• 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!

Do You Want Higher Taxes?

I didn't switch anything. Which is why you won't quote me to show that I've switched.

Which are you going to argue? That they pay the majority of taxes or that they pay the highest percentage of their income?

They have most of the wealth, and they want it all.

And they don't pay a majority of taxes

Wrong again. They do not pay taxes in proportion to their income

They do pay a majority of the taxes. As a proportion? Maybe if you are including all taxes.
 
another one of the 100 or so lies you have posted

the top 2 percent are paying more income tax than any other group of the similar number of people so you are completely totally and thoroughly dishonest

and your juvenile attempts to copy my posts and respam them is childish

TurtleDude, I am not sure you are understanding the concept. Let me give you an example ...

lets say person A made $100 per week and person B made $10,000 per week.

Now lets suppose that a real flat tax existed and it was 25% of total income.

That would mean person A would pay $25 and person B would pay $2,500

While person B is paying a much greater amount than person A ($2,475 more), they are still paying the same percent of their money

Additionally, person A is actually hurting more than person B as he/she is only left with $75 and person A is left with $7,500. Because expenses don't magically take into account your income level, person A is loosing much more by giving 25% (i.e. $25) and person B hardly notices the 25% that they pay out.

Do you understand what I am saying? What this means is that your argument that the top 2% is paying way more than any other similar numbered group of people somehow is not "fair" ... is preposterous, as I just outlined above ... those 2% barely feel the taxes they have to pay, its like the taxes do not exist relatively speaking. Hope this helps.
 
Are you seriously arguing that China has a free market economy??
You're dodging. Stop. This directly addresses your post
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/104392-do-you-want-higher-taxes-40.html#post1059662383
sangha said:
Yes, I would like a specific example of when a free market economy has lifted people out of poverty.

Answered:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy...ublic_of_China
In the modern era, China's influence in the world economy was minimal until the late 1980s. At that time, economic reforms initiated after 1978 began to generate significant and steady growth in investment, consumption and standards of living. China now participates extensively in the world market and private sector companies play a major role in the economy. Since 1978 hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty: According to China's official statistics, the poverty rate fell from 53% in 1981[10] to 2.5% in 2005. However, in 2006, 10.8% of people still lived on less than $1 a day (purchasing power parity-adjusted).[11] The infant mortality rate fell by 39.5% between 1990 and 2005,[12] and maternal mortality by 41.1%.[13] Access to telephones during the period rose more than 94-fold, to 57.1%.[14]

In the 1949 revolution, China's economic system was officially made into a communist system. Since the wide-ranging reforms of the 1980s and afterwards, many scholars assert that China can be defined as one of the leading examples of state capitalism today.[15][16]

China was centrally planned (under communism of course) and was stagnant for decades.
They added capitalism to their markets and it EXPLODED, taking their poverty rate from 53% to 2.5%. Freedom good eh?

Of course that's just one example. Freedoms in the marketplace are prone to lifting entire populations out of poverty, improving quality of life, giving more people political and social power, etc.
 
TurtleDude, I am not sure you are understanding the concept. Let me give you an example ...

lets say person A made $100 per week and person B made $10,000 per week.

Now lets suppose that a real flat tax existed and it was 25% of total income.

That would mean person A would pay $25 and person B would pay $2,500

While person B is paying a much greater amount than person A ($2,475 more), they are still paying the same percent of their money

Additionally, person A is actually hurting more than person B as he/she is only left with $75 and person A is left with $7,500. Because expenses don't magically take into account your income level, person A is loosing much more by giving 25% (i.e. $25) and person B hardly notices the 25% that they pay out.

Do you understand what I am saying?

What you're saying is well understood on both sides, but it doesn't prove anything other than things always seem unfair to the poor.

The unfairness in your example is simply that some people make very little money and some people make a lot. The $100 a week guy is hurting to a similar degree even if tax rates are zero. Suffering and fairness is subjective and it's not going to go away (at all) by tweaking tax rates.
 
What you're saying is well understood on both sides, but it doesn't prove anything other than things always seem unfair to the poor.

The unfairness in your example is simply that some people make very little money and some people make a lot. The $100 a week guy is hurting to a similar degree even if tax rates are zero. Suffering and fairness is subjective and it's not going to go away (at all) by tweaking tax rates.


A part of what the other poster is describing is the marginal value of income.
 
You're dodging. Stop. This directly addresses your post
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/104392-do-you-want-higher-taxes-40.html#post1059662383


Answered:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy...ublic_of_China


China was centrally planned (under communism of course) and was stagnant for decades.
They added capitalism to their markets and it EXPLODED, taking their poverty rate from 53% to 2.5%. Freedom good eh?

Of course that's just one example. Freedoms in the marketplace are prone to lifting entire populations out of poverty, improving quality of life, giving more people political and social power, etc.

Saying that China is a free market has got to be the most idiotic idea I've read on DP.

However, I haven't gotten to read the "Apes descended from Man" thread yet

And China is not capitalistic. It allows private enterprise. Private enterprise alone does not make a system capitalism
 
Last edited:
What you're saying is well understood on both sides, but it doesn't prove anything other than things always seem unfair to the poor.

The unfairness in your example is simply that some people make very little money and some people make a lot. The $100 a week guy is hurting to a similar degree even if tax rates are zero. Suffering and fairness is subjective and it's not going to go away (at all) by tweaking tax rates.

You are right the $100 person is going to be hurting regardless and the $10,000 guy isn't going to hurt at all. However, as I mentioned before, the $100 guy will hurt more from that 25%, much more. If you were to loose your right arm and I were to say, "oh, he's already suffering, so we may as well go ahead and take his left arm too", this would be analogous to the point you are making.

Additionally, the government recognizes that, comparatively speaking, the $25 from the $100 guy will do nothing for contributions sake compared to the $2,500 from the $10,000 guy ... so they figure ... why take his left arm too?
 
Last edited:
That...that's not free market capitalism in China. It's all State controlled essentially.
People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
China's economy is mainly characterised as a market economy based on private property ownership[122][123] and is one of the leading examples of state capitalism.[124][125]

So Wiki is wrong? Please cite counter examples if you want to chase that goose.

The political system is one party communist/socialist, and is authoritarian.
As we saw in many marxist styled states, the socialist/communist party rules, prohibits anyone from forcing them out via absolute control/authority. Then they start to fail. Then they look to other nations for evidence of how to fix their situation. They encounter one obvious solution
- Free up the economic structure (capitalism)

And lucky for them and us, this economic freedom is eroding the authoritarian status quo. It may not happen in a decade, but I suspect eventually you'll see far greater improvements in their political/social freedoms in no small part as a result of the bleed-through from their economic freedoms and cultural assimilation from trade.

Yes, their political/social system is still heavily authoritarian (as marxism results in, in practice). That has nothing to do with the fact that they are still primarily capitalist and booming, as a result. The real interesting question in the next century will center on this exact issue.
- Will China demonstrate that it must reform politically/socially as it has economically. OR, will China demonstrate that a mostly free market, paired with a strong authoritarian political system is competitive or outright dominant on the world stage compared to nations with far more open political/social systems.

I hope the latter.
 
Saying that China is a free market has got to be the most idiotic idea I've read on DP.
Private enterprise alone does not make a system capitalism

So we have your rhetoric, vs wikipedia:
People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
China's economy is mainly characterised as a market economy based on private property ownership[122][123] and is one of the leading examples of state capitalism.[124][125]

Of course if you had substantial evidence to the contrary, you'd have posted it by now. Keep being hard-headed about your mistakes though, it helps your reputation.
 
Yes, two of the largest socialist economies are growing faster than the US's.

Are you new to economics? I already posted the China info to refute you.
But let's shove India up your junk too:

Until 1991, all Indian governments followed protectionist policies that were influenced by socialist economics. Widespread state intervention and regulation[193] caused the Indian economy to be largely closed to the outside world. After an acute balance of payments crisis in 1991, the nation liberalised its economy and has since continued to move towards a free-market system,[194][195] emphasizing both foreign trade and investment.[196] Consequently, India's economic model is now being described overall as capitalist.[195]

Did you read that? Their socialist bull**** policies closed off their economy to the world, and create a CRISIS. JUST LIKE CHINA, they solved their economic woes by introducing freedom to the people financially, i.e. capitalism. And now, they are described as capitalist.

You do realize you are contradicting reality just as some claim Fox news or Glen Beck use to right? I mean, you're spreading terribly misinformed rhetoric, and it's all so trivially available to anyone who is genuinely interested.
 
So we have your rhetoric, vs wikipedia:
People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Of course if you had substantial evidence to the contrary, you'd have posted it by now. Keep being hard-headed about your mistakes though, it helps your reputation.

Actually, Wiki says that China is ...
is one of the leading examples of state capitalism
People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that's right .. state capitalism ... which is usually described as ...

a society wherein the productive forces are controlled and directed by the state in a capitalist manner
State capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

perhaps I am not understanding what your point is, but the way I see it, in China, the productive forces are, in part, controlled and directed by the sate ... so, how is that true, free market capitalism again?
 
Last edited:
When will the free market boobs realize that a "market economy" is not the same as a "free market economy"?

Deflecting with new claims about boobs doesn't save your recent failures in debate and apparently in understanding really basic facts about world economies. Anyone can read the thread and see how you can't really handle being corrected gracefully.
 
We do NOT have a free market, or a free market economy....
Free means unencumbered, and our market is full of rules that are created by the wealthy, for the wealthy....to the detriment of the small investor.
The average person in the USA had better get accustomed to living like serfs or peasants, since we are sliding rapidly toward the kind of economy that Mexico has....
 
Are you new to economics? I already posted the China info to refute you.
But let's shove India up your junk too:



Did you read that? Their socialist bull**** policies closed off their economy to the world, and create a CRISIS. JUST LIKE CHINA, they solved their economic woes by introducing freedom to the people financially, i.e. capitalism. And now, they are described as capitalist.

You do realize you are contradicting reality just as some claim Fox news or Glen Beck use to right? I mean, you're spreading terribly misinformed rhetoric, and it's all so trivially available to anyone who is genuinely interested.

So India is an example of true free market capitalism aye? Please see the following regarding India's market:

Heavy taxation and government regulation of the market have led to a rather mixed-economy, which is now neither strictly capitalist or socialist-inspired
Is India a capitalist country

Again, you are not providing fully truthful information, no one is arguing that capitalism does not have is positive qualities ... however, you seem to refuse to admit that capitalism needs to be regulated .. am I hearing you argument correctly?
 
Are you new to economics? I already posted the China info to refute you.
But let's shove India up your junk too:



Did you read that? Their socialist bull**** policies closed off their economy to the world, and create a CRISIS. JUST LIKE CHINA, they solved their economic woes by introducing freedom to the people financially, i.e. capitalism. And now, they are described as capitalist.

You do realize you are contradicting reality just as some claim Fox news or Glen Beck use to right? I mean, you're spreading terribly misinformed rhetoric, and it's all so trivially available to anyone who is genuinely interested.

Once again, neither China nor India are free market economies. Let me know when you can name a free market economy that has lifted its' people out of poverty
 
Deflecting with new claims about boobs doesn't save your recent failures in debate and apparently in understanding really basic facts about world economies. Anyone can read the thread and see how you can't really handle being corrected gracefully.

Let me know when you can identify when and where a free market economy has lifted its' people out of poverty. Your attempts to debate China and Indias economy is the deflection.
 
TurtleDude, I am not sure you are understanding the concept. Let me give you an example ...

lets say person A made $100 per week and person B made $10,000 per week.

Now lets suppose that a real flat tax existed and it was 25% of total income.

That would mean person A would pay $25 and person B would pay $2,500

While person B is paying a much greater amount than person A ($2,475 more), they are still paying the same percent of their money

Additionally, person A is actually hurting more than person B as he/she is only left with $75 and person A is left with $7,500. Because expenses don't magically take into account your income level, person A is loosing much more by giving 25% (i.e. $25) and person B hardly notices the 25% that they pay out.

Do you understand what I am saying? What this means is that your argument that the top 2% is paying way more than any other similar numbered group of people somehow is not "fair" ... is preposterous, as I just outlined above ... those 2% barely feel the taxes they have to pay, its like the taxes do not exist relatively speaking. Hope this helps.

I understand perfectly-you want people to pay based on their ability (from each according to their ability). I reject that. If you receive the same value you ought to pay the same but I will accept paying the same percentage even if that means the second guy pays many times more for the same value
 
Are you new to economics? I already posted the China info to refute you.
But let's shove India up your junk too:



Did you read that? Their socialist bull**** policies closed off their economy to the world, and create a CRISIS. JUST LIKE CHINA, they solved their economic woes by introducing freedom to the people financially, i.e. capitalism. And now, they are described as capitalist.

You do realize you are contradicting reality just as some claim Fox news or Glen Beck use to right? I mean, you're spreading terribly misinformed rhetoric, and it's all so trivially available to anyone who is genuinely interested.

The overwhelming majority of average people in both of these countries lives in poverty with a small percentage of people living in luxury. Ultimately, capitalism ends in some type of feudalism.
 
So Wiki is wrong? Please cite counter examples if you want to chase that goose.

