• 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 .
That makes no sense what so ever.

1. Endorsing progressive taxation is not caring for your fellow human beings.
2. Supporting a compulsory tax model is not caring for your fellow human beings.
3. Supporting people pillaging the treasury for personal favor is not caring for your fellow human beings.

Many of these people you speak of actually do pillage the treasury and ask the government for such favor.



A man that supports violating the property rights of people and treating others as slaves to their desires is not one to speak on morality.
You missed it again. The term "human beings" includes ALL the people ...poor , middle class, wealthy sick , infirm ...all...not just the wealthy human beings.
I tend to forget your disability, ...sorry.
 
Be careful with that "always" ...Under Bill Clinton revenues increased much faster than spending when he raised taxes on the wealthy and he actually started to to pay down the debt.

Yeah, skimming off the crest of an unprecedented technological boom, being blocked from the kinds of spending he preferred by the Republican Congress, and still resorting to borrowing from the Soc Sec fund, to show surpluses on paper. What could possibly explain those numbers on paper? Only "raised taxes on the wealthy"!

The bragging that revenues doubled under Reagan and Bush are pretty silly points to bring up

And nobody brought them up, if you paid attention. You said: "the tax cuts of the Bush Jr administration that ( according to Laffer) should have produced higher revenues, had the opposite effect". No, they did not. Because there was no "opposite effect": revenues grew briskly.
 
You missed it again. The term "human beings" includes ALL the people ...poor , middle class, wealthy sick , infirm ...all...not just the wealthy human beings.
I tend to forget your disability, ...sorry.

How can you claim such nonsense after I just said that the wealthy people that we speak of are supporting granting themselves favors from the treasury? I would argue that all classes of people are doing the same thing and all of them are wrong for doing it. I would also argue that the poor getting favors from the treasury helps these same wealthy men and in turn they will petition the state so that the poor get more favors from the treasury.

To even suggest I don't care for people because I find something wrong with immoral behavior is nonsense.
 
What is mine is mine, what is your's is yours.

What about a poll asking "what is your argument for having locks on your doors and not leaving your keys in your car?"

Go ahead and start such a poll . I know many people who live in rural areas that constantly brag about leaving their doors and cars unlocked... and when a member of their community falls into need they all kick in to help them out.
Damned communists.../sarc
 
Yeah, skimming off the crest of an unprecedented technological boom, being blocked from the kinds of spending he preferred by the Republican Congress, and still resorting to borrowing from the Soc Sec fund, to show surpluses on paper. What could possibly explain those numbers on paper? Only "raised taxes on the wealthy"!



And nobody brought them up, if you paid attention. You said: "the tax cuts of the Bush Jr administration that ( according to Laffer) should have produced higher revenues, had the opposite effect". No, they did not. Because there was no "opposite effect": revenues grew briskly.
The opposite effect was that he spent to an unprecedented degree (Iraq Medicare B etc) and cut taxes at the same time with no provision to pay for those things ... he didn't even put the war in the budget totals.
BTW no matter how much the numbers were jiggered there would have been no paying down of the debt if the taxes on the wealthy weren't raised by Clinton.
The stock markets always do better under Democratic administrations. The "tech boom" under Clinton was no fluke. ( I am being very careful with my "always" here.)
 
:lamo

I got it, your billionaires are better than mine. Obviously, their indoctrination works on some people. As long as your greed is fed, it's all good. Right?

"I don't know much about being a (b)illionaire, but I bet I'd be a darling at it." Dorothy Parker

Good morning, ocean515. :2wave:
 
Jesus has no relevance to this argument. Parasitic politicians basking in phony altruism that others are forced to pay for are a cancer on society. So are the greedy parasites who whine about NEEDING handouts and damn those of us who are net tax payers for not wanting to pay even more.

Reduce your income and you will reduce your tax burden.

vasuderatorrent
 
I don't. Greed is a great motivator to attain many stations in life, wealth is a great carrot.
I don't necessarily condemn greed as a motivator I am just willing to do what you all seem to want to deny... I recognize the reality of the situation. Greed does not become evil until it is the only motivator in ones life... Like the Kochs.
Let's look at the Walton family ...They pour billions into campaigns to keep their workers from getting any raise in the minimum wage they must pay their employees. Not one penny. The family is worth 150 BILLION. How much can you hope to spend on yourself in one lifetime?
If that ain't pure greed you tell me what you think it is.

Should we make laws forbidding certain types of motivations, thoughts or attitudes? I think the enforcement of such laws would be impossible.

vasuderatorrent
 
Should we make laws forbidding certain types of motivations, thoughts or attitudes? I think the enforcement of such laws would be impossible.

vasuderatorrent
I never advocated any such thing. I merely want to acknowledge that greed is the primary motivator in the market place. Most who worship at the alter of the free market /sarc/ will never recognize that greed is the primary motivational factor. They refuse to accept that reality.
 
What is your favorite argument against higher taxes?

Below is a list of six popular arguments against the implementation of higher taxes:

Economic Detriment Argument
Every dollar spent in taxes is a dollar not spent elsewhere. Individuals spend their money on products and services that they need or wat. This forces the market to adapt to the demands of the populace. Even one dollar influences the cost of goods, the amount of goods available, the reluctance or willingness of entrepreneurs to pursue investment, the quality of goods and a consumer's decision to go without certain goods. A one percent tax increase manipulates the economy by x dollars. In theory that much money could be the difference between the existence or non-existence of a whole industry.

Moral Argument
Many people oppose tax increases for no reason whatsoever. They jsut feel it in their gut that a tax increase is the wrong way to go. This uncomfortable feeling is justifiable once you analyze how taxes are collected. You are required to give the government a portion of your money not because you made an agreement to do so. You must simply pay because the government told you so. This is a perversion of the master/servant relationship. The government is servant to the people. Taxation causes the roles to flip in the opposite direction. If your taxes are not paid the government can force the sale of your home to collect these taxes, they can report the lien to credit reporting agencies or place you in jail for contempt of a court order. The government probably will not do these things because they don't want to bring to light this moral argument. The lower the tax rate is, the closer your government is to being morally pure. None of us are 100% morally pure. We don't expect our government to be either but it is good practice to keep it from getting to easy to do the wrong thing. The reason tax increases make you feel bad is because taxes are bad. You should trust your gut.

Hardship Argument
This argument is similar to the economic detriment argument but implies that a tax increase forces citizens to forego basic necessities in order to pay their taxes. This is the weakest argument against tax increases but the most commonly used.

I Said So Argument
This is the strongest case against tax increases but the least comfortable to invoke. Citizens elect their government by voting. In essence you are to receive the representation for your values. You can be oposed to tax increases without debate, without argument, without discussion, without explanation and without reason. The citizens are the master. The government is the servant and must submit to the master's demands regardless of their reasoning.

Waste Encouragement Argument
A tax increase is the politically expedient way to avoid discussion about uncomfortable budget decisions. It takes a lot of courage to cut out unnecessary waste in government. This is especially the case in local government. This could require firing your uncle, aunt, brother, sister, son, daughter, neighbor or even your spouse. Once the tax increase is implemented a big sigh of relief is felt by government employees and government officials. Those people vested in government waste are more heavily involved in politics than those who are dead set against tax increases. A tax increase can be easily forgotten. A budget cut will be remembered for decades by supporters and opponents. An increase in revenue reassures those in top government positions that they have a weak ally that will submit to any demands that they may come up with in the future. The message to government employees is very clear. Continue operating with complacency. A tax increase discourages practices of frugality by all parties involved. Reduce the revenue and the spending cuts will be forced to fall in line.

Vote on your favorite argument.

vasuderatorrent
I think the rich, however you define it, should pay more taxes then the poor.

A flat 10% off the top of income ashures this will happen. The 20K income (poor) would pay $2,000, while the 1M income (rich) would pay 100K.

In this way, everyone pays the same rate, so its fair and equal, while the rich also fulfill a possible civil duty to provide for the less fortunate.

That's my fav argument against higher taxes.
 
Last edited:
You left off equality.

If we all live in the same country, with the same government, then why should some have to pay a higher percentage in taxes than others? Also, why should others directly benefit (other than employees and retirees who earned it as compensation for labor) from Tax moneys while others receive little or nothing?
 
You left off equality.

If we all live in the same country, with the same government, then why should some have to pay a higher percentage in taxes than others? Also, why should others directly benefit (other than employees and retirees who earned it as compensation for labor) from Tax moneys while others receive little or nothing?
If I'm going to be paying a higher % then I expect to enjoy the perks my higher class is entitled to: such as exclusive life boats on certin "unsinkable" ships.
 
When taxes are cut the entire nation suffers.
Taxes need to go up.
Especially for the wealthiest and big corporations.

You mean the lazy ass people suffer, people that have worked all their lives excel
 
You left off equality.

If we all live in the same country, with the same government, then why should some have to pay a higher percentage in taxes than others? Also, why should others directly benefit (other than employees and retirees who earned it as compensation for labor) from Tax moneys while others receive little or nothing?

A safe environment benefits wealthy people disproportionately. Poor people don't get robbed. They have nothing to rob. Poor people really don't need the benefit of an orderly society. Wealthy people could not accumulate wealth in an chaotic environment. They would continue losing it to theft. Government is much more valuable to a wealthy individual.

vasuderatorrent
 
I never advocated any such thing. I merely want to acknowledge that greed is the primary motivator in the market place. Most who worship at the alter of the free market /sarc/ will never recognize that greed is the primary motivational factor. They refuse to accept that reality.

do you also realize envy in a motivator?
 
The opposite effect was that he spent to an unprecedented degree (Iraq Medicare B etc) .)

That's not what you have said. You said that the tax cuts had the effect of decreasing revenues. Which is not the case. Revenues were going up - and spending was going up faster. Which is what I have said.

BTW no matter how much the numbers were jiggered there would have been no paying down of the debt if the taxes on the wealthy weren't raised by Clinton.

Sure there would be - the dot-com boom brought in a tsunami of revenue. And spending was constrained by the "gridlock" - not constrained enough, unfortunately. And while income taxes had been modestly raised under Clinton (from 36% on the top to 39%), capital gains taxes - i.e. the category most relevant here - had been actually slashed: maximum rate on long-term gains was 29.19 in 1995 - and 21.19 after 1996. That's a very big drop.
 
(cont. from # 116)

Also, 1997, the "death tax" (estate tax) exemption was raised from $600,000 to $1,000,000. And limits for deductible IRAs had been sharply increased.

All three measures favoring "the rich" disproportionally, as you understand.
 
A safe environment benefits wealthy people disproportionately. Poor people don't get robbed. They have nothing to rob. Poor people really don't need the benefit of an orderly society. Wealthy people could not accumulate wealth in an chaotic environment. They would continue losing it to theft. Government is much more valuable to a wealthy individual.

vasuderatorrent

that is moronic. Most crime is directed at lower income people. Wealthy people can hire guards. GOvernment keeps the poor from being serfs. Read up on feudal times. The lords were the law. serfs were hunted for sport
 
that is moronic. Most crime is directed at lower income people. Wealthy people can hire guards. GOvernment keeps the poor from being serfs. Read up on feudal times. The lords were the law. serfs were hunted for sport

I don't have a problem with that. Your logic sounds reasonable.

vasuderatorrent
 
No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity, which seems to be the current administration's goal.
 
No. You missed my point.I don;t "have " billionaires. I have morality.

Is that what you call it? Is it moral to demand others fill in the blanks one allows to exist in ones own life, and then cast blame when the response isn't good enough in their own mind?

How much morality is involved when one judges another for what they perceive, rather than what they know?

As some prove regularly, I'd say morality is probably a concept far out of reach of many who think they have it in abundance.
 
Congress should have a 20 year retirement like the rest of us if we were lucky? Term limits and pay based on the deficit. Yes! You think I am crazy on a pay based on the deficit? Yours is!;)
 
I voted other. My main concern is the rising debt and deficit. To bring us back to balance where revenue matches spending I think a dollars worth or tax increases needs to be met by a dollars worth of spending cuts. Real cuts not cuts in the growth of spending where a department or agency due a 10% increase in spending is only given a 5% increase which in Washington talk equates to a 5% spending cut. No way Jose. Make the cuts real and the tax increases real.
 
When taxes are cut the entire nation suffers.
Taxes need to go up.
Especially for the wealthiest and big corporations.

OMG, THAT BULL**** MEME again.
 
It looks like the best solution according to our audience is to use none of these arguments. Thank you to all 36 participants.

9
7
5
1
6
17

thanks so much
 
Back
Top Bottom