• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where do you land

Where do you land?

  • I am wealthy, and favor tax hikes for the wealthy

    Votes: 8 11.4%
  • I am not wealthy, and favor tax hikes for the wealthy

    Votes: 27 38.6%
  • I am wealthy, and against tax hikes for the wealthy

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I am not wealthy, and against tax hikes for the wealthy

    Votes: 23 32.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 12 17.1%
  • Unsure

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    70
The CONCEPT of racism, and racist attitudes, have existed forever. There just wasn't a word for it.
I'm going to disagree again, just because I can. The concept of racism is a modern one. Before such a word existed there were slaves, or peasants (otherwise called serfs), or a dislike of anyone not the same as others. Racism did not always exist - racism as a concept is a modern one. If you choose to see the past and distant past in modern terms, yes - the moderns view of it would be considered racism using the modern concept and word for it.

Transport you back 300 years and there's no such thing. You were a have, or a have not. Nothing else.
 
Exactly, and it's taxed at a much lower rate than regular income...which makes the income tax less progressive than it appears at a first glance.

1. capital gains tax is paid on money that has already been taxed
2. the wealthy disproportionately pay it and thus
3. to try to "average" it in there to lower someone's tax burden (given that it is an additional tax) is sort of a misnomer. it is, after all, an additional tax - the way we punish you for investing in American business.

all the capital gains tax does is increase the degree to which we are having the wealthy pay for the rest of us.

I'm not sure what you mean. It's not just a matter of the effective rates being roughly the same (although they are). It's also a matter of the wealthy really not paying much more as a proportion of total taxes than the middle-class does, relative to the amount of income that they have. For example, the top 1% of earners take in 20.3% of the income in this country and pay 21.5% of total taxes. Whereas the middle quintile earns 11.6% of income and pays 10.3% in taxes. That doesn't look very progressive to me. In fact, it looks pretty flat.

I would like to see a sourcing for those figures.
 
I'm going to disagree again, just because I can. The concept of racism is a modern one. Before such a word existed there were slaves, or peasants (otherwise called serfs), or a dislike of anyone not the same as others. Racism did not always exist - racism as a concept is a modern one. If you choose to see the past and distant past in modern terms, yes - the moderns view of it would be considered racism using the modern concept and word for it.

Transport you back 300 years and there's no such thing. You were a have, or a have not. Nothing else.
I noticed you didn't respond to my comment. That leads me to believe that you agree with me, but would rather be silent instead of acknowledging it.

The bold part is absolutely not true. Blacks were thought of as inferior to whites - as were Native Americans and Asians. So what do you call someone who thinks of one race as superior to others Ockham? What word describes that reality which existed 300 years ago?

Like I said, if a capitalist society existed 300 years before the word "capitalism" was used, the society was still a capitalist society. If a racist existed 300 years before the word was used, he's still a racist.
 
I'm going to disagree again, just because I can. The concept of racism is a modern one. Before such a word existed there were slaves, or peasants (otherwise called serfs), or a dislike of anyone not the same as others. Racism did not always exist - racism as a concept is a modern one. If you choose to see the past and distant past in modern terms, yes - the moderns view of it would be considered racism using the modern concept and word for it.

Transport you back 300 years and there's no such thing. You were a have, or a have not. Nothing else.

Our CURRENT understanding of race and racism is what's modern. Racist attitudes certainly existed way back in the past. A racist is a racist is a racist is someone who believes one race to be superior to another. There's really no two ways about it. Racist beliefs/worldviews/attitudes existed, at LEAST as far back as the renaissance and enlightenment era, when European nations were coming into contact with people who were radically different from themselves.

Racism is a word, with a concrete definition used to describe a concrete reality. Whether we are imposing modern views onto the past is irrelevant. Those people are still racists regardless of time period. That's basically my point.
 
1. capital gains tax is paid on money that has already been taxed
2. the wealthy disproportionately pay it and thus
3. to try to "average" it in there to lower someone's tax burden (given that it is an additional tax) is sort of a misnomer. it is, after all, an additional tax - the way we punish you for investing in American business.

That's not how the average/effective tax rate is calculated. Add up all the various taxes you pay (e.g. payroll, sales, traditional income, capital gains income, excise, state/local taxes), then divide by the amount of money you made. Factoring all of those different taxes in, the wealthy do not pay a significantly higher tax burden than the middle class.

all the capital gains tax does is increase the degree to which we are having the wealthy pay for the rest of us.

It is an income tax (i.e. a tax levied on money you have made), but it is taxed at a lower rate than other forms of income.

