• 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!

Revisit - Tax Reform

Tax Reform

  • Total voters
    28
AlabamaPaul said:
No, context is important. I try not to cherry pick words from a response to make some point, but you don't seem to have a problem doing so.

To paraphrase myself, what was posted was that in the overall scheme of raising a child, $100/month was chicken feed.

That's why context matters and not selectively choosing the words you want to make a point...
Click to expand...
That doesn't change a thing, just as I said. You either have $100/mo to blow and it really is "chicken feed" or you don't have $100/mo to blow, which means you're probably poor.
 
MoSurveyor said:
That doesn't change a thing, just as I said. You either have $100/mo to blow and it really is "chicken feed" or you don't have $100/mo to blow.
Click to expand...

A bit dense on context?
 
AlabamaPaul said:
A bit dense on context?
Click to expand...
Not at all. I've raised a child through adulthood and I've had a budget for several decades. I know what $100/mo meant to me at one time and what it means now. My conclusion is that you're either sloppy in your lifestyle/accounting and need the extra slack to avoid tragedy or you don't follow a budget very well.
 
molten_dragon said:
That's not going to happen. Well, speaking realistically none of it's likely to happen, but that's even less likely. We're not going to say as a country "Yeah, we don't care if you have kids, we don't care about the cost of raising them when factoring in your taxes". If the deduction was fixed and didn't scale to family size, it would be large enough to account for at least whatever the average number of kids people have is.
Click to expand...

Speaking realistically, kids should not be a right, it should be a privilege for only those who are wealthy enough to provide for them until they are able to enter the market and take care of themselves. Those who have kids and are not able to provide for them without government assistance or tax relief should instead be fined. This will send a clear message that the market no longer tolerates this inefficiency.
 
kenc said:
Speaking realistically, kids should not be a right, it should be a privilege for only those who are wealthy enough to provide for them until they are able to enter the market and take care of themselves. Those who have kids and are not able to provide for them without government assistance or tax relief should instead be fined. This will send a clear message that the market no longer tolerates this inefficiency.
Click to expand...

You are... well, I wouldn't say the worst sock puppet ever, but you're reaching for it. If you are going to try to make conservatives look bad, you should at least learn to speak from their actual concerns, and with their actual propositions. Government intervention in fining people for providing a public good? :lol:



AlabamaPaul - I am currently raising three children on an E-5 salary in the military. If you don't need your $300 a month, I can think of more than a few helpful places I could put it for you :D
 
cpwill said:
You are... well, I wouldn't say the worst sock puppet ever, but you're reaching for it. If you are going to try to make conservatives look bad, you should at least learn to speak from their actual concerns, and with their actual propositions. Government intervention in fining people for providing a public good? :lol:
Click to expand...

I'm just tired of these pansy liberal conservatives who have lost their way. It's about time we got back on track.
 
kenc said:
I'm just tired of these pansy liberal conservatives who have lost their way. It's about time we got back on track.
Click to expand...

No you're not. You're trying (and failing) to imitate a movement conservative.
 
cpwill said:
No you're not. You're trying (and failing) to imitate a movement conservative.
Click to expand...

Think what you want you bleeding heart conservative. ;)
 
kenc said:
Speaking realistically, kids should not be a right, it should be a privilege for only those who are wealthy enough to provide for them until they are able to enter the market and take care of themselves. Those who have kids and are not able to provide for them without government assistance or tax relief should instead be fined. This will send a clear message that the market no longer tolerates this inefficiency.
Click to expand...

Look, I get that you're trying to make a point with sarcasm, but all joking aside: Fining people who have more kids than they can afford is no more absurd than giving people financial rewards for having kids they can't afford (using other people's money). I personally don't agree with doing either of those things, but I don't see why the former is so "out there" that it is considered a joke, and yet the latter is completely accepted in society. They should both be considered as absurd as each other.
 
HumanBeing said:
Look, I get that you're trying to make a point with sarcasm, but all joking aside: Fining people who have more kids than they can afford is no more absurd than giving people financial rewards for having kids they can't afford (using other people's money). I personally don't agree with doing either of those things, but I don't see why the former is so "out there" that it is considered a joke, and yet the latter is completely accepted in society. They should both be considered as absurd as each other.
Click to expand...

And you are a bleeding heart voluntaryist. ;)

Both of you should just get with the program of world domination led by a plutocracy supported by an authoritarian corporatocracy, supported by enslaving the poorest 99%. Both of you, report to reprogramming immediately. If not, you will both be prosecuted as terrorists according to the Patriot Act.
 
Last edited:
kenc said:
Speaking realistically, kids should not be a right, it should be a privilege for only those who are wealthy enough to provide for them until they are able to enter the market and take care of themselves.
Click to expand...

Kids are neither a right nor a privilege. They are a biological imperative. We can choose not to have children, but it goes against some of our deepest instincts to do so. Any plan that relies on people who can't afford to have children not having them is doomed to fail. Just like abstinence only sex ed.

kenc said:
Those who have kids and are not able to provide for them without government assistance or tax relief should instead be fined. This will send a clear message that the market no longer tolerates this inefficiency.
Click to expand...

Right, let's fine people for not having enough money, that won't make things worse or anything like that.
 
kenc said:
Speaking realistically, kids should not be a right, it should be a privilege for only those who are wealthy enough to provide for them until they are able to enter the market and take care of themselves. Those who have kids and are not able to provide for them without government assistance or tax relief should instead be fined. This will send a clear message that the market no longer tolerates this inefficiency.
Click to expand...
When I accused AlabamaPaul of promoting eugenics I was mostly kidding, since I was pretty sure he was using it as an insult. In your case, I think I'll assume it's not a joke and accuse you of promoting eugenics for real.

Anyone who believes people should plan babies around a budget or have to meet some specified government minimum on wealth just to have children needs to take a long look at history and how many great people in all walks of life came from an economically poor background. Children are a resource for the future and I pity people who are too narrow-minded and/or myopic to see that.
 
molten_dragon said:
Yes, it definitely needs an overhaul. I don't think we need a new system, just a vastly simplified version of our current system. Keep the income tax, but treat everyone and everything the same. Make it a flat tax rate with a single cost-of-living deduction based on family size. No special taxes for medicare/medicaid and social security. They come out of the general budget and the general tax income. And no special tax rates for investment income or inherited income. They're treated the same as everything else. Think of all the money that would be saved every year if most people didn't have to file their taxes ever, because the right amount would already be deducted for you.
Click to expand...

Funny, I would charge people more for larger families. If that discourages peopel from having children they cant afford, bonus!
 
jonny5 said:
Funny, I would charge people more for larger families. If that discourages peopel from having children they cant afford, bonus!
Click to expand...

I really don't think as a country that we need (or want) to go down the population control route. Look at the kind of crazy **** happening in China because of their population control laws.
 
jonny5 said:
While its a better solution, its still technically unfair because some people are paying more for the same services. For example, if you simplify govt down to providing everyone equally with security and justice, then everyone should pay equally for that service. As in everyone pays the same amount for water for example, regardless of how rich or poor you are (unless your poor and get subsidies, but you get the point).
Click to expand...
You're saying that geography is the great non-equalizer? Like when someone living in California pays more for goods and services than someone else who lives in Wyoming?
 
Yes, our tax system needs a complete overhaul. My ideal system would have no income, sales, or improvement taxes. They would be replaced by taxes on land value, pollution, patents, user fees, and maybe a few other pigouvian taxes (on alcohol, cigarettes, etc.) Realistically, the elimination of any tax would be very improbable. However, I can live with a shift in the right direction: Lower taxes that discourage productive behavior and increase taxes that discourage unproductive/damaging behavior.
 
HumanBeing said:
Taxation should be voluntary, just like everything else.
Click to expand...

Taxation is not just taken by a government. It can also be taken by a private entity such as a landlord. Neither one is 'voluntary.'
 
Geoist said:
Taxation is not just taken by a government. It can also be taken by a private entity such as a landlord. Neither one is 'voluntary.'
Click to expand...

Sure it is, you want to tell me there are no other landlords? Choosing to pay to use another person's private property is just a voluntary transaction. If you don't like his terms, you can find a different landlord. The problems come when governments create artificial monopolies and all of a sudden you don't have a choice anymore. That is when it becomes involuntary :)
 
Geoist said:
Yes, our tax system needs a complete overhaul. My ideal system would have no income, sales, or improvement taxes. They would be replaced by taxes on land value, pollution, patents, user fees, and maybe a few other pigouvian taxes (on alcohol, cigarettes, etc.) Realistically, the elimination of any tax would be very improbable. However, I can live with a shift in the right direction: Lower taxes that discourage productive behavior and increase taxes that discourage unproductive/damaging behavior.
Click to expand...

Not to go all "Godwinian" on you, but the first thing I thought about when reading this was that it sounded like the ideals of a man who reigned in 1930s Germany.
 
HumanBeing said:
Sure it is, you want to tell me there are no other landlords? Choosing to pay to use another person's private property is just a voluntary transaction. If you don't like his terms, you can find a different landlord. The problems come when governments create artificial monopolies and all of a sudden you don't have a choice anymore. That is when it becomes involuntary :)
Click to expand...

Don't people say if you don't like your country's tax system you can move to another country? How are States committing theft but landlords are not? How is having a choice between masters "freedom?"
 
Gipper said:
Not to go all "Godwinian" on you, but the first thing I thought about when reading this was that it sounded like the ideals of a man who reigned in 1930s Germany.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can give an honest critique of my proposal instead of playing the 'Hitler card.' :roll:
 
Geoist said:
Perhaps you can give an honest critique of my proposal instead of playing the 'Hitler card.' :roll:
Click to expand...

Is there any argument that Pigouvian (sin) taxes don't play into Hitler's wheelhouse?

Now, his system may have been a little more outstretched than yours, but yours definitely seems to have the same tenets.

Also, it's not the same because I'm not calling you a racist or a lover of genocide. I'm just saying that you share some ideals with the man.
 
Gipper said:
Is there any argument that Pigouvian (sin) taxes don't play into Hitler's wheelhouse?
Click to expand...

Pigouvian taxes exist everywhere. You are throwing a red herring.


Also, it's not the same because I'm not calling you a racist or a lover of genocide. I'm just saying that you share some ideals with the man.
Click to expand...

So because I have a tax proposal, and because Hitler's Germany had taxes, I must hold the ideals of Nazism. Wow. Please troll elsewhere.
 
Dooble said:
You're saying that geography is the great non-equalizer? Like when someone living in California pays more for goods and services than someone else who lives in Wyoming?
Click to expand...

No, individualism is the great non equalizer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom