• 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!

Which would you rather have?

Which would you rather have?

  • A) $30,000 income with $0.00 tax burden.

    Votes: 3 9.4%

  • B) $250,000 income with $125,000 tax burden.

    Votes: 29 90.6%
  • Total voters
    32
  • Poll closed .
vasuderatorrent

vasuderatorrent

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2013
Messages
6,112
Reaction score
987
Location
(none)
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
A) A $30,000 income with a $0.00 tax burden?

or

B) A $250,000 income with a $125,000 tax burden?

Why do you think your answer is the most advantageous for you?
 
I choose B because that would still leave me with $125,000 left over to spend. The first scenario only gives me $30,000 left to spend.

I think it would be easier to live on $125,000 than it would be to live on $30,000.
 
Option B) still leaves me with $125,000 left to play around with every year. :shrug:

Don't get me wrong. I'd really prefer to have a tax rate that was set at something less than 50% if at all possible. However, going by the mathematics alone, the question would seem to be a "no brainer."
 
Last edited:
vasuderatorrent said:
I choose B because that would still leave me with $125,000 left over to spend. The first scenario only gives me $30,000 left to spend.

I think it would be easier to live on $125,000 than it would be to live on $30,000.
Click to expand...

This has to have some deeper meaning, other than finding out if anybody is mathematically illiterate.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
This has to have some deeper meaning, other than finding out if anybody is mathematically illiterate.
Click to expand...

It does. The op didn't pay income taxes this year, according to another thread that he started, so I suspect it's an attempt to be okay with it.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
This has to have some deeper meaning, other than finding out if anybody is mathematically illiterate.
Click to expand...

I have read people claim that poor people have it made because of all of the government benefits that they receive.

This thread proves that claim to be an extreme exaggeration.
 
lizzie said:
It does. The op didn't pay income taxes this year, according to another thread that he started, so I suspect it's an attempt to be okay with it.
Click to expand...

I thought Libertarians were against income taxes. Why didn't you vote for option A? It seems to be the obvious choice for people with your ideology.

Paying income taxes sucks really bad. Right?
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Somethings go without saying. I know which one that you would prefer. ;) Don't worry. I won't tell. :ssst:
Click to expand...

No. It's that the poll was intentionally set up to justify your discomfort, from what I can tell. I'm not a sucker, I'm not stupid, and am not easily manipulated. If it were a honest poll, without intentional bias, it would be different, but that's not the case. Just go ahead and humor yourself.
 
lizzie said:
No. It's that the poll was intentionally set up to justify your discomfort, from what I can tell. I'm not a sucker, I'm not stupid, and am not easily manipulated. If it were a honest poll, without intentional bias, it would be different, but that's not the case. Just go ahead and humor yourself.
Click to expand...

What if we sweetened the pot and made it a $10,000,000 income with a tax burden of $9,500,000? This would add $375,000 to your net income. Would that change your position? or would your answer remain the same?
 
vasuderatorrent said:
What if we sweetened the pot and made it a $10,000,000 income with a tax burden of $9,500,000? This would add $375,000 to your net income. Would that change your position? or would your answer remain the same?
Click to expand...

It's the principle of the matter. Dishonest polling is dishonest. This thread wasn't started due to any interest in a discussion about taxation.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
A) A $30,000 income with a $0.00 tax burden?

or

B) A $250,000 income with a $125,000 tax burden?

Why do you think your answer is the most advantageous for you?
Click to expand...

are you trying to make a silly point that the person with the higher tax rate should not complain about being raped by the government?
 
vasuderatorrent said:
I have read people claim that poor people have it made because of all of the government benefits that they receive.

This thread proves that claim to be an extreme exaggeration.
Click to expand...

that's moronic. the person not paying any income tax has received government benefits (value received) without paying for it. The person who is paying half his income in taxes has half of his working hours spent in servitude and gets NO ADDITIONAL benefits over the first guy

the second person might be economically better off but he also is being screwed blued and tattooed by the government.
 
TurtleDude said:
are you trying to make a silly point that the person with the higher tax rate should not complain about being raped by the government?
Click to expand...

Yes. How did you know? :2razz: he he he
 
lizzie said:
It's the principle of the matter. Dishonest polling is dishonest. This thread wasn't started due to any interest in a discussion about taxation.
Click to expand...

true, its more butt hurt whining about the wealthy
 
lizzie said:
No. It's that the poll was intentionally set up to justify your discomfort, from what I can tell. I'm not a sucker, I'm not stupid, and am not easily manipulated. If it were a honest poll, without intentional bias, it would be different, but that's not the case. Just go ahead and humor yourself.
Click to expand...

ROFL.... if you can't click on $30K with gusto, you machinations are totally upon you, not anyone else's manipulations. ROFLMAO!
 
TurtleDude said:
the person not paying any income tax has received government benefits (value received) without paying for it. The person who is paying half his income in taxes has half of his working hours spent in servitude and gets NO ADDITIONAL benefits over the first guy
Click to expand...

That is correct. You are free to factor that into the equation. I'm not sure how much the government benefits will be for that person. Just use your highest estimate when weighing out the options.
 
It makes an interesting point about how the wage differences can affect an individual but it's not based on anything fair. The government shouldn't be spending and taxing as much as they do. Punishing people for being successful is not a good principle.

Now the top .01% hundred million-billionaires are a different story. They still shouldn't be treated unfairly or have their earnings stolen but what's fair for their kind of wealth should be more. I'm more interested in allowing equal opportunity for anyone to earn more, without fear of government intervention.
 
Summerwind said:
ROFL.... if you can't click on $30K with gusto, you machinations are totally upon you, not anyone else's manipulations. ROFLMAO!
Click to expand...

She hasn't did it yet. I personally think that she would prefer Option B but I doubt that she will admit it.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
What if we sweetened the pot and made it a $10,000,000 income with a tax burden of $9,500,000? This would add $375,000 to your net income. Would that change your position? or would your answer remain the same?
Click to expand...

Why would anyone seek to make that kind of income in the first place if they knew that they were simply going to be robbed of most of it?

That's the problem here.

Taxation of the type you are defending crushes the incentive to perform or achieve above one's peers. It encourages people to strive only for mediocrity, as striving to be exceptional is essentially pointless.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
I choose B because that would still leave me with $125,000 left over to spend. The first scenario only gives me $30,000 left to spend.

I think it would be easier to live on $125,000 than it would be to live on $30,000.
Click to expand...

You seem to be in the minority.

Age_zps043bfb30.jpg
 
vasuderatorrent said:
That is correct. You are free to factor that into the equation. I'm not sure how much the government benefits will be for that person. Just use your highest estimate when weighing out the options.
Click to expand...

people who pay zero taxes should generally be precluded from having any say as to tax rates or the expenditures of tax revenues
 
TurtleDude said:
people who pay zero taxes should generally be precluded from having any say as to tax rates or the expenditures of tax revenues
Click to expand...

Virtually nobody pays "zero taxes."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom