DKDY  from GU  agreed…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

 @BD447TVGreen  from Ohio  agreed…2mos2MO

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.

 @BD2YP44 from Colorado  disagreed…2mos2MO

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.

 @BD45297 from Utah  agreed…2mos2MO

I do agree with this comment. The rich often hold more wealth than they, or any descendants, would need to live comfortably and this leads to the the stagnation of the economy. Higher taxes would reintroduce money into the economy.

 @9FSWPPH from California  disagreed…3yrs3Y

Taxing the rich isn't fair considering they worked hard to get to where thy are. If anything everyone should have equal taxes.

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas  disagreed…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  from Georgia  commented…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.

  @Ign3usR3xSocialist from Washington  disagreed…1yr1Y

Engaged Taxes

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

  @Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington  disagreed…2yrs2Y

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  from Ohio  disagreed…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.

 @UnhappyLynxCapitalismfrom California  disagreed…2yrs2Y

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

  @Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington  disagreed…2yrs2Y

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.

 @9XK2F3JNo Labels from South Carolina  commented…2yrs2Y

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.

 Deletedcommented…2yrs2Y

If they received any government subsidies (R&D budget, etc.) in the process, they must pay more taxes.

I would like to lower the corporate tax rate and increase the wealth tax. This is because wealth taxes are more effective in redistributing wealth.

 @BC59P63 from Illinois  agreed…3mos3MO

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  from Georgia  agreed…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  from California  agreed…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.

 @B8BYY7M from California  agreed…8mos8MO

I think there should be a rework on how taxes works because why is a billionaire paying only $750 a year.

 @B8BXBG8 from Georgia  disagreed…8mos8MO

Those strategies are in line with tax policy, and those people typically are massive job creators more so than the government

 @BD6P2T2Peace and Freedom  from Missouri  agreed…2mos2MO

Taxes help pay for things like Medicare and our military and police officers. Stated by The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Taxes fund essential services like Medicare (24% of the 2024 budget), Social Security (21%), and national defense (13%), supporting citizens and infrastructure."

 @B8J28WSSocialist from Indiana  agreed…7mos7MO

Take a look at the wealth gap chart in the United States. It's worse than France before the french revolution. The rich have exponentially more wealth.

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...