• 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!

Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

Which do you prefer:


  • Total voters
    133
Does that make it inherently wrong?

Yes, for me personally, it is morally wrong because the lower classes own less of the wealth. Putting that aside however, you will never gain public support for a tax system that will place a greater burden on the middle class.



"The latest data from the Internal Revenue Service show that more than half of all federal individual income taxes—50.8 percent—are paid by the five percent of taxpayers who earn the most. In 1996, the latest year for which data are available, this top five percent consisted of 6.0 million earners whose adjusted gross incomes (AGI) were higher than $101,202."

"Even among this prosperous group, the highest earners paid the lion's share. The top one percent of earners in the country are paying close to a third of all the taxes collected. That's approximately 1.2 million earners who paid 32.3 percent of 1996's federal individual income taxes."

The Tax Foundation - Top Five Percent of Taxpayers Pay Over Half of Total Federal Individual Income Taxes

We have been over this already and I have shown that the top 20% own 80% of the wealth.

It is a tax rate cut and considering that the middle class doesn't pay for half of the government it wants, why should they get any kind of break?

If you think you can sell a tax plan to the middle class that puts a greater tax burden on them because they deserve a higher tax burden, have at it! ;)
 
Yes, for me personally, it is morally wrong because the lower classes own less of the wealth. Putting that aside however, you will never gain public support for a tax system that will place a greater burden on the middle class.





We have been over this already and I have shown that the top 20% own 80% of the wealth.



If you think you can sell a tax plan to the middle class that puts a greater tax burden on them because they deserve a higher tax burden, have at it! ;)

The façade of fiscal economics
 
SCOTUS does not arbitrarily choose issues to rule on. SCOTUS rules on cases filed with the Supreme Court by others.

Right, that's my point, no one has successfully challenged our progressive tax system in the last 96 years.

Because of that, I think it will take a Constitutional Amendment to further clarify what the Federal government is and is not authorized to do. That would not be unprecedented either as we have had numerous amendments to clarify this or that when the original Constitution did not anticipate issues that would come up in subsequent generations.

Only one thing wrong with the solution you see to your problem, it takes popular support to get a constitutional amendment passed. There is no majority support for a tax system that shifts more of the tax burden to the middle class.
 
Do you think taxation is at an all time high or something?

Taxation is way higher than a government operating under the Constitution would require.

And that is all that matters.

Taxes are too high.

Spending is too high.

Cut both, and cut both so there's zero deficit.
 
When did we get a progressive tax system? All I've ever seen is a socialist tax system.

Learn the definition of socialism and then get back to me! :mrgreen:

so⋅cial⋅ism

–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

That doesn't sound that bad does it? If you're going to argue theory, at least be able to define what that pejorative even means.
 
Last edited:
I am not aware of the Supreme Court determining current Congressional duties to be unconstitutional. Do you have a link for that?

Current Congressional duties are always Constitution.

The Constitution defines the duties of Congress.

What I'm sure was meant was current Congressional activities, such as creating socialist security, public education, the FHA, the NEA, and the latest scam, the Health Care Monster. None of that is allowed by Article I, Section 8.
 
I'm for removing income taxes, and increasing sales tax. Some of you were concerned that rich people would pay less taxes than today. That problem can be solved by not having VAT for essentials. Which means, poor people don't need to pay taxes at all.
 
Learn the definition of socialism and then get back to me! :mrgreen:

Okay, I'm back.

Since "progressive" was a propaganda term to hide the reality that Americans promoting socialism in the land of the free, what's your problem with people a century later pointing out their crimes?
 
I'm for removing income taxes, and increasing sales tax. Some of you were concerned that rich people would pay less taxes than today. That problem can be solved by not having VAT for essentials. Which means, poor people don't need to pay taxes at all.

Why shouldn't poor people pay taxes?

Why shouldn't they pay their fair share?
 
Why shouldn't poor people pay taxes?

Why shouldn't they pay their fair share?

It's not really a tax break for poor people, because rich people can do the same, but they don't want to.

However, I sympathize with many poor people who struggle to keep their finances in order. I want to make sure that it is possible to live very cheap if you have trouble with the finances.
 
Okay, I'm back.

Since "progressive" was a propaganda term to hide the reality that Americans promoting socialism in the land of the free, what's your problem with people a century later pointing out their crimes?

You don't understand the difference between approbative statements and pejorative statements.

Progressive is either/or depending on the outlet. Likewise, socialistic is either/or. It's stupid to quantify "land of the free" as a contrast to a pejorative statement, that's a double no-no. That further misguides people as to what socialism actually is.
 
Last edited:
When did we get a progressive tax system?

I addressed this already in post #139 -

"In the late 1800's and early 1900's there was a group of super wealthy American capitalist known as the Robber Barons. Our elected leaders realized that if they did not pass some major legislation the Robber Barons would eventually own every inch of land in America and our founding fathers vision of an egalitarian democratic republic would be destroyed, and our Constitution would be worthless. So in 1913 they passed the sixteenth amendment to the Constitution and a highly progressive tax system."
History Of America's Highly Progressive Tax System
 
Current Congressional duties are always Constitution.

The Constitution defines the duties of Congress.

What I'm sure was meant was current Congressional activities, such as creating socialist security, public education, the FHA, the NEA, and the latest scam, the Health Care Monster.

The Supreme Court would make the call on those charges as to whether they are Constitutional or not. Do you have a link to successful challenges to SS, public ED, the FHA, the NEA or the health insurance reform?

None of that is allowed by Article I, Section 8.

According to your interpretation. Fortunately, by the rule of law, the Supreme Court is the official body for interpreting the Constitution and any amendments added.
 
It's not really a tax break for poor people, because rich people can do the same, but they don't want to.

However, I sympathize with many poor people who struggle to keep their finances in order. I want to make sure that it is possible to live very cheap if you have trouble with the finances.


I'd rather the constraint of the Fourteenth Amendment, the every person in the United States be granted equal protection under the law be respected and the process of punishing the successful by over taxing them be ceased.

If poor people had to pay their fair share for all the programs they're now getting for free, there would be fewer unconstitutional scams holding the nation down.
 
Yeah, keep the poor poor. Why should they get away without paying taxes?

Exactly.

They're personal failures aren't any excuse to relieve them of their duties to the nation.

They're consuming resources, they should pay for them.
 
Exactly.

They're personal failures aren't any excuse to relieve them of their duties to the nation.

They're consuming resources, they should pay for them.

LOL. i really hope this is sarcasm.
 
I addressed this already in post #139 -

"In the late 1800's and early 1900's there was a group of super wealthy American capitalist known as the Robber Barons. Our elected leaders realized that if they did not pass some major legislation the Robber Barons would eventually own every inch of land in America and our founding fathers vision of an egalitarian democratic republic would be destroyed, and our Constitution would be worthless. So in 1913 they passed the sixteenth amendment to the Constitution and a highly progressive tax system."
History Of America's Highly Progressive Tax System

That's interesting.

The phrase "Robber Baron" refers to economic practices in Medieval Europe.

Explain how private capitalists have the power to rob people like that?

Oh! You people are just using hyperbole to propagandize your positions, is all. You don't actually understand your issues, you're just told to use certain phrases because those phrases have a measured impact and negate the need for thoughtful intelligent discourse.

As I've already stated, since the word "Progressive" and the "Progressive Movement" were propagandistic euphemisms for the American socialist movements, and since in no ways can "progress" be construed as moving backwards towards a resumption of feudalism, then there's nothing at all progressive about a so-called Progressive movement or a Progressive tax.

When you all want to discuss things in english, so that you call a socialist the damn dirty dog socialist, instead of these cutesy little lying euphemisms you love so much because not even you can claim socialism is good, get back to me.
 
The Supreme Court would make the call on those charges as to whether they are Constitutional or not.

They used to.

Until FDR threatened to pack the courts with socialists.

Since then the USSC hasn't been doing it's job.

You're absolutely right.

Under Article I, Section 8, they're not allowed.

Can you explain why you decided that your brain would be used best as a suppository for other people's thoughts instead of as an organ for original thought? Can you explain why, when you yourself admit that something is illegal, you reverse yourself because some unelected body disagrees with you? Have you no spine?

Oh! You must be one of those people that agree with all the USSC's decisions, including the decision that allows the state to seize a family's private residence and sell it to a private commercial developer.