No, I do not disagree. I think China is a great example of STATE capitalism. That's not free market capitalism, so you know. And that's what I said.

State capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

State capitalism has various different meanings, but is usually described as a society wherein the productive forces are controlled and directed by the state in a capitalist manner, even if such a society calls itself socialist.[1] Corporatized government agencies and states that own controlling shares of publicly listed firms, thus acting as a capitalist itself, are two examples of state capitalism. State capitalism has also come to refer to an economic system where the means of production are privately owned and the state exerts considerable control over the allocation of credit and investment. State capitalism is a term that is also used (sometimes interchangeably with state monopoly capitalism) to describe a system where the state is intervening in the markets to protect and advance the interests of Big Business. This practice is often claimed to be in sharp contrast with the ideals of both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.[2]

Within Marxist literature, state capitalism is usually defined in this sense: as a social system combining capitalism — the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value in a commodity economy — with ownership or control by a state. By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single giant corporation.[3] Friedrich Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, states that the final stage of capitalism would consist of ownership over production and communication by the bourgeois state.[4]

There are various theories and critiques of state capitalism, some of which have been around since the October Revolution or even before. The common themes among them are to identify that the workers do not meaningfully control the means of production and that commodity relations and production for profit still occur within state capitalism. Other socialists use the term state capitalism to refer to an economic system that is nominally capitalist, where business and private owners reap the profits from an economy largely subsidized, developed and where decisive research and development is undertaken by the state sector at public cost.[3]

This term is also used by some advocates of laissez-faire capitalism to mean a private capitalist economy under state control, often meaning a privately owned economy that is under economic planning. Some even use it to refer to capitalist economies where the state provides substantial public services and regulation over business activity. In the 1930s, Italian Fascist leader Benito Mussolini described Italian Fascism's economic system of corporatism as "state socialism turned on its head."[5] This term was often used to describe the controlled economies of the great powers in the First World War.[6]

Murray Rothbard, a laissez-faire capitalist thinker, uses the term interchangeably with the term state monopoly capitalism, and uses it to describe a partnership of government and big business where the state is intervening on behalf of large capitalists against the interests of consumers.[29][30] He distinguishes this from laissez-faire capitalism where big business is not protected from market forces. This usage dates from the 1960s, when Harry Elmer Barnes described the post-New Deal economy in the United States as "state capitalism." More recently, Andrei Illarionov, former economic advisor to Russian President Vladimir Putin, resigned in December 2005, protesting Russia's "embracement of state capitalism."[31]

The term is not used by the classical liberals to describe the public ownership of the means of production. The economist Ludwig von Mises explains the reason: "The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state. Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic problem of Socialism—until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name. The most recent slogan is "State Capitalism." It is not commonly realized that this covers nothing more than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy, and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the "classic" ideal of egalitarian Socialism."[32]

State Capitalism and Free Market Capitalism are two VERY different things. Thanks for playing,.
 
Last edited:
I understand perfectly-you want people to pay based on their ability (from each according to their ability). I reject that. If you receive the same value you ought to pay the same but I will accept paying the same percentage even if that means the second guy pays many times more for the same value

If you understood what I am saying, I don't think you would think that the wealth are heavily burdened by paying more taxes than the poor .. I mean seriously ... do you think its such a burden to the wealthy? Give me a break! Are you basing your opinion on some illogical ideological principle that is completely selfish in nature, or do care at all about your fellow man/woman?
 
If you understood what I am saying, I don't think you would think that the wealth are heavily burdened by paying more taxes than the poor .. I mean seriously ... do you think its such a burden to the wealthy? Give me a break! Are you basing your opinion on some illogical ideological principle that is completely selfish in nature, or do care at all about your fellow man/woman?


He has a habit of calling people parasites.
 
If you understood what I am saying, I don't think you would think that the wealth are heavily burdened by paying more taxes than the poor .. I mean seriously ... do you think its such a burden to the wealthy? Give me a break! Are you basing your opinion on some illogical ideological principle that is completely selfish in nature, or do care at all about your fellow man/woman?

You just don't get it. You are blind to philosophies that reject your belief that the main issue is cost imposed on a person. What is really selfish is saying those who can afford more taxes (based on your belief that they don't need all that "extra money") havea duty to not only pay what they use but to pay for thousands of others. You are far more selfish than me because you want to impose massive costs on others merely because they are more industrious than you are. You reject the entire concept of paying your share for what you get
 
Back
Top Bottom