• 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 .
overall, as of right now, id rather have the 30000, because Obama would probably use it on something else like ObamaCare
 
ernst barkmann said:
A) $250,000 income with 0 compulsory tax burden, but instead a voluntary actions tax like the founders created.
B) $250,000 income with $125,000 government compulsory income tax burden.

this would have been the better poll question.

i vote A
Click to expand...

I'll be looking for your vote later on. This is a public poll.
 
Jackson1050 said:
overall, as of right now, id rather have the 30000, because Obama would probably use it on something else like ObamaCare
Click to expand...

Please vote ASAP. This shouldn't be a blowout. Thanks for going against the grain.:)
 
Need more information.
My expenses are minimal and my life is simple so if it's a choice between being given $30,000 and working like a rented mule for $125,000, I'll take the 30 grand, kick back and tend my garden.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
This is a public poll. I will be able to see your vote later. I already know which one that you prefer but I'll still keep checking to see which way you vote in this poll.
Click to expand...

I didn't vote in your poll because neither scenario is acceptable to me.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
I'll be looking for your vote later on. This is a public poll.
Click to expand...

the poll is not a fair poll, a blind man can see from 10 blocks, under A you going to have 30,000 and B your going to have 125,000....anyone would working in the own self interest would want the latter.
 
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...

Really depends. Am I stuck at the chosen income and rate?
 
There's no excuse for being unfair, even if the earning differences are astronomical. Redistribution of wealth is NOT the answer.

But it's also not fair for the government to allow for the very highest in this country to leverage the system with money, power and influence. The FED's are suppose to keep the playing field level. When the leaders allow and even collude to making money, profitability and growth the main metric for measuring success, especially when it devalues the peoples general welfare, they are failing their duty.

For example if someone said, would you rather make a $100 million annually, with a clear conscience that you paid your employees well and made the country a better place, or would you rather make $200 million at the cost of Americans losing jobs, lowering salaries, with less benefits? Why is a $100 million not enough to have, without screwing everyone? That's what's happening, greed run amok.
 
TurtleDude said:
your feeble attempts to justify people who work harder than you paying more taxes fails on me
Click to expand...

A person satisfied with 30,000 is a person with no ambition. And usually those with no ambition are more than willing to make the other guy pick up the tab for the things he benefits from.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
You are free to take that into consideration as well. I would guess the guy making $30,000 has a much easier job than the guy making $250,000. Wouldn't you think so? People are still choosing option B. It kind of makes you wonder if money incentivizes people to work harder. If you use this poll as a guide, it seems that money does incentivize people to work harder.
Click to expand...

You can't make that conclusion. Your "poll" was worded in a way that the situation was in a vacuum, with no difference in difficulty or amount of work.
 
This poll is a false representation of one side of the argument and an over simplified and dishonest representation of the other side of the argument.

I did not and will not vote in a dishonest and misleading poll.

Now, if we as a group would like to have an honest discussion about tax equity and our tax system as a whole, I'll participate happily and willing in that discussion.
 
vesper said:
A person satisfied with 30,000 is a person with no ambition. And usually those with no ambition are more than willing to make the other guy pick up the tab for the things he benefits from.
Click to expand...

Outstanding post!!!

God, I love reading your posts, especially those like this one, that go straight to the heart of the issue without any fluff or pretense.

Well done. Again.
 
vesper said:
I didn't vote in your poll because neither scenario is acceptable to me.
Click to expand...

I know that they are both horrific conditions but surely one is more favorable than the other. Right?
 
ernst barkmann said:
the poll is not a fair poll, a blind man can see from 10 blocks, under A you going to have 30,000 and B your going to have 125,000....anyone would working in the own self interest would want the latter.
Click to expand...

So far that is the popular choice.
 
Does anyone who makes 30k not have a tax burden?

Because I make less than that and I'm fairly sure I still have some small amount of tax burden.
 
vesper said:
A person satisfied with 30,000 is a person with no ambition. And usually those with no ambition are more than willing to make the other guy pick up the tab for the things he benefits from.
Click to expand...

Grand Mal voted Option A. Are you accusing him of having no ambition?
 
Gipper said:
You can't make that conclusion. Your "poll" was worded in a way that the situation was in a vacuum, with no difference in difficulty or amount of work.
Click to expand...

Are you sure the voters weren't suckers and didn't realize I was tricking them into a job working 9 times as hard. He he. I didn't tell them before I hired them.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Grand Mal voted Option A. Are you accusing him of having no ambition?
Click to expand...

If the sloth fits:mrgreen:

It might be a good choice if the other guy was working a job that would kill him by age 40
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Grand Mal voted Option A. Are you accusing him of having no ambition?
Click to expand...

If the shoe fits. What I find troubling are the number that voted to settle for half their pay to pay half in taxes. Obviously they do not make 125,000 and are willing to settle at an opportunity to do so even though they originally earned 250,000. How sad.
 
I'd vote option B. I'd rather have more money. Although it's still unjust and unfair for the government to take 50% of that.
 
digsbe said:
I'd vote option B. I'd rather have more money. Although it's still unjust and unfair for the government to take 50% of that.
Click to expand...

I guess I could have modified it a little bit.

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

or

B) $250,000 income with $125,000 tax burden and be pissed about it.

There are three people that have participated in the discussion but refuse to vote in the poll. I think if I could have added, "and be pissed about it" these three people would be less reluctant to vote in this poll. I have my suspicions that those three people would prefer option B but I can't be so sure until they vote. :?
 
digsbe said:
I'd vote option B. I'd rather have more money.
Click to expand...

That's the way I have been looking at it. Out of the two options offered it just seems like a much better deal all around. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom