• 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 your favorite argument against higher taxes?

What is your favorite argument against higher taxes?

  • Total voters
    36
  • Poll closed .
Moot said:
Not everyone follows the rules which can create moral hazards. This might be a moral hazard....
Click to expand...

Nevermind. I see what you mean now. I think you have it backwards though. Wouldn't I be more inclined to support higher taxes since I am not impacted by it? Perhaps I don't understand what a moral hazard is.

vasuderatorrent
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Nevermind. I see what you mean now. I think you have it backwards though. Wouldn't I be more inclined to support higher taxes since I am not impacted by it? Perhaps I don't understand what a moral hazard is.

vasuderatorrent
Click to expand...

When people don't pay any taxes at all it creates a moral hazard because they benefit what other people who do pay taxes are paying for.

I think it might have something to do with zero sum game theory.
 
Moot said:
When people don't pay any taxes at all it creates a moral hazard because they benefit what other people who do pay taxes are paying for.

I think it might have something to do with zero sum game theory.
Click to expand...

Very impressive argument in such few words. I like it. Now you might see why I don't like the fact that I am not obligated to pay taxes. It really weakens my capacity to debate. Debating is one of my favorite things to do.

vasuderatorrent
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Yes, this is what I was expecting. To start with it, the idea laid out here abandons the very idea that citizens own valuation of commodities is important and simply assumes it for themselves. It simply assumes that the value of the product offered to the rich man, who retains more after paying his personal outgoing, will desire more public expenditure than the poor man, due to the fact that he will have higher surplus of goods to use for other purposes. They have no way to determine what the individual man values are to be used to figure this out, except his total amount of income, as I have shown. If we are to look at the political leans of the rich you would see the full gambit of political thought are represented, and in fact, the two leading categorical groups are liberals and libertarians, which as you might be aware, do not desire the same amount of public expenditure, as is what was assumed. It should be apparent that the only way to truly determine the value of the commodity is through voluntary exchange, not through assumptions based on income and of personal value of public expenditures based on it.
Click to expand...

If there were a cogent argument here I would be glad to debate it. I am defending the reasons for a progressive income tax and you are rambling on about commodities values, liberals and libertarians.
Sorry, you make no sense.
 
Cyrylek said:
Actually, if it is based on feelings, it is not a moral argument. Morality is a system of rules.
Click to expand...
No. Morality is a sense of what is right and what is wrong. Sometimes rules are based on that ... more often than not rules are based on what is best for the folks making the rules.
 
Cyrylek said:
In addition to that, there's a simple consideration of effectiveness: after certain level, taxes become counter-productive, as the source of revenue. They inhibit economic activity to the point where overall take in the next round is lower, not higher. Of course, the break point is very difficult to establish - we just know that it exists.
.
Click to expand...
You seem to be referring to the Laffer curve of conservative tax theory.
In practice the tax cuts of the Bush Jr administration that ( according to Laffer) should have produced higher revenues, had the opposite effect and are largely responsible for the towering debt we now operate under. The curve was drawn by Laffer in an almost linear bell curve, but practical study shows that it is anything but linear. Millionaires did not stop making millions in the 1960s when tax brackets were as high as 90%. The Laffer curve would have predicted that J Paul Getty would shut down all his oil dericks and closed up shop when approaching that tax rate.
He didn't.
Other studies show that if the extremes of the Laffer curve are realized commerce does not stop at near 100% taxation as the supply siders predicted, but will shift instead to a barter based economy and continue to thrive.
Taxes on the wealthy were raised under the Clinton administration and revenues soared.
Current income tax rates are lower than they were in the 1950s for wealthy people. No one will close up shop if they are asked to pay the rates they did when Reagan took office and those rates will solve our current fiscal problems.
It is a myth that higher taxes creates lower revenues unless we get well over 90% for the top bracket. We are a long way from that now at 35%.
 
Last edited:
RabidAlpaca said:
I typically see it a different way. The biggest argument against raising taxes is that our government has shown that they are irresponsible with the money they have, so why should we be giving them more of it? By raising taxes you're rewarding politicians for doing horrible jobs, and that's not the way you handle things in the real world. If your teenage kid were in massive credit card debt and couldn't live within their means, you wouldn't think the solution would be giving him/her more money.
Click to expand...
You wouldn't think the solution would be to stop paying the credit card bill either ...but that seems to be what much of the republicon house wants to do.
 
Buck Ewer said:
You wouldn't think the solution would be to stop paying the credit card bill either ...but that seems to be what much of the republicon house wants to do.
Click to expand...

I don't recall anybody saying we should just stop paying our bills, but rather to cut spending. The responsible thing would be to balance the budget so that we spend less than we take in, so that we could start paying off the debt we've collected.

Seriously though, tell me, why do politicians who can't handle the finances they have now deserve MORE money and MORE power? You really think giving them more money will make them start acting responsibly with it? Or do you think maybe they'll do the same things they've ALWAYS done with more money and spend more?

Come on, you're progressive, so you should believe that you subsidize the things you want and tax the things you don't want. So if we subsidize piss poor financial management, what do we get?
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Very impressive argument in such few words. I like it. Now you might see why I don't like the fact that I am not obligated to pay taxes. It really weakens my capacity to debate. Debating is one of my favorite things to do.

vasuderatorrent
Click to expand...
Sometimes less is more. Why do I feel like I'm arguing for a flat tax? lol


Without getting too personal, why aren't you obligated to pay taxes?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I don't recall anybody saying we should just stop paying our bills, but rather to cut spending.
Click to expand...
The debt ceiling ... their refusal to raise it is exactly that, refusing to pay the bills on what they have already spent.
It is like throwing the credit card bills in the trash after you have spent money you didn't have.
The republicon history of spending and cutting taxes is indeed irresponsible. We should be thankful that the Obama administration is cutting spending and trying to raise taxes to undo those irresponsibilities.
Many republicon members of congress who want to default on our bills and shut down the US government voted for the unfunded Iraq war, medicare B and Bush's tax cuts. We can't undo the war and part B is here to stay but taxes can still be raised. You can only cut so much before you do more harm than good. To reach the sought after balance taxes on the wealthy must be raised.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
What is your favorite argument against higher taxes?

.... six popular arguments against the implementation of higher taxes:
Click to expand...

Actually taxes are very good in that they optimize the economic system and achieve the highest possible welfare for society.

The caveat is that this is only the case, when the government is restricted to producing, what economists call "public goods". As our government gets involved in other costly activities the taxes associated are detrimental to public welfare.
 
Buck Ewer said:
The debt ceiling ... their refusal to raise it is exactly that, refusing to pay the bills on what they have already spent.
It is like throwing the credit card bills in the trash after you have spent money you didn't have.
The republicon history of spending and cutting taxes is indeed irresponsible. We should be thankful that the Obama administration is cutting spending and trying to raise taxes to undo those irresponsibilities.
Many republicon members of congress who want to default on our bills and shut down the US government voted for the unfunded Iraq war, medicare B and Bush's tax cuts. We can't undo the war and part B is here to stay but taxes can still be raised. You can only cut so much before you do more harm than good. To reach the sought after balance taxes on the wealthy must be raised.
Click to expand...

I'm not a republican, and I don't like them either, so I don't particularly care to have a "he did, she did" argument with you. Fact is, our politicians can't keep a budget (democrats and republicans), and the worst solution possible is to reward them with more money to mismanage.
 
Buck Ewer said:
If there were a cogent argument here I would be glad to debate it. I am defending the reasons for a progressive income tax and you are rambling on about commodities values, liberals and libertarians.
Sorry, you make no sense.
Click to expand...

Well, you see, they used the argument I argued against to suggest that the higher rates were warranted on more than the simplistic and rather apparent argument that the rich had more money and thus could afford more. That argument alone wouldn't actually lead someone to believe that the rich should be taxed more, but simply that what all can afford should be considered. Meaning, your argument doesn't work, and doesn't lead me to support progressive taxation, but simply lower rates. There is simply no reason suggested in your argument to run from one rate applied to all.
 
Last edited:
joG said:
Actually taxes are very good in that they optimize the economic system and achieve the highest possible welfare for society.

The caveat is that this is only the case, when the government is restricted to producing, what economists call "public goods". As our government gets involved in other costly activities the taxes associated are detrimental to public welfare.
Click to expand...

You should pay more taxes then, right? Got to optimize and I think you should lead the charge.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I'm not a republican, and I don't like them either, so I don't particularly care to have a "he did, she did" argument with you. Fact is, our politicians can't keep a budget (democrats and republicans), and the worst solution possible is to reward them with more money to mismanage.
Click to expand...
If the opposite of reward is to punish no politician gets "punished" by having less revenue to work with. We end up "punishing " ourselves with higher debt and fewer essential services. The only way to truly "not reward" and to "punish " an irresponsible politician is to vote them out of office.
 
Henrin said:
Well, you see, they used the argument I argued against to suggest that the higher rates were warranted on more than the simplistic and rather apparent argument that the rich had more money and thus could afford more. That argument alone wouldn't actually lead someone to believe that the rich should be taxed more, but simply that what all can afford should be considered. Meaning, your argument doesn't work, and doesn't lead me to support progressive taxation, but simply lower rates. There is simply no reason suggested in your argument to run from one rate applied to all.
Click to expand...
You are still rambling and debating arguments that I did not make.
I made my point about why a flat tax is inequitable and would hurt the economy.
From your first sentence ...Who are "they"?
 
Last edited:
Buck Ewer said:
If the opposite of reward is to punish no politician gets "punished" by having less revenue to work with. We end up "punishing " ourselves with higher debt and fewer essential services. The only way to truly "not reward" and to "punish " an irresponsible politician is to vote them out of office.
Click to expand...

Fewer essential services? What? I think you meant to say "all my babies would no longer get funding".
 
Buck Ewer said:
If the opposite of reward is to punish no politician gets "punished" by having less revenue to work with. We end up "punishing " ourselves with higher debt and fewer essential services. The only way to truly "not reward" and to "punish " an irresponsible politician is to vote them out of office.
Click to expand...

Uh huh, and when was the last time that's changed ANYTHING? All they do is promise they'll change it then never do. At a minimum freeze their budget, don't give them more money as a reward.
 
Buck Ewer said:
You are still rambling and debating arguments that I did not make.
From your first sentence ...Who are "they"?
Click to expand...

Actually, I am. Your argument basically amounts to that the rich have more and can afford more. It a durr argument that amounts to nothing. You need to warrant it in terms of value, not in how much money they have to spend. If someone is going to spend more for the same service you need to warrant the cost difference in terms value to the individual paying. Understand?

If you fail to do that I have no reason to care or consider the cost difference justified. Of course, the task I gave you is impossible.
 
Last edited:
My favorite is not represented: "Increasing taxes will not actually give you the revenue you are expecting".
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Uh huh, and when was the last time that's changed ANYTHING? All they do is promise they'll change it then never do. At a minimum freeze their budget, don't give them more money as a reward.
Click to expand...
What it really comes down to is K Street lobbyists who basically bribe congressmen with re-election money.
Until real campaign finance reform happens and lobbying is severely restricted the same ole game will continue to play out term after term. Cutting taxes will never end that cycle ...cutting taxes only increases the debt. Bush proved that.
 
Henrin said:
Actually, I am. Your argument basically amounts to that the rich have more and can afford more. It a durr argument that amounts to nothing. You need to warrant it in terms of value, not in how much money they have to spend. If someone is going to spend more for the same service you need to warrant the cost difference in terms value to the individual paying. Understand?

If you fail to do that I have no reason to care or consider the cost difference justified.
Click to expand...
Again if the poor and middle class take a larger burden of revenue then they have less to put into the economy by buying goods and services with what they do make. So with a flat tax although the wealthy guy pays less in taxes he never makes as much profit because the economy is strangled.
The flat tax is greed motivated by the wealthy and would be bad for the economy. Putting the larger burden on the wealthy doesn't hurt them as much ( they will still be wealthy) and everyone ends up winning with greater economic activity. Including the wealthy.
BTW taxes are not a costs so much as they are a civic responsibilities.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Again if the poor and middle class take a larger burden of revenue then they have less to put into the economy by buying goods and services with what they do make. So with a flat tax although the wealthy guy pays less in taxes he never makes as much profit because the economy is strangled.
The flat tax is greed motivated by the wealthy and would be bad for the economy. Putting the larger burden on the wealthy doesn't hurt them as much ( they will still be wealthy) and everyone ends up winning with greater economic activity.
Click to expand...

Makes no difference. The service provided is the same and therefore valued the same across the board. You can't just make up your own rules for government as if it's consistent and meaningful. There is no reason prices should be regressive in the market and not in government. It's services provided and services paid for in both places and therefore warrants the same treatment. The world is regressive and it's actually fair that way.

BTW taxes not a costs so much as they are a civic responsibilities.
Click to expand...

So the civic responsibilities should be unequal? Do you even realize that is what you just said?

Btw, you do realize profits are taxed, right?
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Fewer essential services? What? I think you meant to say "all my babies would no longer get funding".
Click to expand...

Yes, fewer essential services. What "babies" are you referring to?
I'm beginning to think you may be drunk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom