• 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 .

vasuderatorrent

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2013
Messages
6,112
Reaction score
987
Location
(none)
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
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
 
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 didn't vote. I'm not against higher taxes. Where I live the 'no taxes' mantra has led to kids selling chocolates in the neighbourhood so they can have band instruments in their school and to hours-long waits in local hospital ER's.
 
I didn't vote. I'm not against higher taxes. Where I live the 'no taxes' mantra has led to kids selling chocolates in the neighbourhood so they can have band instruments in their school and to hours-long waits in local hospital ER's.

I think the moral argument has been taken too far. Some taxes are necessary to accomodate a society this isn't 100% morally pure. The less moral we become the more taxes that become necessary. There is certainly room for debate in the moral argument. Here is a sign of hope though.

When taxes get too low there is always somebody willing to jump in to remedy the problem.

When taxes get too high there is always somebody willing to jump in to remedy the problem.

I think at the federal government level taxes are too low if we want to continue with the services that we currently have. My taxation arguments were inspired by my 2012 candidacy for a local county wide office and my future run in 2016.

vasuderatorrent
 
When taxes are cut the entire nation suffers.
Taxes need to go up.
Especially for the wealthiest and big corporations.
 
I think the moral argument has been taken too far. Some taxes are necessary to accomodate a society this isn't 100% morally pure. The less moral we become the more taxes that become necessary. There is certainly room for debate in the moral argument. Here is a sign of hope though.

When taxes get too low there is always somebody willing to jump in to remedy the problem.

When taxes get too high there is always somebody willing to jump in to remedy the problem.

I think at the federal government level taxes are too low if we want to continue with the services that we currently have. My taxation arguments were inspired by my 2012 candidacy for a local county wide office and my future run in 2016.

vasuderatorrent

Well first of all, it doesn't make much sense to fight immorality with further immorality. It's essentially saying my immorally is superior to your immorality, when the fact remains your both immoral. Second, there is a such thing as voluntary taxation such as user fees and the lottery that are entirely in line with the rights of people.
 
When taxes are cut the entire nation suffers.
Taxes need to go up.
Especially for the wealthiest and big corporations.

Why is it that when you buy a service from the market all people are charged the same price no matter if they are poor, middle class, or wealthy, but when the government taxes people the rates are different depending on your income? Why is the services valued differently depending on the individuals income?

Btw, this is an economic question, so don't answer it in terms of fairness, and I do have a rebuttal to any arguments that rely on the individuals ability to pay.
 
Last edited:
I didn't vote. I'm not against higher taxes. Where I live the 'no taxes' mantra has led to kids selling chocolates in the neighbourhood so they can have band instruments in their school and to hours-long waits in local hospital ER's.

Actually, those problems are caused by unnecessary spending on things of a lower priority. Governments are very poor at prioritizing, and sending them new money doesn't result in spending on the things you think most important. It results in spending on things they find most advantageous to their reelection.

The fact that politicians use taxpayer money as de facto campaign funds is another threat to democracy that needs to be dealt with. It is the primary reason for the 95% reelect rate in Congress. You can't grapple with campaign finance reform without grappling with the use of taxpayer funds to win votes. Challengers, even challengers with a billion dollars, just can't compete with that.
 
Why is it that when you buy a service from the market all people are charged the same price no matter if they are poor, middle class, or wealthy, but when the government taxes people the rates are different depending on your income? Why is the services valued differently depending on the individuals income?

Btw, this is an economic question, so don't answer it in terms of fairness, and I do have a rebuttal to any arguments that rely on the individuals ability to pay.
If a person making $15,000 a year were asked to pay 33% of his income in taxes they would take home only 10,000, putting them well under the poverty line. They could not afford a mortgage, a car or anything but the basest level of subsistence goods.
If a person making $500,000 is asked to pay 33% of their income in taxes they will take home about $400,000 because their tax lawyers will find loopholes, hedge funds, off shore tax havens, tax dodge investments and deductions. They will still live in a mansion drive a luxury car and never know what it means to not have the basic necessities of life, even if they did have to pay $166,000.
A flat tax sounds fine until we look at the economic impact it would have on real people in a real economy.
 