I would like to see a sourcing for those figures.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf
The actual numbers are from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
 
Last edited:
Right, but racism is a word that describes a reality that has existed for centuries. CC claimed that thinking blacks were inferior to whites was not racism in 1776, but that's not true. Racism is by definition believing in the superiority of one or more races over others, so regardless of whether the word for that attitude existed in 1776 and regardless if thinking of one race as superior to others was normal, it was still racism. What other word describes "the belief that one race is superior to another"?

A similar example would be if a capitalist society existed before the invention of the word "capitalism", it was still a capitalist society regardless if that word was used at the time. I'm arguing from the perspective that a word is a just a word and that the meaning is what has always existed. So while racism - the word - has not always existed. The meaning of the word - the reality that it describes - has always existed and it's the same in every time period, no matter how normal it was.

Ockham is right. You cannot backdate the definition of a concept. In 1776, based on the beliefs of the time, the treatment of blacks was not racism. Based on what we know NOW, it was. And your analogy to capitalism doesn't work. Capitalism is a system, a series of actions. Racism is a belief, a perception. Very different things.
 
That's not how the average/effective tax rate is calculated. Add up all the various taxes you pay (e.g. payroll, sales, traditional income, capital gains income, excise, state/local taxes), then divide by the amount of money you made. Factoring all of those different taxes in, the wealthy do not pay a significantly higher tax burden than the middle class.
...
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf
The actual numbers are from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

:lol: These people are including the employer contributions to the FICA tax on the employee side. In other words, they are doubling the effect of the (admittedly regressive) FICA tax on those making less than the cap, and subtracting that tax paid by the employer! Then they don't count taxes on corporate profits, but on net after tax.

well yeah man, I mean, I could show you how the poor were actually taxed at 175% of their share of the national income if I were just allowed to count taxes paid by one group of people as paid by another; and apply Canadian tax-accounting methods to American Corporate Profits.


anywho, as per OP, I think both of us would take revenue-neutral tax code simplification before we wanted our current system just with hiked nominal rates.


It is an income tax (i.e. a tax levied on money you have made), but it is taxed at a lower rate than other forms of income.

as well it should be. the money you are investing was already taxed when you earned it, and whatever productive use you put it to was already taxed when the business you invested in reported profits. If we could just get over ourselves enough to further lower or (preferably) eliminate this tax, we would become the worlds' investment/tax haven overnight.
 
Ockham is right. You cannot backdate the definition of a concept. In 1776, based on the beliefs of the time, the treatment of blacks was not racism. Based on what we know NOW, it was. And your analogy to capitalism doesn't work. Capitalism is a system, a series of actions. Racism is a belief, a perception. Very different things.
I'm not buying it, at all. Are you saying that no white person in 1776 thought white people were superior to black people?
 
I'm not buying it, at all. Are you saying that no white person in 1776 thought white people were superior to black people?

Thats like saying yesterdays scientists were not scientists because their knowledge was primitive and has been shwon to be wrong. People from 200+ years ago lived their lives based on current events and their life experiences. We have the benefit of learning from that experience. I wouldnt at all be surprised if 200 years from now people will wonder what was wrong with this generation and time...especially considering the mess we are going to leave them stuck with.
 
I'm not saying it's not understandable. I'm saying it's still racism. Call it what it is. Standards for what truly qualifies as racism or racist don't change over time. Racism has a very specific definition. Just like one thing isn't socialist one day, then not-socialist then next. Racism isn't time-relative; just because everyone else is racist in your society doesn't make you not a racist. Words have meaning.

Sorry. definitions change all the time. If they didn't, they wouldn't have to keep updating the dictionary, they could just reprint the same one from 200 years ago. You're just wrong.
 
Sorry. definitions change all the time. If they didn't, they wouldn't have to keep updating the dictionary, they could just reprint the same one from 200 years ago. You're just wrong.
So what do you call a white man in 1776 who thought whites were superior to blacks?
 
Sorry. definitions change all the time. If they didn't, they wouldn't have to keep updating the dictionary, they could just reprint the same one from 200 years ago. You're just wrong.

I wasn't talking about definitions in general. I was talking about racism in particular. Racism, while the word itself and how we think about racism today are fairly modern, doesn't take away from the fact that people 200 years held racist attitudes, and were therefore racists. Yes, the reality is that almost everyone back in the day held racist attitudes. It's also reality that just because they were in the majority doesn't make them not racists.
 
Last edited:
What happens to the wealthy tax base when states implement a massive tax hike on the wealthy? It disappears. They move.

You can always find more people who want to be rich. The rich aren't special because they're rich; they're just rich. The rules, however, are set up for a very small portion at the top of the income list to beneft the most by being able to define their income various ways to reduce their tax rate. We don't need to treat the rich like they're some form of royalty. If they don't want to do it and maintain their wealth, they ain't got to. We can replace them with someone who wants to be rich and will obey the rules.
 
I noticed you didn't respond to my comment. That leads me to believe that you agree with me, but would rather be silent instead of acknowledging it.
It was already answered - twice I believe.

The bold part is absolutely not true. Blacks were thought of as inferior to whites - as were Native Americans and Asians. So what do you call someone who thinks of one race as superior to others Ockham?
Back then you'd call them have nots... they were considered inferior, so they were less than a have not. However, there was no such term as "racist". They were "stinking indians" or "yellow man" or "nigger" in the verbiage of the time. That was a widely held belief at the time and not just in the United States.

What word describes that reality which existed 300 years ago?
I just provided this. There is no term of racist ... there was nothing at the time that could be called "racism" other than a modern concept of the term.

Like I said, if a capitalist society existed 300 years before the word "capitalism" was used, the society was still a capitalist society.
If viewed from the present. If viewed from the past, it was not a capitalist society.
If a racist existed 300 years before the word was used, he's still a racist.
Continuing to say the same thing over and over is not going to make it true. It's a matter of perspective. If viewing the past from the present you are correct, if viewing the past from the pasts perspective, you're wrong.
 
Our CURRENT understanding of race and racism is what's modern. Racist attitudes certainly existed way back in the past. A racist is a racist is a racist is someone who believes one race to be superior to another. There's really no two ways about it. Racist beliefs/worldviews/attitudes existed, at LEAST as far back as the renaissance and enlightenment era, when European nations were coming into contact with people who were radically different from themselves.

Racism is a word, with a concrete definition used to describe a concrete reality. Whether we are imposing modern views onto the past is irrelevant. Those people are still racists regardless of time period. That's basically my point.

Sorry, we're just going to have to disagree on this one.
 
It was already answered - twice I believe.

Back then you'd call them have nots... they were considered inferior, so they were less than a have not. However, there was no such term as "racist". They were "stinking indians" or "yellow man" or "nigger" in the verbiage of the time. That was a widely held belief at the time and not just in the United States.

I just provided this. There is no term of racist ... there was nothing at the time that could be called "racism" other than a modern concept of the term.

If viewed from the present. If viewed from the past, it was not a capitalist society.

Continuing to say the same thing over and over is not going to make it true. It's a matter of perspective. If viewing the past from the present you are correct, if viewing the past from the pasts perspective, you're wrong.

Right, but it doesn't matter if they thought of themselves as racists. The idea of "race" existed and the idea that certain races were superior to other races existed (it wasn't just haves vs. have nots - there were theories of race that held blacks were inferior to whites). That they didn't have a name for the latter idea does not mean that the idea didn't exist. The absence of a name does not imply the absence of an idea.

If I look at 1776 from 1776's perspective, then many white people believed that their race was superior to blacks - that's just a fact. The word you use to describe that belief is completely irrelevant. You can call it "purple" for all I care, but "purple" (meaning the belief that one race is superior to others) existed in 1776 just as it exists now.
 
Right, but it doesn't matter if they thought of themselves as racists. The idea of "race" existed and the idea that certain races were superior to other races existed (it wasn't just haves vs. have nots - there were theories of race that held blacks were inferior to whites). That they didn't have a name for the latter idea does not mean that the idea didn't exist. The absence of a name does not imply the absence of an idea.

If I look at 1776 from 1776's perspective, then many white people believed that their race was superior to blacks - that's just a fact. The word you use to describe that belief is completely irrelevant. You can call it "purple" for all I care, but "purple" (meaning the belief that one race is superior to others) existed in 1776 just as it exists now.

I agree because you force your view through a filter called "the present". The present filter cannot be applied if one goes back in time... you must use the "present" filter of 1776 which doesn't redefine racism, since it didn't exist - it's irrelevant in 1776.
 
I agree because you force your view through a filter called "the present". The present filter cannot be applied if one goes back in time... you must use the "present" filter of 1776 which doesn't redefine racism, since it didn't exist - it's irrelevant in 1776.
It was not irrelevant - the inequality of races was a concept that was discussed, written about and believed by many in that time period. That they didn't name such theories of race does not negate the fact that they existed.

The only thing I'm bringing from the present is the word, the collection of sounds, the written symbols - "racism", but the content, the theory/belief of racial inequality existed in 1776 just as it does now.
 
Last edited:
It was not irrelevant - the inequality of races was a concept that was discussed, written about and believed by many in that time period. That they didn't name such theories of race does not negate the fact that they existed.
*sigh* They only exist in the modern interpretation.
 
What happens to the wealthy tax base when states implement a massive tax hike on the wealthy? It disappears. They move.

I haven't seen massive proposed, so what is defined as massive?
 
:lol: These people are including the employer contributions to the FICA tax on the employee side. In other words, they are doubling the effect of the (admittedly regressive) FICA tax on those making less than the cap, and subtracting that tax paid by the employer!

Wait...are you suggesting that the FICA employer contribution isn't a tax on the employee? It's a part of the overall compensation that a business must pay for employing someone, it's money that doesn't go to the employee, and it's money that goes to the government instead. How exactly is that not a tax on the employee? It has exactly the same effect as just making the employee pay the tax would. Just because the employer pretends to pay half the FICA tax (and docks your salary accordingly), doesn't mean your after-tax income is any higher. It's just a question of process...does the employer withhold the tax before the money makes it to your pay stub, or after?

Then they don't count taxes on corporate profits, but on net after tax.

Most corporate taxes are regressive, because they tend to be paid by the consumers and workers moreso than the shareholders.

well yeah man, I mean, I could show you how the poor were actually taxed at 175% of their share of the national income if I were just allowed to count taxes paid by one group of people as paid by another; and apply Canadian tax-accounting methods to American Corporate Profits.

The statistics they collected measured how taxes affected people in various income brackets. For taxes paid by non-people, it makes more sense to estimate which people are ACTUALLY paying them and to what extent.

You can't mask who pays for something just by having someone else "technically" pay for it. For example, if businesses started telling their consumers that they would pay the sales tax themselves instead of making the consumers pay it, don't be fooled; they'd just raise their prices accordingly and the net effect would be exactly the same. That's more or less what currently happens with corporate taxation, and it's more or less what happens with the employer's share of FICA taxes.

anywho, as per OP, I think both of us would take revenue-neutral tax code simplification before we wanted our current system just with hiked nominal rates.

Yes, I would support some version of the Wyden-Gregg tax reform proposal. I think there should be very few deductions or credits...ideally the only ones I'd allow would be for charitable deductions and the Earned Income Tax Credit, although I recognize that we'd also need to phase a few others out slowly (e.g. mortgage interest) instead of suddenly eliminating them.

as well it should be. the money you are investing was already taxed when you earned it, and whatever productive use you put it to was already taxed when the business you invested in reported profits. If we could just get over ourselves enough to further lower or (preferably) eliminate this tax, we would become the worlds' investment/tax haven overnight.

A better solution would be to reduce the CORPORATE tax rate, and tax capital gains at the normal income bracket rate. This would eliminate the double taxation problem, make the tax code simpler and more progressive, and increase compliance. It would also do more to make us the "world's investment/tax haven overnight" than eliminating the capital gains tax would...because most foreign investors don't pay US capital gains taxes anyway unless they work here.
 
Last edited:
my uncle is a small business owner - one of the 'rich'. but his business is operating on the edge in the recession. you raise his taxes, the next day he has to fire employees to keep it in the black. generally, yeah, he will continue to do alright -he may have to sell his house and just eat the depreciation. it's his (former) blue-collar non-college-educated employees who will really suffer.

But as I understand it, that's progress. Stuff happens. Not everybody gets to keep their job or their business. Correct?
 
*sigh* They only exist in the modern interpretation.
*sigh* you have no idea what you're talking about. theories of race and racial superiority existed in the 18th century. again, that they didn't name such theories "racism" does not negate the fact that they existed.

In THEIR own words:
Georges Cuvier (1769–1832)
The white race, with oval face, straight hair and nose, to which the civilised people of Europe belong and which appear to us the most beautiful of all, is also superior to others by its genius, courage and activity.

Regarding Negros, Cuvier wrote:
The Negro race... is marked by black complexion, crisped of woolly hair, compressed cranium and a flat nose, The projection of the lower parts of the face, and the thick lips, evidently approximate it to the monkey tribe: the hordes of which it consists have always remained in the most complete state of barbarism."

Georges Cuvier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I'm not buying it, at all. Are you saying that no white person in 1776 thought white people were superior to black people?

No, I'm not saying that. But I am saying that, in 1776 terms, that was not racism. It was more like ignorance. Consider this. In 1000 B.C. it would not have been stupid to think the earth was flat, it would have been ignorant. Today, it would have been stupid. We can't judge those people on current knowledge, nor can we judge those in 1776 on current knowledge. They didn't know.
 
Last edited:
So what do you call a white man in 1776 who thought whites were superior to blacks?

Dave? Bob? Mark?

What do you call Africans in 1776 that held slaves? Or Spaniards? or Koreans?
 
Back
Top Bottom