Being neither ignorant nor stupid, I'm able to read the Constitution myself and it's perfectly plain that what I say is unconstitutional is in fact a violation. Also, you could try looking up what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the Constitutionality of federal education spending. A firm advocate of public education, he confessed that the deed was unconstitutional and he requested an amendment allowing. The congress agreed it was unconstituitonal and no amendment was forth coming. Ergo, it's still unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
That's interesting.

The phrase "Robber Baron" refers to economic practices in Medieval Europe.

The term was also used to describe practices in the US in the late 1800's and the early 1900's ~

"Robber Barons, a term used in the late 1800s and early 1900s to describe a businessman who made an enormous amount of money, today we would call them billionaires. It was not really the fact they made an extreme amount of wealth, it was more the way they made it. In all the cases the acquiring of wealth was done in what was considered a ruthless manor and unscrupulous ways. A robber baron was more interested in acquiring wealth than the safety of his employees, the amount of work hours performed in a week, or the amount of wage being paid for a days work."
Robber Barons essays

"The era of Big Business began when entrepreneurs in search of profits consolidated their businesses into massive corporations, which were so large that they could force out competition and gain control of a market. Control of a market allowed a corporation to set prices for a product at whatever level it wanted. These corporations, and the businessmen who ran them, became exceedingly wealthy and powerful, often at the expense of many poor workers. Some of the most powerful corporations were John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company, Andrew Carnegie’s Carnegie Steel, Cornelius Vanderbilt’s New York Central Railroad System, and J.P. Morgan’s banking house. These corporations dominated almost all aspects of their respective industries: by 1879, for example, Rockefeller controlled 90 percent of the country’s oil refining capacity. Much of the public saw the leaders of big business as “robber barons” who exploited workers in order to amass vast fortunes."
SparkNotes: SAT Subject Test: U.S. History: Big Business in the Industrial Age
 
Last edited:
Can you explain why, when you yourself admit that something is illegal, you reverse yourself because some unelected body disagrees with you?

What did I admit was illegal? You've already shown you interpret things from your own unique perspective, so don't forget to include my quote to back up your claim.
 
Exactly, that is why a consumption tax makes no sense.

"Rich Buying Again, But Middle Class Still Hurting"

"The poor have no assets to protect them against inflation.

The middle class have some assets to protect them against inflation.

The rich have most of their assets protected against inflation.

That is no ones fault but the people who do not protect themselves.

I defy that statement that "the poor have no assets to protect them against inflation."

I have multiple investments in my 401k, individual stocks, notes and foreign currency.
All I had to do was read about it.

Those with Government contracts are protected against inflation because they receive the newly created money through government contracts. This is value indirectly stolen from the poor and middle class and given to the rich.

Consider this: you are poor and you would like to save up cash for a large purchase. As you save money, you reach a point when the cash you have in savings loses value faster than the rate at which you can save.

Each year new money is created out of nothing and put into existence. This is an indirect tax on the poor and middle class or anyone who is not hedged against inflation. This is an immoral, though lawful, system."
How Does Inflation Hurt the Poor and Middle Class?

I am poor and I hedge my surplus money against inflation now, I save money for large purchases now and I invest my money now.

It's crazy to suggest that poor people can't do that when the barriers to entry are basically nonexistent.

You mean like the hedge fund manager's that earn 400 times what a high school history teacher makes with no more education than the history teacher.

Do you know how much pressure it is to manage millions to billions of dollars, that isn't your money?

Formal education is not a definitive measure of success and income.


That's why it is a MINIMUM wage. States where it is more expensive to live can set their wages higher.

Your posted minimum wage is more than what I make and I live comfortably.
It's unnecessary.
 
Yes, for me personally, it is morally wrong because the lower classes own less of the wealth. Putting that aside however, you will never gain public support for a tax system that will place a greater burden on the middle class.

If you think you can sell a tax plan to the middle class that puts a greater tax burden on them because they deserve a higher tax burden, have at it! ;)

To me that moral philosophy says that,"I want to charge up my credit card but I want someone else to pay it."

That is the primary reason I am against democracy, it has been proven that the majority will take as much as it can from the minority using the gun of the government.

What happened to majority rule but not at the expense of the minority?
That is what our republic was founded on.


We have been over this already and I have shown that the top 20% own 80% of the wealth.

Having more wealth does not mean you incur a greater debt to government.
 
Back
Top Bottom