• 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
The minute you adopt the attitude that Citizen A has more than Citizen B for whatever reason and therefore it is okay to forcibly take some of what Citizen A has and not Citizen B, you generate and promote corruption. When you adopt the attitude that all people are entitled to the fruit of their own labor without prejudice, you have a society that is truly free and open and inspirational to all who aspire to make their own lives better.

A flat tax is the most fair, equitable, and least regressive way to raise revenues to fund the necessary responsibility and obligations of government. Because they have more, the rich will pay much more than the poor, but if everybody pays, everybody has a valid stake in the system and it is far more difficult to corrupt.

Citizen A has money, and can spare it maintaining a comfortable above average lifestyle.

Citizen B works around the clock, makes ends meat, and needs to be helped in order to ensure a decent standard of living.

Flat tax is a fancy way of saying everyone gives according to a base rate, and that neglects that some people need more help than others
 
Citizen A has money, and can spare it maintaining a comfortable above average lifestyle.

Citizen B works around the clock, makes ends meat, and needs to be helped in order to ensure a decent standard of living.

Flat tax is a fancy way of saying everyone gives according to a base rate, and that neglects that some people need more help than others

What right do I have to demand that you give me some of your property because I need it and you have more than I do? When I can do that, what freedom or rights do any of us have?
 
What right do I have to demand that you give me some of your property because I need it and you have more than I do? When you can do that, what freedom or rights do any of us have?

You live in a society. You aren't a rugged individual like your fiscal pals would have you believe. You make X, you keep Y, where Y is more than the average american.

Freedom? Where is the freedom of social mobility for the worker? Does the grunt get promoted? Sometimes for merit, sometimes for other reasons.

Where is the meritocracy the right champions?
 
What right do I have to demand that you give me some of your property because I need it and you have more than I do?

Because your neighbours Mercedes is less important than the education of your children.

When I can do that, what freedom or rights do any of us have?

The rich have no right to whine and moan about having to chip in to pay for the society that made them rich and keeps them rich.

By the way much of the tax money goes to clean up the mess the capitalist society produces: pollution, unemployment, crime, financial breakdowns etc.

The rich have all the rights and freedoms in the world. Being more grateful for their privileged position in society would suit them better than being sad about themselves being too poor and the poor being too rich.
 
Because your neighbours Mercedes is less important than the education of your children.



The rich have no right to whine and moan about having to chip in to pay for the society that made them rich and keeps them rich.

By the way much of the tax money goes to clean up the mess the capitalist society produces: pollution, unemployment, crime, financial breakdowns etc.

The rich have all the rights and freedoms in the world. Being more grateful for their privileged position in society would suit them better than being sad about themselves being too poor and the poor being too rich.

I agree. ;)
 
You live in a society. You aren't a rugged individual like your fiscal pals would have you believe. You make X, you keep Y, where Y is more than the average american.

Freedom? Where is the freedom of social mobility for the worker? Does the grunt get promoted? Sometimes for merit, sometimes for other reasons.

Where is the meritocracy the right champions?

The 'grunt' who educates himself, applies himself, cleans himself up, shows up for work on time, gives an honest days work while he hones skills and learns the business indeed gets promoted. The guy who chooses to think the world owes him a living and he is not responsible for his own welfare probably doesn't.

Don't duck the question though.

If I make choices that hinder my ability to support myself in the style I would like, what right do I have to demand that you support me just because you made good choices and prospered as a result of that? I want you to define the right that entitles me to what you earn.
 
The 'grunt' who educates himself, applies himself, cleans himself up, shows up for work on time, gives an honest days work while he hones skills and learns the business indeed gets promoted. The guy who chooses to think the world owes him a living and he is not responsible for his own welfare probably doesn't.

Don't duck the question though.

If I make choices that hinder my ability to support myself in the style I would like, what right do I have to demand that you support me just because you made good choices and prospered as a result of that? I want you to define the right that entitles me to what you earn.

Yea, i understand. But is there not a double standard here? Do people start lifestyle choices that hinder themselves on the top of the economic ladder and abuse the money alloted them? You bet they do.

White collar crime
Off-shore money accounts
Embezzlement


Think Bernie Maddof and tell me if we live in a meritocracy.
 
Right, trust me if we keep on the road we are on? There will be an uprise. People are sick and tired of the gov. and their lies.

But they value their PS3's and their Applebee's 2 for 20 deals more than they do anything else, so I don't really see them causing an uprising.
 
Yea, i understand. But is there not a double standard here? Do people start lifestyle choices that hinder themselves on the top of the economic ladder and abuse the money alloted them? You bet they do.

White collar crime
Off-shore money accounts
Embezzlement


Think Bernie Maddof and tell me if we live in a meritocracy.

But that's a totally different issue.

Bernie Madoff was intentionally mismanaging other people's money, so they have every right to demand that he make that right.

I am talking about Citizen A who made good choices, worked hard, learned a trade, and became prosperous.

Citizen B made bad choices, goofed off a lot, did just enough to get by way too often, and now he's below the poverty line.

What principle do you use to justify Citizen B having any claim on any part of Citizen A's property?

Charity is noble and necessary in a moral society, but it is charity only when it is voluntary.

But when you are forced/required to give me part of what you have just because I have less, we are dealing with legalized involuntary servitude and, since slavery was abolished, I can find no principle in the Constitution that justifies that.

How can anybody have liberty if the government has the ability to take whatever it wants and tells us how much we are allowed to have?
 
But that's a totally different issue.

Bernie Madoff was intentionally mismanaging other people's money, so they have every right to demand that he make that right.

I am talking about Citizen A who made good choices, worked hard, learned a trade, and became prosperous.

Citizen B made bad choices, goofed off a lot, did just enough to get by way too often, and now he's below the poverty line.

What principle do you use to justify Citizen B having any claim on any part of Citizen A's property?

Charity is noble and necessary in a moral society, but it is charity only when it is voluntary.

But when you are forced/required to give me part of what you have just because I have less, we are dealing with legalized involuntary servitude and, since slavery was abolished, I can find no principle in the Constitution that justifies that.

How can anybody have liberty if the government has the ability to take whatever it wants and tells us how much we are allowed to have?

Some of us don't have that optimistic an outlook on human nature. I for one think that education is the premiere way to promote tolerance and morality. You can have liberty, and you do, under governmental control, if you are mentally sane. Save the conspiracy theory horse**** and look at the nation as a whole. We need to be collectivists, and pacfists, and I don't trust the right wing with either of those
 
Last edited:
What right do I have to demand that you give me some of your property because I need it and you have more than I do? When I can do that, what freedom or rights do any of us have?
Hate to tell you dudes (and it sounds bad) but 'Fair' doesn't matter!

Reality/affordability does.

The '5%" number you dudes were throwing around is NOT the Flat Tax rate.

It would be more like 20% (since you're eliminating cap gains, Divs, estate etc)

and people making 30K with a family of 4 CANNOT pay that, while people making $3 mil Can. with no sweat.
In fact, An 18% Tax CUT for the latter! Necessarily Made up by YOU lackies. Duh!

A Flat tax would lead to even more income/wealth Disparity than we have now.. Obviously.

and it's ..er.. 'Fair' if you want to return to a Feudal society of Castles/Lords and serfs.
Which because of lowered top marginal rates/reduced progressivity we're already doing.

More people with servants and private Jets, and a smaller Middle Class.

Can't wait for 'Flat tax'!
(and the same little revolution/revelation we had 100 years ago to tax the Rockefellers and Mellons)
-
 
Last edited:
Hate to tell you dudes (and it sounds bad) but 'Fair' doesn't matter!

Reality/affordability does.

The '5%" number you dudes were throwing around is NOT the Flat Tax rate.

It would be more like 20+% (since you're eliminating cap gains, Divs, estate etc)

That's why a cut in spending would be required.


and people making 30K with a family of 4 CANNOT pay that, while people making $3 mil Can. with no sweat.

How do you know this?

By pure assumption?

You do know that people making 30k a year already have more than 5% taken out for taxes?


A Flat tax would lead to even more income/wealth Disparity than we have now.. Obviously.

and it's ..er.. 'Fair' if you want to return to a Feudal society of Castles/Lords and serfs.
Which because of lowered top marginal rates/reduced progressivity we're already doing.

More people with servants and private Jets, and a smaller Middle Class.

Can't wait for 'Flat tax'!
-

How can you predict this?

Has any country ever implemented a flat tax and this happen?
 
That's why a cut in spending would be required.
NONSENSE speak

It still/clearly involves a Burden Shift DOWN the wealth/affordability ladder.

We're assuming a Rev Neutral stance for now.
Total Budget number a DIFFERENT issue.
NOT logical debate.


How do you know this?

By pure assumption?

You do know that people making 30k a year already have more than 5% taken out for taxes?
What?
I'm saying they can't afford a higher rate FLAT Tax of 20%.


How can you predict this?

Has any country ever implemented a flat tax and this happen?
Well let me see.. we have a progressive system now.. and as it's gotten less progressive the Middle Class has shrunk and the rich have gotten Much richer...

So lets play Really ignorant and lower the Riches rate from 38% to 20% and raise the Poorest from 0-10% to 20% and ...
I think I can "Predict" what will happen with Simple Math.

You know.. 'Math' The same way I can "Predict" 2 + 2 = 4.
Duh

JESUS what a gratuitous but EMPTY reply.
Bye!
-
 
Last edited:
I keep forgetting, why is it again we are supposed to feel sympathy for the those that own the majority of the wealth in the country???
 
NONSENSE speak

It still/clearly involves a Burden Shift DOWN the wealth/affordability ladder.

We're assuming a Rev Neutral stance for now.

Total Budget number a DIFFERENT issue.
NOT logical debate.

Sure it is, this is a thread devoted to hypothetical tax policy.
Pretty logical to everyone else.


What?
I'm saying they can't afford a higher rate FLAT Tax of 20%.

And many of them already have that deducted every single year.
Have you ever done taxes for people in these income ranges?
I have and I know for a fact that many of them have it deducted through out the whole year to have it delivered back at the end of the year in one solid check.

Well let me see.. we have a progressive system now.. and as it's gotten less progressive the Middle Class has shrunk and the rich have gotten Much richer...

So lets play Really ignorant and lower the Riches rate from 38% to 20% and raise the Poorest from 0-10% to 20% and ...
I think I can "Predict" what will happen with Simple Math.

You know.. 'Math' The same way I can "Predict" 2 + 2 = 4.
Duh

JESUS what a gratruitous but EMPTY reply.
-

The rich will still pay more as a percentage than everyone else.

You still haven't proven anything.

A Flat tax would lead to even more income/wealth Disparity than we have now.. Obviously.

and it's ..er.. 'Fair' if you want to return to a Feudal society of Castles/Lords and serfs.
Which because of lowered top marginal rates/reduced progressivity we're already doing.

More people with servants and private Jets, and a smaller Middle Class.

Please prove this emotional rant.
 
It's not that at all.

People shouldn't be playing social engineering with taxes when the outcomes can be negative.

You mean by trying to broaden the gap between the rich and the poor further by instituting a regressive tax such as the so called "Fair tax"?

The middle class have already felt the negative effects of the tax cuts to the wealthy, why is it we would want to shift more of the tax burden to ourselves?
 
Pretty logical to everyone else.

And yet it has never been passed! And how did Huckabee fare in the election primary running on the fair tax platform?

Where is this "everyone" for which you speak?
 
You mean by trying to broaden the gap between the rich and the poor further by instituting a regressive tax such as the so called "Fair tax"?

It doesn't really do that at all, the rich will still pay the largest portion of all taxes.
For me it isn't about the Fair Tax either, it's about everyone contributing.

I prefer a national sales tax or a flat tax.
I don't care for the Fair Tax.

The middle class have already felt the negative effects of the tax cuts to the wealthy, why is it we would want to shift more of the tax burden to ourselves?

The middle and lower class have a lot that is generally left out of the equation and one could put the point forth that lower taxes and larger welfare benefits have encouraged poor people to stay poor.

We all live in this country and all of us consume in this country, so all of us should contribute if we are to be citizens of this country.

You can't take and never give.
 
Last edited:
And yet it has never been passed! And how did Huckabee fare in the election primary running on the fair tax platform?

Where is this "everyone" for which you speak?

He was talking about the tax rate being 20% and I interjected that this is all hypothetical and some want to cut spending to bring the total rate down to 5%.
 
It doesn't really do that at all, the rich will still pay the largest portion of all taxes.
For me it isn't about the Fair Tax either, it's about everyone contributing.

Everyone does contribute. The middle class just contributes more of their wealth than does the rich.

I prefer a national sales tax or a flat tax.
I don't care for the Fair Tax.

The National sales tax and the fair tax are both essentially a flat tax.

The middle and lower class have a lot that is generally left out of the equation and one could put the point forth that lower taxes and larger welfare benefits have encouraged poor people to stay poor.

You feel the middle class is not paying their fair share?
 
He was talking about the tax rate being 20% and I interjected that this is all hypothetical and some want to cut spending to bring the total rate down to 5%.

Oh, social engineering is what you are interested in? I thought you were opposed to that?

Harry Guerrilla - People shouldn't be playing social engineering with taxes when the outcomes can be negative.
 
Everyone does contribute. The middle class just contributes more of their wealth than does the rich.

Not entirely true, the tax rates for middle and lower income brackets are less than for higher earners.
Not to mention a lot of the deductions and refundable credits they get.

You'd be 100% right in comparison to the rich that earn all their money from long term capital gains though.


The National sales tax and the fair tax are both essentially a flat tax.

One is on Income and the other is on consumption, the fair tax isn't good in my mind because there is still a lot of bureaucracy involved.

An income tax and a consumption tax can have different effects.

You feel the middle class is not paying their fair share?

Not entirely no, Medicare which is underfunded and the average recipient only pays in $1 for every $3 he or she receives.

Not only that but their taxes have really just been used to fund greater tax rate cuts and the government has shifted to deficit spending to make up for the short fall.
 
Last edited:
Oh, social engineering is what you are interested in? I thought you were opposed to that?

The social engineering I'm referring to is doing stuff to and for people.

Giving them things like no cost medical benefits, food stamps etc.
It can change a person from productive to dependent.

Requiring people to pay a modest tax for government upkeep does not fall into the same realm.
 
Everyone does contribute. The middle class just contributes more of their wealth than does the rich.

As has been shown to you a dozen times in this thread already, the rich pay a much higher percentage of their income in income tax than the middle or lower classes do.

You know that you're wrong on this, so you keep on reverting to "wealth" as if that makes any sense. In the real world, because we cannot tax "wealth," we have to look at income.
 
Back
Top Bottom