• 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!

5% Additional Tax on Gross Income

How would your life change if the government imposed an additional 5% tax?

  • It would be way worse. I don't think I'd handle it.

    Votes: 7 53.8%

  • It would be a little worse but I could handle it.

    Votes: 3 23.1%

  • My life would be exactly the same as it is now.

    Votes: 3 23.1%

  • My life would be a lot better. (explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .
vasuderatorrent

vasuderatorrent

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2013
Messages
6,112
Reaction score
987
Location
(none)
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
How would your life change if the federal government imposed a 5% tax on your gross income without any deductions? The proceeds would pay for digging deep holes, covering them up, digging the holes again and then covering them up again.

Would your life be a lot better? about the same? or way worse?
 
It would have almost no perceptible impact on my life. Why would we dig holes and then fill them back up again and then dig them again?
 
Being a person who has an income of $12K a year and barely able to get by 5% would be near catastrophic without additional income.
 
the_recruit said:
It would have almost no perceptible impact on my life. Why would we dig holes and then fill them back up again and then dig them again?
Click to expand...

I was trying to come up with a government service that would be equally repugnant to everybody. I couldn't use any current government services because some people would find them necessary and it would cloud the discussion.

There is no reason to dig holes and cover them back up again.
 
Baralis said:
Being a person who has an income of $12K a year and barely able to get by 5% would be near catastrophic without additional income.
Click to expand...

If we raised your pay to $15,080 per year, would you be able to handle it?
 
vasuderatorrent said:
If we raised your pay to $15,080 per year, would you be able to handle it?
Click to expand...

You raise his pay, he would naturally pay more taxes therefore you wouldn't need to do the 5% tax.
 
Last edited:
cpgrad08 said:
You raise his pay, he would naturally pay more taxes therefore you wouldn't need to do the 5% tax.
Click to expand...

Would you kill yourself if the government raised your personal income tax by 5%? If not, How would you deal with it?
 
vasuderatorrent said:
How would your life change if the federal government imposed a 5% tax on your gross income without any deductions? The proceeds would pay for digging deep holes, covering them up, digging the holes again and then covering them up again.

Would your life be a lot better?
about the same?
Click to expand...
or way worse?
Click to expand...




My life will stay the same because this isn't going to happen.

Wait and see.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Would you kill yourself if the government raised your personal income tax by 5%? If not, How would you deal with it?
Click to expand...

I'm not going to kill myself, because of that question I'm done with this thread.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
How would your life change if the federal government imposed a 5% tax on your gross income without any deductions? The proceeds would pay for digging deep holes, covering them up, digging the holes again and then covering them up again.

Would your life be a lot better? about the same? or way worse?
Click to expand...
So basically a 'flat tax' that many on the Right propose as 'fair' now!

But how about if it IS specifically earmarked "for digging holes" but instead of your ridiculously partisan OP,
1. it's for Useful holes: ie; INFRASTRUCTURE we desperately need anyway, putting Millions to work.
2. the 5% starts on income over 150,000.. or 500,000 or 1 Million. Take your pick.

With sober conditions, I think it's a Good idea.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
So basically a 'flat tax' that many on the Right propose as 'fair' now!

But how about if it IS specifically earmarked "for digging holes" but instead of your ridiculously partisan OP,
1. it's for Useful holes: ie; INFRASTRUCTURE we desperately need anyway, putting Millions to work.
2. the 5% starts on income over 150,000.. or 500,000 or 1 Million. Take your pick.
Click to expand...

This is more about what your personal response would be to a tax increase on your income. (not someone elses. I already know you wouldn't care about that. That's not rocket science.) This is not a proposed policy. I just want to know how high taxes will go before people start killing themselves. For 6 people the answer is 5% or less.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
This is more about what your personal response would be. It is not a proposed policy. I just want to know how high taxes will go before people start killing themselves. For 6 people the answer is 5% or less.
Click to expand...
No.
You posted a classic Partisan ABUSE of the Poll section.
Asking if anyone/everyone wants to pay more taxes.. and further Loaded it with the NONSENSICAL condition it was for useless digging/filling hole purpose.
Partisan Hackery.

However, under the right conditions, as I posted, It may very be a great idea.
One you obviously can't discuss.

EDIT:
This post answers the below as well.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
2. the 5% starts on income over 150,000.. or 500,000 or 1 Million.
Click to expand...

Would this include you.

mbig said:
With sober conditions, I think it's a Good idea.
Click to expand...

That was never the question. The question was would your life be better, worse or stay the same if you lost 5% of your income to the government?

Answer that question. The tax that I proposed is a bad idea but bad ideas do come to fruition from time to time. How would you respond to a bad idea that costed you 5% of your income?
 
mbig said:
So basically a 'flat tax' that many on the Right propose as 'fair' now!

But how about if it IS specifically earmarked "for digging holes" but instead of your ridiculously partisan OP,
1. it's for Useful holes: ie; INFRASTRUCTURE we desperately need anyway, putting Millions to work.
2. the 5% starts on income over 150,000.. or 500,000 or 1 Million. Take your pick.

With sober conditions, I think it's a Good idea.
Click to expand...

Be very, VERY, careful with building jobs to stimulate an economy. Such jobs are temporary and if not intelligently replaced by more efficient jobs, can lead to unnecessary building that only clogs the country up. China learned this the hard way (whole cities seemingly abondoned as my father's friend looked around during her visit to China) when the U.S. economy collapsed.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
This is more about what your personal response would be to a tax increase on your income. (not someone elses. I already know you wouldn't care about that. That's not rocket science.) This is not a proposed policy. I just want to know how high taxes will go before people start killing themselves. For 6 people the answer is 5% or less.
Click to expand...

Historically speaking, when it comes to taxes leading to national revolutions you need to go A LOT, A LOT, WAY, WAY, HIGHER than 5% to incite such violence.

Source = Western Civilization class (private school boys none of this bull**** "Education" that is the public schooling system)
 
Luftwaffe said:
Be very, VERY, careful with building jobs to stimulate an economy. Such jobs are temporary and if not intelligently replaced by more efficient jobs, can lead to unnecessary building that only clogs the country up. China learned this the hard way (whole cities seemingly abondoned as my father's friend looked around during her visit to China) when the U.S. economy collapsed.
Click to expand...
1. Infrastructure is an Ongoing issue.
2. The tax could be dropped after ie, 5 years of intensive work/catch up we DO need now.
 
mbig said:
1. Infrastructure is an Ongoing issue.
2. The tax could be dropped after ie, 5 years of intensive work/catch up we DO need now.
Click to expand...

And what after? A return to high unemployment?

I believe the best way to keep building jobs is to have the more intelligent of society innovate ways of building and living.

Don't just build new infrastructure, rather, find ways to continuously update it, and thus, keep jobs longer while also getting more of the much needed infrastructure (as well as even help out other things like remodelling and updating civlian housing as well).
 
Luftwaffe said:
And what after? A return to high unemployment?
Click to expand...
The jobs may very well have stimulated a better economy by then.
The tax would solve our two Biggest problems Now: Wealth disparity and lack of Jobs.

Corps and the wealthy are sitting on record Cash hoards in absolute dollars and percent.
A 5% tax, even if permanent, somewhat addresses both.

The 5% need not be phased out completely, maybe dropped to 2%, raised to 6%, or be permanent.
What it does is take money that is hoarded in .1% T-bills now, and creates more consumers as well as jobs.

It's quite arguable we do need a permanently more progessive tax based on increased wealth/salary disparity.
What better way than to create a 5% tax on income over a Million and Earmark it for Infrastructure jobs.
 
Why not just give the money to people instead of having them perform useless labor? Unless this is also an exercise plan in disguise to lower healthcare costs?

Or, ridiculous idea here, pay people to do something at least somewhat useful. Unless folks think our roads are in just tip top shape...
 
Deuce said:
Why not just give the money to people instead of having them perform useless labor? Unless this is also an exercise plan in disguise to lower healthcare costs?
Click to expand...
Infrastructure is useless?
In Fact, it's Desperately needed.
 
mbig said:
Infrastructure is useless?
In Fact, it's Desperately needed.
Click to expand...

Digging a hole and then filling it again is not building infrastructure.
 
Deuce said:
Digging a hole and then filling it again is not building infrastructure.
Click to expand...
Duh yeah
But that was Only the Nonsensical term foisted by the OP in his attempted partisan Abuse of the Poll section.
Read the string, or at least the page, you were posting on.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
The jobs may very well have stimulated a better economy by then.
The tax would solve our two Biggest problems Now: Wealth disparity and lack of Jobs.

Corps and the wealthy are sitting on record Cash hoards in absolute dollars and percent.
A 5% tax, even if permanent, somewhat addresses both.

The 5% need not be phased out completely, maybe dropped to 2%, raised to 6%, or be permanent.
What it does is take money that is hoarded in .1% T-bills now, and creates more consumers as well as jobs.

It's quite arguable we do need a permanently more progessive tax based on increased wealth/salary disparity.
What better way than to create a 5% tax on income over a Million and Earmark it for Infrastructure jobs.
Click to expand...

I see that the left is no longer disguising that they want to redistribute the wealth from the wealthy to the poor.

As for the OP, it would hurt me lots. Doesn't matter if its going towards something useless or helpful to the general populace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom