• 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!

Are you willing to pay higher taxes, and if so, for what?

Are you willing to pay higher taxes, and if so, for what?

  • Yes, across the board.

    Votes: 10 15.4%
  • Yes, for infrastructure.

    Votes: 27 41.5%
  • Yes, for education. (K-12)

    Votes: 18 27.7%
  • Yes, for job creation.

    Votes: 16 24.6%
  • Yes, for social programs.

    Votes: 15 23.1%
  • Yes, for medical care.

    Votes: 21 32.3%
  • Yes, for the environment.

    Votes: 16 24.6%
  • Yes, but... not for some particular programs (please elaborate).

    Votes: 8 12.3%
  • No. None. Not for anything at all.

    Votes: 23 35.4%
  • Undecided. Convince me either way.

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • Total voters
    65
ok, why don't you tell us what the Founding Fathers meant when they said "all men are created equal"?[/QUOTE

A little history lesson here.

:) history lessons are fun

The "all men are created equal" phrase appears only in the Declaration of Independence. The writers of the Constitution had a slightly different opinion. If you are talking about the census, the Constitution proved for apportionment based on the formula that Whites, including those bound for a period of years, were counted as a whole, Negroes as 3/5 a person

this is incorrect. Slaves populaces were only apportioned 3/5ths representation - no human being was ever counted as 3/5ths a person. In addition, freed blacks were counted fully for representation.

If you are asking about the vote, Only white males and freedman had that privilege. Indians, Negroes, and women not so much.

Unless of course, they lived in Delaware (1776), Maryland (1776), New Hampshire (1784), New York (1777), Pennsylvania (1776), or Massachusetts (1780), those being the states and the respective dates that they extended voting rights to blacks. :)
 
I agree with Thunder. I am willing to pay more taxes (but don't want mine going to war). I almost wish each person could have a personal multiple choice on how much of their taxes goes to fund what in the government. The flip side of that is people who do not understand things that are a must, like the EPA and food inspection. Children could starve, because I can see a huge amount of people on the right who would want welfare totally elimated.
 
I agree with Thunder. I am willing to pay more taxes (but don't want mine going to war). I almost wish each person could have a personal multiple choice on how much of their taxes goes to fund what in the government. The flip side of that is people who do not understand things that are a must, like the EPA and food inspection. Children could starve, because I can see a huge amount of people on the right who would want welfare totally elimated.

thank you. its a valid position.
 
ok, why don't you tell us what the Founding Fathers meant when they said "all men are created equal"?

That means that everyone has the same oppurtunity to fail, or succeed, based on each individual's merits. Basically, the government wasn't going to make the decision of who failed, or succeeded.

Ya see, back in the old country, everything was broken down into class and the government made those decisions. It's just common sense and a little historical knowledge.

Giving someone money, doesn't make him equal.
 
What is dishonest about your statement is that it is true for everyone and far more true for most people compared to me (never used public schools, never used public resources such as an emergency room without paying for it etc) and yet you claim I somehow should pay far more for this than anyone else

Over 60% of the global variance in personal income is due to where you are born, and presumably some of that remaining 40% is due to other causes outside your control. So yes, you should pay far more than anyone else because that's the price you pay for living in a society that allows you to succeed. If you don't like it, you can always start a career in Somalia where the government won't interfere with you at all.

and your braying that my property is protected more is beyond moronic. having been a prosecutor I know damn well that it is poor areas that most crimes are perpetrated in. People like me have strong locks, private alarms or security, and in my case, substantial ability to kill and defend against criminals. we have dogs, both my wife and son are martial artists and are both in the top five percent nationally in terms of shooting skill. our area is not one where there is much crime at all

There are other ways in which your property is at risk besides someone physically breaking into your house and taking your television. A guy who invested $500,000 in a financial agreement has a lot more riding on making sure his contract is enforced, than a guy who invested $50 in an agreement. So yes, you absolutely benefit more from the guys with big guns, because you have more to lose.

that is where the welfare socialist nonsense falls on its ass.

You are a sad little man. I pity you.
 
Last edited:
Over 60% of the global variance in personal income is due to where you are born, and presumably some of that remaining 40% is due to other causes outside your control. So yes, you should pay far more than anyone else because that's the price you pay for living in a society that allows you to succeed. If you don't like it, you can always start a career in Somalia where the government won't interfere with you at all.



There are other ways in which your property is at risk besides someone physically breaking into your house and taking your television. A guy who invested $500,000 in a financial agreement has a lot more riding on making sure his contract is enforced, than a guy who invested $50 in an agreement. So yes, you absolutely benefit more from the guys with big guns, because you have more to lose.



You are a sad little man. I pity you.

You are an ignorant man when it comes to me-I pity you

Sad-almost never-little? 6-1 220. I wish I was about 30 pounds littler
 
Last edited:
Interesting! Obscured by the way this question (poll) is presented is how overwhelmingly DP posters (who, on the whole, are better educated than the average Joe) support higher taxes (about 7 to 1 or 80 ok with higher taxes and 12 opposed in all circumstances) at this writing. I hope Turtle Dude doesn't toss and turn too much this evening. He needs a good nights sleep.
 
Last edited:
Interesting! Obscured by the way this question (poll) is presented is how overwhelmingly DP posters support higher taxes (about 4 to 1 or 80 for and 20 against) at this writing. I hope Turtle Dude doesn't toss and turn too much this evening. He needs a good nights sleep.

You ought to spend more time worrying about your issues and less time worrying about me. I am a winner and I am successful. I sleep plenty well. I am not the one obsessing over taking someone else's wealth or pissing and moaning about others being rich
 
You ought to spend more time worrying about your issues and less time worrying about me. I am a winner and I am successful. I sleep plenty well. I am not the one obsessing over taking someone else's wealth or pissing and moaning about others being rich
you poor poor thing...boo hoo hoo, i'm rich and you want me to pay taxes....boo hoo hoo....good grief, enough of the incessant whining....
 
deficit reduction
Strongly disagree..
I feel that deregulation was a primary factor in the "meltdown", causing the deficits..
Our economists were not being very bright in allowing this deregulation to happen...but, then, who allowed the fox to be in the henhouse in the first place???
So, it boils down to education...something that must never stop, but must improve every minute....Obviously, this is not happening.
 
you poor poor thing...boo hoo hoo, i'm rich and you want me to pay taxes....boo hoo hoo....good grief, enough of the incessant whining....

the parasite mentality is quite amusing I guess
 
I'd be willing to pay slightly more in taxes, short term (say, 5 years or so), if it lead to an overall greater decrease in taxes over the long term (say, 25 years or so).

Since that has approximately zero chance of happening...

Short version of my opinion on taxes – we pay slightly too much currently, and what we do pay is being spent (or trying to be spent) on far too much (thus the need to borrow funds).

Problem is, cutting spending is NOT in a politicians best interests, or at least it hasn’t been…dunno if it ever will be.
 
i can afford to pay a little more in taxes.

but not for wars. I wont do that.
Why pay the taxes when you can just hand it over to a poor person?
 
Are you willing to pay higher taxes, and if so, for what?

You can vote for more than one.

The question fails to address the issue. Let's say you had a yard service. You paid them a 100 grand a month. For that hundred grand, the lawn service mows half the yard, repaints the house, washes your car, takes the mail from the mail box and puts it inside the front door, makes bagged lunches for your kids for school, keeps you from smoking in the front lawn, digs up your neighbors lawn to make sure it looks worse than yours, and acts out entertainment on your front lawn comparable to an evening sitcom. So the question is, should you pay the lawn service 110 grand so that they will mow the other half of your yard?

I say no. But wait, but wait, isn't mowing your lawn the job of your lawn service? am I saying I don't want a mowed lawn? That is the sort of absurdity we get when we say we want lower taxes, and pro-government leftists start saying we don't want police or fire services anymore.

The government wastes so much money on so many unnecessary and harmful things. We don't need tax hikes, we need to cut all the unnecessary and harmful spending out of the government. Then reallocate the tax dollars the government receives to the things the government is actually supposed to be doing.
 
you poor poor thing...boo hoo hoo, i'm rich and you want me to pay taxes....boo hoo hoo....good grief, enough of the incessant whining....

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100...

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...
... ...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do…

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible
 
Are you willing to pay higher taxes, and if so, for what?

You can vote for more than one.

I would be willing to pay higher taxes if that money were used to reduce deficit spending...and when the 47% who pay zero have to pony up. 'Til then, I'll do it kicking and screaming all night long.
 
and when the 47% who pay zero have to pony up.

Oh look, this nonsense again. Remember how that particular demographic's income is below the minimum taxable amount? I thought so. When those in poverty are no longer in poverty, I'm sure they'll be pleased to be able to pay income taxes.

Now, for the zillionth time, can we PLEASE stop misusing this statistic?
 
I would be willing to pay higher taxes if that money were used to reduce deficit spending...and when the 47% who pay zero have to pony up. 'Til then, I'll do it kicking and screaming all night long.

Calling on the victims of 30 years of failed trickle down economics to help bail out those that created the problem - this is the GOP campaign platform the American people are rejecting.
 
Oh look, this nonsense again. Remember how that particular demographic's income is below the minimum taxable amount? I thought so. When those in poverty are no longer in poverty, I'm sure they'll be pleased to be able to pay income taxes.


LOL so half the country is in poverty

GMAFB
 
Last edited:
Calling on the victims of 30 years of failed trickle down economics to help bail out those that created the problem - this is the GOP campaign platform the American people are rejecting.

the indolent middle class that has demanded more and more government and demanded the "rich" pay for it has caused most of the problems you now whine about
 
the indolent middle class that has demanded more and more government and demanded the "rich" pay for it has caused most of the problems you now whine about

lol....lpast<---just shakes head
 
Oh look, this nonsense again. Remember how that particular demographic's income is below the minimum taxable amount? I thought so. When those in poverty are no longer in poverty, I'm sure they'll be pleased to be able to pay income taxes.

Now, for the zillionth time, can we PLEASE stop misusing this statistic?

Why would we stop using this statistic? Don't just flap gums, post your alternate universe.

47% of single taxpayers will pay no income tax.
55% of senior tax filers will pay no income tax.
55% of filers with children will pay no income tax.
60% of those earning between $20,000 and $30,000 pay no income tax
No one earning less than $10,000 pays income tax.
20% of those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 pay no income tax.
2/3 of households with children earning between $40,000 and $50,000 pay no income tax.
A small percentage of those who earn over $1 million pay no income tax.

Filing Status Matters Too: Filing status also matters because of differences in exclusions, deductions, and credits. Among those with income between $40,000 and $50,000, for example, nearly three-fourths of joint filers, two-thirds of households with children, and three-fifths of the elderly owe no tax, compared with less than half of household heads and less than a tenth of singles. The impact of refundable child and earned income credits and the exclusion of most Social Security benefits clearly make their mark.

TaxVox » Blog Archive » Who Pays No Income Tax?
 
LOL so half the country is in poverty

GMAFB

Yes. 71% of Americans make 50000 a year or less. 35% make 25000 or less. A generation ago, this income level was sufficient for middle class living. The cost of living keeps going up and up, and wages do not.
 
Back
Top Bottom