• 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
Catawba said:
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.
Click to expand...

yeah but us rich aren't the ones normally being victimized

most of us live in neighborhoods that have a low scumbag population

we have strong doors, good alarms, well trained dogs and lots of weapons

not so people in poor neighborhoods

you might actually do some research. I know what the stats are for cincinnati. The poorest neighborhood in cincinnati-also voted one of the most dangerous areas of the USA is called "over the rhine". It has something like 20% of the police runs in recent years and has less than 3% of the population.

Hyde Park, the richest area in the City proper, has had very few police issues

so you are lying
 
It's sorta funny that NONE OF YOUR CHOICES are actually what they would teach in EVERY SINGLE ECONOMICS CLASS in the universe.

Again, showing how little the far-right really understands about Public Policy issues.
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah but us rich aren't the ones normally being victimized

most of us live in neighborhoods that have a low scumbag population

we have strong doors, good alarms, well trained dogs and lots of weapons

not so people in poor neighborhoods

you might actually do some research. I know what the stats are for cincinnati. The poorest neighborhood in cincinnati-also voted one of the most dangerous areas of the USA is called "over the rhine". It has something like 20% of the police runs in recent years and has less than 3% of the population.

Hyde Park, the richest area in the City proper, has had very few police issues

so you are lying
Click to expand...

The rich own most of the wealth and property that needs to be protected.
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah but us rich aren't the ones normally being victimized

most of us live in neighborhoods that have a low scumbag population

we have strong doors, good alarms, well trained dogs and lots of weapons

not so people in poor neighborhoods

you might actually do some research. I know what the stats are for cincinnati. The poorest neighborhood in cincinnati-also voted one of the most dangerous areas of the USA is called "over the rhine". It has something like 20% of the police runs in recent years and has less than 3% of the population.

Hyde Park, the richest area in the City proper, has had very few police issues

so you are lying
Click to expand...

Now, by scumbags, I assume you mean criminals. And the thing you forget is that in this country, we don't arrest and prosecute rich criminals, especially the ones who commit white collar crime. I won't guess either way whether or not you've committed any such transgressions, but the odds are pretty good that some of your neighbors have.
 
Paschendale said:
Now, by scumbags, I assume you mean criminals. And the thing you forget is that in this country, we don't arrest and prosecute rich criminals, especially the ones who commit white collar crime. I won't guess either way whether or not you've committed any such transgressions, but the odds are pretty good that some of your neighbors have.
Click to expand...

Does this summarize your point well enough?

internet-memes-racism-the-planet.jpg
 
Paschendale said:
Now, by scumbags, I assume you mean criminals. And the thing you forget is that in this country, we don't arrest and prosecute rich criminals, especially the ones who commit white collar crime. I won't guess either way whether or not you've committed any such transgressions, but the odds are pretty good that some of your neighbors have.
Click to expand...

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are free men. You have a point there.
 
Voted #2, but I would change incentivize to facilitate.
 
Catawba said:
The rich own most of the wealth and property that needs to be protected.
Click to expand...

we can hire private security, the poor cannot. ever heard of "the pinkertons"

the fact is most people victimized by crime are not the rich. and the poor are the most likely victims of murder

so your fantasies are just that while I am pointing out facts that anyone who has a background in law enforcement would know
 
Paschendale said:
Now, by scumbags, I assume you mean criminals. And the thing you forget is that in this country, we don't arrest and prosecute rich criminals, especially the ones who commit white collar crime. I won't guess either way whether or not you've committed any such transgressions, but the odds are pretty good that some of your neighbors have.
Click to expand...

you would be fibbing again. Martha Stewart went to jail for what?
 
whysoserious said:
Does this summarize your point well enough?

View attachment 67117071
Click to expand...

how many convictions did the mope pretending to have a gun (which is charged as ARMED ROBBERY) have

How many people are killed in the course of armed robberies vs embezzlement

and yes that mope should not have received more than a few months but that doesn't mean that you can compare the two because one involved a THREAT OF VIOLENCE

I don't think non-violent criminals should be in a jail btw

be it executives or some guy growing pot on his property and selling it
 
TurtleDude said:
you would be fibbing again. Martha Stewart went to jail for what?
Click to expand...

One or two exceptions does not change an overall trend. I know you're smarter than that, Turtle... The people that caused the recession are still walking around free. CEOs who embezzle billions of dollars and destroy companies, they don't get sent to prison. Wealthy war criminals are free and clear. Besides, Martha Stewart is a small fry. Movie stars, athletes, and celebrities are only exempted from sexual or drug-related prosecution... and, you know... murder (thanks, OJ). But they're not rich enough to get away with the money crimes. You have to be part of the business crime club to do that, and they don't like anyone else playing on their turf.

David Duncan and Nancy Temple, the people behind Arthur Anderson and the coverups and Enron are both free. Nancy Temple even kept her license to practice law.

The rich and the poor are clearly not treated the same way in our courts.
 
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...
I thought taxes were to pay for essential govt services per the Constitution.
 
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

Really. Because I could have sworn wealth was more evenly distributed in the 1950s and 1960s when the economy was humming along quite nicely. In fact, the two most recent peaks in wealth disparity are the current period, and the period immediately preceding the Great Depression.

most of america doesn't pay their fair share and thus they have no incentive to reign in government spending
Click to expand...

You'd have to first convince me that government spending is a bad thing, before that criticism would have any meaning at all.
 
Kandahar said:
Really. Because I could have sworn wealth was more evenly distributed in the 1950s and 1960s when the economy was humming along quite nicely. In fact, the two most recent peaks in wealth disparity are the current period, and the period immediately preceding the Great Depression.



You'd have to first convince me that government spending is a bad thing, before that criticism would have any meaning at all.
Click to expand...
You like to play simpleton games don't you? The govt will always spend, genius. So your reference to govt spending is pure bull****. We're talking magnitude here and you know it.
 
American said:
You like to play simpleton games don't you? The govt will always spend, genius.
Click to expand...

lol u mad

So your reference to govt spending is pure bull****. We're talking magnitude here and you know it.
Click to expand...

OK. You'd have to convince me that the magnitude of government spending is a bad thing, before Turtle Dude's criticism of progressive taxation would mean anything to me. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
we can hire private security, the poor cannot. ever heard of "the pinkertons"

the fact is most people victimized by crime are not the rich. and the poor are the most likely victims of murder

so your fantasies are just that while I am pointing out facts that anyone who has a background in law enforcement would know
Click to expand...

The great majority of criminals in jail are not murderers, just ask a trial lawyer!
 
Paschendale said:
One or two exceptions does not change an overall trend. I know you're smarter than that, Turtle... The people that caused the recession are still walking around free. CEOs who embezzle billions of dollars and destroy companies, they don't get sent to prison. Wealthy war criminals are free and clear. Besides, Martha Stewart is a small fry. Movie stars, athletes, and celebrities are only exempted from sexual or drug-related prosecution... and, you know... murder (thanks, OJ). But they're not rich enough to get away with the money crimes. You have to be part of the business crime club to do that, and they don't like anyone else playing on their turf.

David Duncan and Nancy Temple, the people behind Arthur Anderson and the coverups and Enron are both free. Nancy Temple even kept her license to practice law.

The rich and the poor are clearly not treated the same way in our courts.
Click to expand...

The people who caused the recession are almost impossible to identify in total let alone prove committed criminal acts.

the poor use the court system far more than the rich do. when poor people sue corporations and win, the corporations have to pay their legal fees in federal courts. when the corporations win, the corporations still have to pay their own legal fees.

who are the war criminals you talk about

the police actually protect the poor rather than the rich. if there were no police the rich would have hired killers dealing with crooks as they have done in many societies for many ages.
 
Catawba said:
The great majority of criminals in jail are not murderers, just ask a trial lawyer!
Click to expand...

true, the vast majority of people in prison are those who are tied to the war on drugs meaning if we got rid of that nonsense we could reserve jail cells for the real scum-rapists serial killers child molesters and other truly evil people
 
Kandahar said:
Really. Because I could have sworn wealth was more evenly distributed in the 1950s and 1960s when the economy was humming along quite nicely. In fact, the two most recent peaks in wealth disparity are the current period, and the period immediately preceding the Great Depression.



You'd have to first convince me that government spending is a bad thing, before that criticism would have any meaning at all.
Click to expand...

back in the days when America had a monopoly on heavy manufacturing and our over priced labor had not real competition because all the other manufacturing nations didn't have the tools to make anything?
 
TurtleDude said:
back in the days when America had a monopoly on heavy manufacturing and our over priced labor had not real competition because all the other manufacturing nations didn't have the tools to make anything?
Click to expand...

If this is a reference to free trade and globalization, I'm all for it. You won't find me arguing for any protectionism. Or, for that matter, heavy-handed union contracts. Or, for that matter, barriers to immigration. Get rid of them all and let the chips fall where they may...even if they fall in China. That doesn't change the fact that our economy needs a relatively egalitarian distribution of wealth in order to be successful over the long haul. If people can't afford to buy things, then companies can't make any money or hire any workers.
 
TurtleDude said:
true, the vast majority of people in prison are those who are tied to the war on drugs meaning if we got rid of that nonsense we could reserve jail cells for the real scum-rapists serial killers child molesters and other truly evil people
Click to expand...

We spend 6 times per capita on jails than we do on education. Little will change until we get our priorities straight. Viva la revolution!
 
Kandahar said:
lol u mad



OK. You'd have to convince me that the magnitude of government spending is a bad thing, before Turtle Dude's criticism of progressive taxation would mean anything to me. :2wave:
Click to expand...
Hah, I don't have to convince you of a damn thing. You convince me, it's on you to justify every penny spent buddy. Chop chop.
 
Nice loaded question. The answer I would give is, "Collect revenue in such a way as to equalize opportunity." That's not the same thing as wealth redistribution, and it's also not necessarily the same thing as maximizing growth, although it can be similar to both those things in some circumstances. As you said, though, when growth conflicts with equal opportunity, opportunity should win every time.
 
American said:
Hah, I don't have to convince you of a damn thing. You convince me, it's on you to justify every penny spent buddy. Chop chop.
Click to expand...

If you don't actually have anything to contribute then you shouldn't butt in to someone else's discussion in the first place. It's a waste of your time and mine. :2wave:
 
The purpose of taxation is to pay for those services we as a country democratically decide the government should offer.

The method of taxation should be both efficient and fair. There is no point taxing poor people if the government is just going to return the money to them in the form of food stamps, medicaid, SSD, etc. The portion each class of individuals is required to pay should be designed to effect an equivalent "hardship" or dent in everyone's pockets across the board, wealthy or poor. That way, everyone should be able to have an honest and informed discussion about what programs they would be willing to spend money on.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom