• 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!

What is the purpose of taxation?

What is the most important goal of tax collection?

  • Collect necessary revenue in such a way as to maximize growth

    Votes: 9 64.3%

  • Collect necesssary revenue in such a way as to incentivize positive behaviors

    Votes: 3 21.4%

  • Collect revenue in such a way as to redistribute wealth

    Votes: 2 14.3%

  • Collect revenue in such a way as to minimize wage disparity

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Collect Revenue from certain groups and not from others

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    14
cpwill said:
that does it. i'm nominating you for asshat of the year award.




:lol:
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Thank you, but please do not reference basement stuff up here, it is a violation of the Vegas rule
 
my bad - 'pologies.
 
Redress said:
Actually the reasoning behind progressive taxation is to minimize the harm of taxation. The argument is that those who make more are less harmed by a higher tax level. To illustrate, if you are making just enough to pay your bills with your base salary and no taxes, any taxes at any level is very harmful. If you are making twice what you need for basic necessities, any tax rate under 50 % is less harmful than any tax at all on the first person.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand and agree with that. However, I also think there are other reasons a progressive tax system is important, which are explained very well below.

"Arguments for and against progressive taxation often hinge on highly subjective arguments about "fairness". I believe, however, that it is best to consider progressive taxation on the more objective grounds of small government and sustainable taxation. I will argue that progressive taxation can keep government small by eliminating the need for social welfare programs. I will also argue that progressive taxation leads to more stable, sustained tax revenue, and helps prevent economic dysfunction."
Progressive Taxation
 
I think Kori nailed it....

Generate the necessary revenue while doing the least harm and being the least intrusive.

I do think a progressive tax code helps with that, however not anywhere near what many on the left wish and I think there is harm in not having everyone have some skin in the game when it comes to an income tax.
 
cpwill said:
Obviously you want a tax code that accomplishes multiple things; but when two goals conflict, one has to win. So what, at the end of the day, wins?
Click to expand...

1. Maximizing growth does not necessarily mean that growth will be such that we will have a strong middle class, reduce poverty, or have low unemployment. Growth could be skewed, so its probably not my choice.
2. This one is a good one, but it depends on what the positive behaviors are. If its a good wage and wealthy distribution, then probably, if its to stop people from smoking or drinking, I am less concerned with it. So I am not sure what is implied by this choice.
3. Redistribution of wealth in itself is not necessarily positive. It depends on whether this redistribution creates economic growth and support the citizenry in their efforts to maintain good employment.
4. This is a good one, but again, it depends on the method being used. We could all be poor and have low wage disparity or we could be well off and have less wage disparity.
5. It depends on the goals it supports yet again.

I think ultimately, we should support economic growth and a strong middle class to generate enough demand to maintain strong employment (and as much private sector employment as possible). That is going to need to borrow elements from all approaches.
 
Last edited:
Taxes were originally to provide for the security of our borders from invading forces, to protect America and it's freedom. As society evolved we let government take more and more of our money to provide services such as interstate highway system. Some things like that only the fed gov can accomplish but the problem is gov is like a cancer, the bigger it gets, the more control it gets of the body the more it feels compelled to grow until eventually the host organism is no longer able to function and dies. We are now in that period where the gov is so big and demanding to get even bigger that if we can't stop it, even shrink it, we will die.
 
Personally I think it's to tick-us-off. Then again those guys in Washington need real nice carpet to go under those expensive desks, and also for their work-out area to reduce fat...not government fat, personal fat from the interns they want to have a go at.
 
be thankful. if they weren't buggering the interns, they'd have more time and energy for legislation.
 
To pay extortion to the poor so they do not rob me. Also a little for law courts, police and military.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
None of the above.

The first and foremost purpose of taxation is to pay for the services, functions, and operations that the society have deemed important.
Click to expand...
Exactly, it's to pay for the "commons."
 
cpwill said:
Obviously you want a tax code that accomplishes multiple things; but when two goals conflict, one has to win. So what, at the end of the day, wins?
Click to expand...

The point of taxation is so that the government can raise the money necessary to perform the duties it was given in the Constitution.
 
I voted for:

Collect necesssary revenue in such a way as to incentivize positive behaviors
Click to expand...

The basic economic logic of a tax code is pretty simple. Ideally, we want to tax things that we want people to do less of, and reduce taxes on things we want people to do more of. I'm not talking about hundreds of itemized deductions for various good deeds in the tax code...that's a horrible system. But I think this logic should apply more to the things we tax in the first place. Corporate taxes and sales taxes are especially bad, because they reduce demand even more during a recession in which we have a severe lack of demand. I'm much more receptive to income taxes and land/wealth taxes, because they don't really discourage positive behaviors (at least not to the same extent as corporate and sales taxes do). I also think we need to increase the gasoline tax fairly substantially.

And beyond that, we should primarily be taxing the people from whom the government can generate the most revenue for the least harm (i.e. the wealthy).
 
Last edited:
So the state can collect money to fund social programs, the military/police, and to fund the state in necessary means..
 
Catawba said:
Because the government is not taking money from the rich and giving it to those at lower levels. The government is taxing the rich more to fund the government because they derive the most benefit from the services provided by the government.
Click to expand...

So you're claiming that it is the wealthy who benefit more from such programs as food stamps, and other similar welfare programs? Or are you going to claim that those who do benefit most from these programs are paying their fair share of taxes to support them?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
None of the above.

The first and foremost purpose of taxation is to pay for the services, functions, and operations that the society have deemed important.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that that lines up with the goal of promoting growth. Can't have good growth if people are afraid for their safety or health, for example.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
So you're claiming that it is the wealthy who benefit more from such programs as food stamps, and other similar welfare programs? Or are you going to claim that those who do benefit most from these programs are paying their fair share of taxes to support them?
Click to expand...

No, I am saying the wealthy derive more benefit from the courts,schools, jails, Interstate system, Internet system, banks too big to fail, oil subsidies, big farm subsidies, optional wars, bloated military, tax cuts, airports, etc, etc, etc. All the government services and infrastructure that enables the the rich to grow their wealth while the middle class gets poorer.
 
None of those answers make any sense. I think you should look at what your taxes pay for, then come back and rewrite the question.
 
Kandahar said:
I voted for:



The basic economic logic of a tax code is pretty simple. Ideally, we want to tax things that we want people to do less of, and reduce taxes on things we want people to do more of. I'm not talking about hundreds of itemized deductions for various good deeds in the tax code...that's a horrible system. But I think this logic should apply more to the things we tax in the first place. Corporate taxes and sales taxes are especially bad, because they reduce demand even more during a recession in which we have a severe lack of demand. I'm much more receptive to income taxes and land/wealth taxes, because they don't really discourage positive behaviors (at least not to the same extent as corporate and sales taxes do). I also think we need to increase the gasoline tax fairly substantially.

And beyond that, we should primarily be taxing the people from whom the government can generate the most revenue for the least harm (i.e. the wealthy).
Click to expand...

the problem with your "From each according to their ability" bit is while its politically favorable to tell the masses they won't be taxed enough to pay for what they want, what that attitude causes is the mess we are in today

most of america doesn't pay their fair share and thus they have no incentive to reign in government spending
 
Catawba said:
No, I am saying the wealthy derive more benefit from the courts,schools, jails, Interstate system, Internet system, banks too big to fail, oil subsidies, big farm subsidies, optional wars, bloated military, tax cuts, airports, etc, etc, etc. All the government services and infrastructure that enables the the rich to grow their wealth while the middle class gets poorer.
Click to expand...

that is a lie based on your opinion

the poor use the jail system far more than the rich and the poor make up the majority of crime victims.


the rest of your claim is pure and utter BS. if there were no government there would be no middle class per se and the poor would be groveling in the dirt like they did in feudal societies
 
There isn't really an answer to that question... It serves many purposes. Obviously the primary purpose is paying for things we as a society decide to spend on. Many other purposes fall in the category of incentivizing or decentivizing various actions. For example, we tax smoking more heavily than other products because of the extra costs it creates for society and we tax healthy food less than other products because we want to make preparing healthy meals at home a more attractive option than feeding your family at McDonalds. Adjustments to tax policy often serve economic goals. For example, we might decrease taxes on the middle class to increase consumer spending or decrease taxes on the rich to increase investment. Or we might make the tax scheme more progressive to counter balance an expanding rich poor gap or make it more regressive to increase the incentives to seek promotions.

The constitution gives a similarly broad answer- to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

So, there are many purposes. Asking that "the" purpose is for taxation is like asking somebody to tell you the one thing duct tape can be used for.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
the poor use the jail system far more than the rich and the poor make up the majority of crime victims.
Click to expand...

The jails provide protection for the rich and their property.

Don't believe me, just ask some criminals if they have a need for jails.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom