• 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!

Federal Income Tax. You Pick the Rate.

Federal (Income) Tax. You Pick the Rate.

  • 5%

    Votes: 11 26.2%
  • 10%

    Votes: 7 16.7%
  • 15%

    Votes: 4 9.5%
  • 20%

    Votes: 6 14.3%
  • 25%

    Votes: 5 11.9%
  • 30%

    Votes: 2 4.8%
  • 35%

    Votes: 2 4.8%
  • 40%

    Votes: 2 4.8%
  • 45%

    Votes: 1 2.4%
  • 50% and higher

    Votes: 2 4.8%

  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
But we are. And the people voted us "liberals" (i.e. Democrats and Republicans) into power. So why don't you think we should pay for our expenditures?

Are you referring to Reagan? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Reagan was not a cut-taxes-and-cut-spending president. Reagan was a cut-taxes-and-increase-spending president. Just like every other president in recent memory.

What on earth are you talking about? Please back this absurd assertion with economic data.


I've given this some thought and I think you make a valid point: only a small minority of conservatives are tax-less spend-less kinds of folks, and I'm not one of them.

I support lower taxes because it increases a household’s disposable income and increases tax revenue: more money for the government.

I also support lots of government spending. No, I don't support a host of new programs or pork projects like saving a brown mouse in SF (Obama’s stimulus). I support spending what is genuinely needed to maintain existing infrastructure, the military, social security, and similar, and then taking everything that's left and paying down our debt.

That's the nature of what Ragan did. He lowered taxes to increase revenue and then spent the rais he gave the national budget with those tax cuts on needed government expenses.

For the life of me I don't see President Obama's administration making any attempt to do this. The left (and I think it's fair to speak with an air of partisanship here as the left currently has control of both houses and the Presidency), is reducing their cash flow by increasing taxes and spending more money then they even had originally.

This, IMO, makes absolutely no sense.

It's exactly like taking a significant pay cut at work and then going on a shopping spree.

I support the government having a large income, living as far below it's means as it can without sacrificing needed expenses, and paying off our debt asap.
 
I bet you paid a much higher percentage for your FICA tax, especially if you are self-employed.




You gut the multitudes of things government should never do. Some agencies that need at least a 90% cut include the EPA, DEA, ATF, OSHA, EEOC, IRS, the world's greatest Ponzi scheme (social security) with its projected debt of $50 TRILLION--1000 times Madoff's scandal, Foreign aid and entanglements, and numerous others. If we abided by the Constitution, a 5% rate should be enough. If that rate was written in stone as an absolute maximum, it would be a great way to limit the catastrophic growth of government. Same for state and local governments--with an even lower rate, perhaps 2%.

Seems the vast majority believe of the folks voting believe 10 to 20% is enough. I don't want to fight what the ideal number is... only to note that accomplishing the goal would require changes along the lines Reagan pursued. Close loopholes, reduce rates, cut spending (this last part the Democrats never lived up to during Regan's reign).

There is one defender of the current tax code conspicuously missing from this thread.
A proponent of social engineering and believer the IRS should be expanded.

Must have been tremendously shaken by the results of the poll.

.
 
There is one defender of the current tax code conspicuously missing from this thread.
A proponent of social engineering and believer the IRS should be expanded.

Must have been tremendously shaken by the results of the poll.

Not really. I didn't notice this thread. And I agree with RightInNYC.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057963228-post4.html

If you want to ignore my reasons for my arguments, that's fine. But you are acting dishonestly in your posting about what I actually said. To refute your dishonesty, the underfunding of the IRS allows around $500 billion in tax evasion to occur every year. If we had a fully funded and staffed IRS, we wouldn't have had deficits in the past decades and the debt growth would have stopped aside from refinancing. You ignore this point to serve your argument. You implicitly argue that I'm for expanding the IRS for dubious reasons despite my statements (3 so far) that I'm for actually funding and staffing them to do the job they exist for. And merely because we have a less complex tax code doesn't make people honest. You seem to think that reducing the IRS and simplifying the tax code will suddenly make people honest. That is ludicrous. Even in the simplest of tax codes, people cheat. What you propose is to make their incentives to cheat even greater.

And social engineering is what got us out of the last recession. As you ignored before (at least three times so far), Bush's bonus depreciation was massive in getting firms sitting on cash to spend it. It is simply easier for you to pretend what I say doesn't exist then actually respond to it with facts, intelligence and substance. That doesn't make you honest, nor does it make you a half decent debater.

If and when you ever want to discuss what people actually say instead of cherry picking and refusing to even acknowledge their statements exist, I'm open to discussion. Otherwise, you're just a sniping troll.
 
I say 5% for the federal and enact a pay as you go system.The only time the government should spend more than what was put is during a time of war.Tax money should only be spent on the basics like roads,law enforcement,military, prisons, and infrastructure.
 
I say 5% for the federal and enact a pay as you go system.The only time the government should spend more than what was put is during a time of war.Tax money should only be spent on the basics like roads,law enforcement,military, prisons, and infrastructure.
Simply unrealistic. Your standard of living would be nothing like it is today if America was run in this manner. After the new deal our country's wealth exploded, not because the rich got richer (that happened) but because a middle class was created and drove the economy. Rich people don't drive the economy, they live off of it. So unless you have "family" money putting you in the top income bracket you would probably be a farmer or factory worker making pennies an hour 16 hours a day in an unhealthy and dangerous workplace. But see, you don't realize what life was like in 1820 or 1870 or 1913...
 
The problem is that a country NEEDS some socialism or else you end up with a plutocracy. Our nation is wealthy and progressive because of the socialism in our system.

Can you name another country with the kind of system you repubs want? One without socialism?
Funny that no cons wanted to respond to this... :roll:
 
Simply unrealistic. Your standard of living would be nothing like it is today if America was run in this manner. After the new deal our country's wealth exploded, not because the rich got richer (that happened) but because a middle class was created and drove the economy. Rich people don't drive the economy, they live off of it. So unless you have "family" money putting you in the top income bracket you would probably be a farmer or factory worker making pennies an hour 16 hours a day in an unhealthy and dangerous workplace. But see, you don't realize what life was like in 1820 or 1870 or 1913...

So many unsupportable assertions in one post.

I dunno if I can get to all the non facts in one day.

How about you provide some links.
 
Simply unrealistic. Your standard of living would be nothing like it is today if America was run in this manner. After the new deal our country's wealth exploded, not because the rich got richer (that happened) but because a middle class was created and drove the economy. Rich people don't drive the economy, they live off of it. So unless you have "family" money putting you in the top income bracket you would probably be a farmer or factory worker making pennies an hour 16 hours a day in an unhealthy and dangerous workplace. But see, you don't realize what life was like in 1820 or 1870 or 1913...

What does fair tax rate have to do with minimum wage laws?
 
Simply unrealistic. Your standard of living would be nothing like it is today if America was run in this manner. After the new deal our country's wealth exploded, not because the rich got richer (that happened) but because a middle class was created and drove the economy. Rich people don't drive the economy, they live off of it. So unless you have "family" money putting you in the top income bracket you would probably be a farmer or factory worker making pennies an hour 16 hours a day in an unhealthy and dangerous workplace. But see, you don't realize what life was like in 1820 or 1870 or 1913...

Plain silly. The middle class existed before FDR, survived in spite of him, and the American economy took off after WWII because ours was the only industrial nation on the planet with usable factories, so the world had to come to us to buy the goods they needed to recover from their idiotic wars.
 
But we are. And the people voted us "liberals" (i.e. Democrats and Republicans) into power. So why don't you think we should pay for our expenditures?

Because they're unconstitutional expenditures and hence illegal.
 
Question: Why is it fair to tax person X more than person Y simply because person X has a greater income?

Assumption: Both person X and Y are above the poverty line.
 
Last edited:
Question: Why is it fair to tax person X more than person Y simply because person X has a greater income?

Assumption: Both person X and Y are above the poverty line.

There really isn't an idealogically pure answer to this question. However, I do think that because we have a society that needs cohesion, it is the duty and even the privilege of every man to contribute his best to society and its upkeep.
 
I've given this some thought and I think you make a valid point: only a small minority of conservatives are tax-less spend-less kinds of folks, and I'm not one of them.

I support lower taxes because it increases a household’s disposable income and increases tax revenue: more money for the government.

I also support lots of government spending. No, I don't support a host of new programs or pork projects like saving a brown mouse in SF (Obama’s stimulus). I support spending what is genuinely needed to maintain existing infrastructure, the military, social security, and similar, and then taking everything that's left and paying down our debt.

That's the nature of what Ragan did. He lowered taxes to increase revenue and then spent the rais he gave the national budget with those tax cuts on needed government expenses.

For the life of me I don't see President Obama's administration making any attempt to do this. The left (and I think it's fair to speak with an air of partisanship here as the left currently has control of both houses and the Presidency), is reducing their cash flow by increasing taxes and spending more money then they even had originally.

This, IMO, makes absolutely no sense.

It's exactly like taking a significant pay cut at work and then going on a shopping spree.

I support the government having a large income, living as far below it's means as it can without sacrificing needed expenses, and paying off our debt asap.

I agree with your spending plans, of keeping SS and some other things and paying down the debt, but I disagree with the too-good-to-be-true idea that tax cuts increase revenues.

Of course they do in the long run, but that strategy also drastically increases the debt to GDP ratio.

I can get that chart later, but the Debt to GDP increased under Reagan and both Bushs and decreased under all of the other Republican and Democratic presidents since Truman.

Reagan didn't cut spending so any decrease in taxes would odviously increase the debt (which it did)
 
There really isn't an idealogically pure answer to this question.
maybe that's an indication of a bad answer?

However, I do think that because we have a society that needs cohesion, it is the duty and even the privilege of every man to contribute his best to society and its upkeep.
I agree. Which is why we all pay taxes. But that doesn't explain why person X should pay more than person Y assuming both person X and Y are above the poverty line. Person X didn't achieve their income from despicable means anymore than person Y. It doesn't make sense that you take more from X simply because X makes more above the poverty line than person Y. Its a negative consequence against person X for having greater income.
 
Last edited:
There really isn't an idealogically pure answer to this question. However, I do think that because we have a society that needs cohesion, it is the duty and even the privilege of every man to contribute his best to society and its upkeep.

It's the duty of every man, regardless of his economic station, to get off his dead ass and work to support himself and his family.

That's it.

It's not a privilege to work and have your wages and earnings stolen to support the parasitic lumps who won't work. Nor is it a privilege to be robbed to finance programs that aren't allowed by the Constitution.

A person being mugged on the street is contributing his best to society, but no one feels that it's a privilege. Wrapping it up in a red-tape bow and spraying perfume on it doesn't make it any nicer.
 
It's the duty of every man, regardless of his economic station, to get off his dead ass and work to support himself and his family.

That's it.

It's not a privilege to work and have your wages and earnings stolen to support the parasitic lumps who won't work. Nor is it a privilege to be robbed to finance programs that aren't allowed by the Constitution.

A person being mugged on the street is contributing his best to society, but no one feels that it's a privilege. Wrapping it up in a red-tape bow and spraying perfume on it doesn't make it any nicer.


I am against most federal "welfare" but the federal government should spend money on other things that aren't just barebones spending. That will require something above a 10% flat income tax.

Public education is crucial, because if a state will try to fund its own public education then the poor districts will not have the funding that they need. The local level pays for around 70% of all public education. That amount in $ can be very low then if the district is poor.

What people deserve is an education and job based on their SKILLS and not their parent's money.

I just can't understand how anyone can support poor students not getting a good education because of their situation. That isn't the free market where people are rewarded on their abilities, that is fuedalism. Even Ron Paul's vouchers for everyone will require a much higher income tax burdon then 10% or some other libertopia ideas.
 
No private property, so no taxation. Instead all wages paid by the state after services are accounted for.
 
I think a 0% income tax is more than enough.

I would be more than happy with paying an extra federal tax on everything I buy. Maybe 5% on all transactions or sales would be more than enough for the federal government to operate on.

It would have a couple of extra benefits to the people and the government. No more IRS. It would not be needed at all. The fed bankroll would expand as the economy does well etc.

Maybe it makes to much sense for our government.
 
I am against most federal "welfare" but the federal government should spend money on other things that aren't just barebones spending. That will require something above a 10% flat income tax.

The Federal Government is allowed to spend money on...

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


Oh! Look! You don't see "Socialist Security" listed there. You can't find "Nationalized Healthcare" anywhere, either. Public Education isn't allowed, either. How strange. It seems that almost the entire liberal/socialst construction of Gigantic Federal Nanny Government....isn't friggin' allowed by the Constitution.

And no, it's not covered by the two words "general welfare", that is not what that phrase was for.

THE STATES....they're supposed to pay for all that if their citizens are stupid enough to want a permanent baby sittter armed with guns to make the baby behave.

What people deserve is an education and job based on their SKILLS and not their parent's money.

What people deserve is the opportunity to live their own lives without carrying the burden of a million parasites holding them down, especially since the parasites are breaking the law by stealing money from them.

What the Constitution promises them is that the federal and state governments are limited to certain mutually exclusive arenas, and under no circumstances should the federal share of this burden be anywhere near as huge as it is today. 44% of the federal tax dollars paid in California NEVER comes back to the state. That's just flat out wrong.



I just can't understand how anyone can support poor students not getting a good education because of their situation.


It's called, "life's a female dog and then she dies".

It's also called "not my problem, but you can use your own money to help others all you want." For some reason socialists absolutely REFUSE to take this path. They insist on pointing guns at total strangers and demanding money from them to do "good" works. Why is that?

That isn't the free market where people are rewarded on their abilities, that is fuedalism.

Okay, now we know you don't know what feudalism is.

Even Ron Paul's vouchers for everyone will require a much higher income tax burdon then 10% or some other libertopia ideas.

"Vouchers"? That still doesn't take the chains off the earning classes, so they're no good.
 
No private property, so no taxation. Instead all wages paid by the state after services are accounted for.

commy :p :p

If we became communist then the world economy wouldn't grow fast enough to help the poor. Don't be selfish with your developed nation. Think about working people all over the world.

We also need a transfer culture to get to no taxes, you should read Marx's view on that.
 
The Federal Government is allowed to spend money on...




Oh! Look! You don't see "Socialist Security" listed there. You can't find "Nationalized Healthcare" anywhere, either. Public Education isn't allowed, either. How strange. It seems that almost the entire liberal/socialst construction of Gigantic Federal Nanny Government....isn't friggin' allowed by the Constitution.

And no, it's not covered by the two words "general welfare", that is not what that phrase was for.

Last time I checked, we are talking about what SHOULD happen. Not what is Constitutional. If you just want to debate what is Constitutional then there is no federal politics.

That would be a great political forum... being debating their specific military budgets and wages for politicians.

THE STATES....they're supposed to pay for all that if their citizens are stupid enough to want a permanent baby sittter armed with guns to make the baby behave.

What do you think I want???

Of course that is a state issue.

What people deserve is the opportunity to live their own lives without carrying the burden of a million parasites holding them down, especially since the parasites are breaking the law by stealing money from them.

Thats your view, but most people would agree that people's wealth should be based on their abilities and drive, not the wealth of their family. Free market, not merchantilism.

What the Constitution promises them is that the federal and state governments are limited to certain mutually exclusive arenas, and under no circumstances should the federal share of this burden be anywhere near as huge as it is today. 44% of the federal tax dollars paid in California NEVER comes back to the state. That's just flat out wrong.
I completely agree. Liberals should support state's rights because that would save them money.

It's called, "life's a female dog and then she dies".

It's also called "not my problem, but you can use your own money to help others all you want." For some reason socialists absolutely REFUSE to take this path. They insist on pointing guns at total strangers and demanding money from them to do "good" works. Why is that?