Last edited:
The OP is a good example of a "push poll" for not increasing taxes. For each of the OPs listed rational for not increasing taxes there is missing is a counter rational for increasing taxes. The poll is invalid and I voted for the last option on that basis.
 
If a person making $15,000 a year were asked to pay 33% of his income in taxes they would take home only 10,000, putting them well under the poverty line. They could not afford a mortgage, a car or anything but the basest level of subsistence goods.
If a person making $500,000 is asked to pay 33% of their income in taxes they will take home about $400,000 because their tax lawyers will find loopholes, hedge funds, off shore tax havens, tax dodge investments and deductions. They will still live in a mansion drive a luxury car and never know what it means to not have the basic necessities of life, even if they did have to pay $166,000.
A flat tax sounds fine until we look at the economic impact it would have on real people in a real economy.

There is a remedy for this already in place. It is called the Earned Income Credit. There could still be a flat tax. We would just have to increase the Earned Income Credit to the poorer of citizens. It seems like a wash but a flat tax let's us feel like we are all on the same team instead of turning on each other like we currently do. The rich hate the poor. The poor hate the rich. Single people hate married people. Married people hate single people. People with kids hate people without kids. People without kids hate people with kids. The list goes on and on. A flat tax would put us all on the same playing field. It would be a very good exercise in uniting our nation. Uniting our country should be more important than tax reform, health care, immigration, abortion, oil exploration or education. A flat tax would take us closer in that direction. All the spending could stay the same but let all citizens be involved in making our government function. It would be a great step in a better direction.

vasuderatorrent
 
The OP is a good example of a "push poll" for not increasing taxes. For each of the OPs listed rational for not increasing taxes there is missing is a counter rational for increasing taxes. The poll is invalid and I voted for the last option on that basis.

This most certainly was not a push poll or I would have not included the last option. I couldn't restrict the poll for only the people who support lower taxes. I knew there would be opponents. What would you have listed for a 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th or 10th option?

Besides, just because it's your favorite argument doesn't necessarily mean that you agree with it. It might be your favorite for comedic purposes or because of it's scholarship. It doesn't mean you agree.

vasuderatorrent
 
The OP is a good example of a "push poll" for not increasing taxes. For each of the OPs listed rational for not increasing taxes there is missing is a counter rational for increasing taxes. The poll is invalid and I voted for the last option on that basis.

I do have a counter argument to the Moral Argument that drives people crazy. I just don't have a fancy name for it. I still don't see how it would have fit into this poll.

vasuderatorrent
 
There is a remedy for this already in place. It is called the Earned Income Credit. There could still be a flat tax. We would just have to increase the Earned Income Credit to the poorer of citizens. It seems like a wash but a flat tax let's us feel like we are all on the same team instead of turning on each other like we currently do. The rich hate the poor. The poor hate the rich. Single people hate married people. Married people hate single people. People with kids hate people without kids. People without kids hate people with kids. The list goes on and on. A flat tax would put us all on the same playing field. It would be a very good exercise in uniting our nation. Uniting our country should be more important than tax reform, health care, immigration, abortion, oil exploration or education. A flat tax would take us closer in that direction. All the spending could stay the same but let all citizens be involved in making our government function. It would be a great step in a better direction.

vasuderatorrent
So a flat tax is fine except that we need to make it progressive to work? Got it.
I don't believe there is nearly as much hate in the hearts of the American people as you like to pretend there is.
The concept of a flat tax has always been a pipe dream of wealthy people.
It'll never happen.
 
Last edited:
So a flat tax is fine except that we need to make it progressive to work? Got it.
I don't believe there is nearly as much hate in the hearts of the American people as you like to pretend there is.
The concept of a flat tax has always been a pipe dream of wealthy people.
It'll never happen.

I am a person that pays no taxes. I don't like that.

vasuderatorrent
 
This most certainly was not a push poll or I would have not included the last option. I couldn't restrict the poll for only the people who support lower taxes. I knew there would be opponents. What would you have listed for a 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th or 10th option?

Besides, just because it's your favorite argument doesn't necessarily mean that you agree with it. It might be your favorite for comedic purposes or because of it's scholarship. It doesn't mean you agree.

vasuderatorrent


It's not what you say, its how you say it....or so I"ve been told. Phrasing poll questions is key to getting the responses that support a theory, or cause, or issue, or whatever. Objectivity is like a muscle that needs to be exercised or it atrophies....use it or lose it. It's not easy to be consistently objective....so I give you credit for trying. :)
 
It's not what you say, its how you say it....or so I"ve been told. Phrasing poll questions is key to getting the responses that support a theory, or cause, or issue, or whatever. Objectivity is like a muscle that needs to be exercised or it atrophies....use it or lose it. It's not easy to be consistently objective....so I give you credit for trying. :)

Lucky for me. I'm not a professional. That sounds like a lot of work.

vasuderatorrent
 
If a person making $15,000 a year were asked to pay 33% of his income in taxes they would take home only 10,000, putting them well under the poverty line. They could not afford a mortgage, a car or anything but the basest level of subsistence goods.
If a person making $500,000 is asked to pay 33% of their income in taxes they will take home about $400,000 because their tax lawyers will find loopholes, hedge funds, off shore tax havens, tax dodge investments and deductions. They will still live in a mansion drive a luxury car and never know what it means to not have the basic necessities of life, even if they did have to pay $166,000.
A flat tax sounds fine until we look at the economic impact it would have on real people in a real economy.

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.
 
Last edited:
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

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.

Moral Argument The reason tax increases make you feel bad is because taxes are bad. You should trust your gut.

Yes, but it has little to do with gut feelings, especially for libertarians. Taxes are "bad" because they are extracted by coercive methods. The fact that we rely on coercion for funding many necessary functions in our society at this point in history should not be viewed as an excuse to suspend moral judgment: we have relied on forcible military draft recently, and on outright slavery not that long ago.

Of course, not all taxes carry the same "negative moral charge". Sales taxes leave more room for freedom of choice than income tax, and gasoline tax can be viewed as a user fee. Perhaps showing the way for the reforms leading toward "moral improvement".

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.

It is the weakest argument in general, but it becomes much stronger in particular instances. The Social Security "contribution" is typically the largest tax paid by the working poor (and the other half of it is paid by employers, suppressing job growth). Meanwhile, it is exactly the working poor who are most likely to die before the age of eligibility and get cheated by the system.

All the reasons are valid, hard to pick the favorite. The question is, of course, how to balance the necessity of substantial revenues with the moral and practical imperative to push toward lower and less offensive taxes. Especially in the era when ballooning national debt poses an existential threat.
 
Last edited:
I do have a counter argument to the Moral Argument that drives people crazy. I just don't have a fancy name for it. I still don't see how it would have fit into this poll.

vasuderatorrent
Your moral arguement in the OP was based on feelings. What else would moral argument be?

Lucky for me. I'm not a professional. That sounds like a lot of work.

If it was easy everyone would be objective. lol
 
Your moral arguement in the OP was based on feelings. What else would moral argument be?

Actually, if it is based on feelings, it is not a moral argument. Morality is a system of rules.
 
Your moral arguement in the OP was based on feelings. What else would moral judgements be?

I'm not sure what you mean by this question but I am assuming that you are suggesting that my moral argument was shallow.

Kantian Ethics suggest that morality is universal and every person is aware of what is right and what is wrong.
Judeo-Christian Ethics (Thou shalt not steal.) suggest that property does have an owner and to violate the rights of that owner is morally reprehensible.

Kantian Ethics offers an exercise. If every single person took the same action that I take would society function? If the answer is yes. It is moral. If the answer is no. It is immoral.

If every single human imposed a tax on every other single human being it wouldn't function properly. Taxation allows elected officials to exercise a different moral code. Which Kant suggests is impossible.

I hope I understood your question.

vasuderatorrent
 
What is your favorite argument against higher taxes?

I typically see it a different way. I recognize that some taxes are necessary, but I don't see how 30-40%+ taxes could even remotely be necessary. 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.

When taxes are cut the entire nation suffers.
Taxes need to go up.
Especially for the wealthiest and big corporations.

Yes, we should show the government that we approve of their actions by giving them more money and more power. I'm sure they'll be responsible with the new money.
 
Back
Top Bottom