If thats your answer, then check-mate.

Life shouldn't be like that.


Why do people think something like that? It isn't even economic, because economically, people's wealth should be based on their work. Instead, it is just some warped free market ideology that removes the essence of hardwork and a fair reward.

Okay, now we know you don't know what feudalism is.



"Vouchers"? That still doesn't take the chains off the earning classes, so they're no good.
 
Last edited:
Last time I checked, we are talking about what SHOULD happen.

Last time I checked, I am talking about what should happen.

What should happen is that the law should be obeyed.

The Constitution is the law.

If you just want to debate what is Constitutional then there is no federal politics.

Well, that's an ignorant statement. There's plenty of federal politics....but it's constrained by the Constitution. What a weird idea, that. I mean, who ever heard of limited government, right?

That would be a great political forum... being debating their specific military budgets and wages for politicians.

You mean people would be able to pay more attention to what the theives in their state capitols are doing to them?

What a shame that would be. I mean, just imagine what would happen in California if the people were allowed to keep for themselves that 45% of the federal tax that doesn't come back to the state, and if they had more time to pay attention to Sacramento's shenannigans, too. I mean, California might be solvent right now.

That would be sooo terrible, wouldn't it?

Of course, you're forgetting that Washington sets immigration policy. Gee, if the corrupt lawmakers weren't busy trying to figure out how to get their peice of the Bailout Pie, maybe they'd spend some time discussing the invasion of the US by Mexico?

What do you think I want???

Socialism.

That's the goal of all who see unlimted federal government as their savior.

Thats your view, but most people would agree that people's wealth should be based on their abilities and drive, not the wealth of their family. Free market, not merchantilism.

Okay, we can add your ignorance of both "free market" and "mercantilism" to our list of things you're not too sure about.

The free market says that a person's property is his to use as he pleases to engage in economic activity. That means the wealthy don't get taxed merely because they have money. It also means the people without money don't have as many options open to them. Boo hoo hoo.

I completely agree. Liberals should support state's rights because that would save them money.

The last thing liberals care about is saving money. It's not their money to begin with, so why should they care. They just print more.


If thats your answer, then check-mate.

Life shouldn't be like that.

The realist deals with life as it is. Ostriches say it shouldn't be that way.

Why do people think something like that? It isn't even economic, because economically, people's wealth should be based on their work. Instead, it is just some warped free market ideology that removes the essence of hardwork and a fair reward.

Yeah, as if they get to define what "fair" is. It's not fair for the state to steal the inheritance of the millionaire's son, that's certain. The state did nothing to earn the money and it's only claim to it is it's guns.
 
Scarecrow...

Firstly, we must ballance how "fair" it is for people to be forced to give money to the poor, and talented poor individuals having less opportunities then dumb rich people. They contridict sometimes, so we need to look at it on a case by case basis.


There is something called an "amendment" to the Constitution which would allow for more enumerated powers. Therefore, it goes without saying that we would need those to make public education Constitutional.

But no... a "limited government" has already been spelled out by most people so there is not much debate in that. A military, a strict interpretation of civil liberties and nothing else. Not much debate in that.


There are many ideas about how a free primary and highschool education system can work. If you want to debate the merits of those programs after an amendment to allow them was passed, then that would be great.

It isn't productive to just decry all other ideas as Unconstitutional, when that can be changed.

--------------------------

This is off topic, so we may want to go to another thread...

I have an idea about public education that can work, and there is another idea of a "conservative" free education system in another thread.
You should check those out.


My idea is with increased teacher wages, weak teacher's unions and more charter schools.

The more "conservative idea" is with vouchers for all students, transparency in private schools and schools can not be paid to accept students.

What do you think about those? If a Constitutional amendment to allow them was passed of course. With both of those systems, it is possble that student's education and later jobs can be based on their abilities and not on the wealth of their parents.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget that the government is tightening its hold on its people by taxing anyone who leaves the country for 5 to 10 years if they make more than $124k a year or are worth more than about 500k. All to stop the evil "tax evaders".
 
Back
Top Bottom