• 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
So you've changed the discussion of the ever widening gap between the rich and the middle class to say our poor are not as bad off as the poor in Africa?

Well you have good reason to change the subject I suppose:

"An analysis conducted by the Economic Policy Institute indicates that the richest one percent of U.S. Households had a net worth 225 times greater than the average American household in 2009. That’s up from 190 times greater, the previous record set in 2004."

http://www.commercenewstoday.com/archives/4357-Widening-income-gap-bodes-ill-for-U.S..html

and what would change this without causing massive problems

why are those on the bottom not competing effectively-maybe its the opiate of welfare socialism

the longer a system exists, the more those who can compete the most effectively will obtain
 
and what would change this without causing massive problems

A progressive tax system that provided a growing economy and the strongest middle class in our history.

why are those on the bottom not competing effectively-maybe its the opiate of welfare socialism

the longer a system exists, the more those who can compete the most effectively will obtain

Please note what I was talking about in the post you responded to. I have placed bold emphasis on it for easier recognition - "the ever widening gap between the rich and the middle class"
 
A progressive tax system that provided a growing economy and the strongest middle class in our history.



Please note what I was talking about in the post you responded to. I have placed bold emphasis on it for easier recognition - "the ever widening gap between the rich and the middle class"


a progressive tax doesn't do that-what it does is buy votes for the politicians

the middle class has become dependent and addicted to keeping up with the Jones's. taxing the rich don't make unproductive people more productive

and the rich do not exist to fund the existence of others nor was this government created to do that
 
really? I have been to various parts of the world and all over the USA I have been in the deepest parts of Appalachia, and the South Bronx and nothing there compares to what i saw in places like Cartegena Columbia, parts of Bolivia etc.

Oh I see. So because you haven't SEEN it it doesn't happen, hmm? It couldn't POSSIBLY happen here because *we're the best!*
Here - hold on a minute while I spin you some more wool.
 
Oh I see. So because you haven't SEEN it it doesn't happen, hmm? It couldn't POSSIBLY happen here because *we're the best!*
Here - hold on a minute while I spin you some more wool.

why don't you post some proof to counter what have seen. i have read lots of poverty figures for the USA vs other nations.
 
why don't you post some proof to counter what have seen. i have read lots of poverty figures for the USA vs other nations.

Don't you read the paper, watch the news?

How many families live in tent-towns? We've discussed this recently - it's a growing trend all over the US.
How many homeless are out there living in cardboard boxes and hunker in alleys?
How many people live in the swamps of Louisianna and Florida and live off the land?

Do you think that any child or elderly indvidual who lives in any of these conditions - is well fed, healthy and robust or something? Have you seen how some Natives (Alaskans, Indians) live when they're rejected and shunned?

Didn't you read when piles of corpses were gathered up after having died of exposure during the summer?
How many children have been discovered to be feral and severely neglected, malnourished - how many elderly? It's in the news all the time.

The false sense of 'It's not like that here!' is only becuase it's spread all over - they're not hoveled all together in a quarter of one town (well - actually - many are). They're mostly spread all over the country in places where the average person will never see them. They're there- justl ike that - they're just not packed in densely. The hills, the swamps, the mountains, the desert - we have it all.

*WHY* is it that you think we don't have such conditions here?
 
Don't you read the paper, watch the news?

How many families live in tent-towns? We've discussed this recently - it's a growing trend all over the US.
How many homeless are out there living in cardboard boxes and hunker in alleys?
How many people live in the swamps of Louisianna and Florida and live off the land?

Do you think that any child or elderly indvidual who lives in any of these conditions - is well fed, healthy and robust or something? Have you seen how some Natives (Alaskans, Indians) live when they're rejected and shunned?

Didn't you read when piles of corpses were gathered up after having died of exposure during the summer?
How many children have been discovered to be feral and severely neglected, malnourished - how many elderly? It's in the news all the time.

The false sense of 'It's not like that here!' is only becuase it's spread all over - they're not hoveled all together in a quarter of one town (well - actually - many are). They're mostly spread all over the country in places where the average person will never see them. They're there- justl ike that - they're just not packed in densely. The hills, the swamps, the mountains, the desert - we have it all.

*WHY* is it that you think we don't have such conditions here?

OK no proof

thanks
 
Don't you read the paper, watch the news?

How many families live in tent-towns? We've discussed this recently - it's a growing trend all over the US.

i've driven pretty much up and down the east coast recently; i have yet to see these tent cities.

HOWEVER, i'd bet that they could be partially solved pretty easily through the removal of rent-control provisions.

How many homeless are out there living in cardboard boxes and hunker in alleys?

homeless aren't really an adequate measure of poverty; given their propensity to mental instability or drug-addiction.

How many people live in the swamps of Louisianna and Florida and live off the land?

:confused: what' wrong with living off the land? my best friend's family hunts, farms, and fishes for much of it's food. they do just fine. heck, my uncle fishes and grows all his own vegetables, and he's a millionaire.

Didn't you read when piles of corpses were gathered up after having died of exposure during the summer?

no i didn't. was it as bad as France a few years back? ( France heat wave death toll set at 14,802 )

How many children have been discovered to be feral and severely neglected, malnourished - how many elderly? It's in the news all the time.

The false sense of 'It's not like that here!' is only becuase it's spread all over - they're not hoveled all together in a quarter of one town (well - actually - many are). They're mostly spread all over the country in places where the average person will never see them. They're there- justl ike that - they're just not packed in densely. The hills, the swamps, the mountains, the desert - we have it all.

*WHY* is it that you think we don't have such conditions here?

poverty? we have it here. but poverty is a relative term. the poor of this generation were solid middle class, a two generations ago. the natural condition of man is nasty, brutish, violent, ugly, dirty, and short. we only escape from that by building (over long periods of time) enough wealth in the form of excess production to allow ourselves to rise above it. here in the US, we have come uniquely far.

some interesting facts about America's "poor"
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

* Forty six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three bedroom house with one and a half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
* Seventy six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
* Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
* Ninety seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
* Seventy eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
 
Last edited:
Ok - so you two think it's not as bad as I see it.
But we all agree that we do have those who are homeless and so on. Some through their own decisions - others through the act of others. . . the reasons are quite varied.

So what to do about it? Ending any of our attempts to help said individuals will only make the issue worse. If you don't think it's that bad right now then surely you don't want to actually make things digress. Poverty in our country has been greatly reduced because of temporary welfare programs for such people - the more significant change happened in the 1960s when they formed the welfare system and then again in the 1990's when they restructured the system and formed it into a state-base structure.

None the less - regardless of how many or how bad (or not so bad, as is in your views) things are - do you think we should do nothing more - let things stagnate? Or end our current system altogether?

None the less - the real issue we were first debating which brought this up is that the poor vote for their own support - and the truth there is that most aren't politically active at all so those in power have chosen to taken on the poverty issue on their own accord.
 
i've driven pretty much up and down the east coast recently; i have yet to see these tent cities.

HOWEVER, i'd bet that they could be partially solved pretty easily through the removal of rent-control provisions.



homeless aren't really an adequate measure of poverty; given their propensity to mental instability or drug-addiction.



:confused: what' wrong with living off the land? my best friend's family hunts, farms, and fishes for much of it's food. they do just fine. heck, my uncle fishes and grows all his own vegetables, and he's a millionaire.



no i didn't. was it as bad as France a few years back? ( France heat wave death toll set at 14,802 )



poverty? we have it here. but poverty is a relative term. the poor of this generation were solid middle class, a two generations ago. the natural condition of man is nasty, brutish, violent, ugly, dirty, and short. we only escape from that by building (over long periods of time) enough wealth in the form of excess production to allow ourselves to rise above it. here in the US, we have come uniquely far.

some interesting facts about America's "poor"

If the poor are relatively well-off in this country, isn't that evidence that progressive taxation and "welfare socialism" has achieved its goal of raising the aggregate standard of living?
 
how did the wars benefit the most of those in the top 2 percent of tax payers?

Rich people started them to increase and protect their wealth.


can you prove the idiotic claim that high massive tax rates caused prosperity

Between 1936 and 1980, the top tax rate averaged over 81%. Despite the high tax rate for the top income earners, this was one of the most prosperous times for all Americans in our history.

"Though debt almost always increased under every president in the latter half of the 20th century, it declined as a percentage of GDP under all Presidents after 1950 and prior to Reagan."

Economic history of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"advocates of progressive taxation tend to be found among the majority of economists and social scientists, many of whom believe that completely proportional taxation is not a possibility. In the U.S., an overwhelming majority of economists (81%) support progressive taxation."

Klein, D. B.; Stern, C. (2004-12-06). "Economists' policy views and voting". Public Choice Journal. Retrieved 2007-07-02.
Boxx, W. T. & Quinlivan, G. M. (1994). The Cultural Context of Economics and Politics. Lanham, MA: University Press of America. ISBN 978-0-8191-9680-4


good luck if you can and what was the effective rate then versus now?

"In 1955, our 400 highest incomes averaged $12.3 million, in today’s dollars. But the top 400 in 1955 didn’t get to enjoy all those millions. On average, after exploiting every tax loophole they could find, they actually paid over half their incomes, 51.2%, in federal income tax.

Today’s super rich are doing better, fantastically better, both before and after taxes. In 2006, the top 400 averaged an astounding $263 million each in income. These 400 financially fortunate paid, after loopholes, just 17.2% of their incomes in federal tax."
Why Should We Tax the Rich? Because They Have the Money! | Dissenting Democrat
 
Last edited:
If the poor are relatively well-off in this country, isn't that evidence that progressive taxation and "welfare socialism" has achieved its goal of raising the aggregate standard of living?

No it isn't

subsidizing poverty and making it comfortable only increases it
 
No it isn't

subsidizing poverty and making it comfortable only increases it

But if the "impoverished" lead middle class lifestyles, then what's the problem?
 
But if the "impoverished" lead middle class lifestyles, then what's the problem?

that really doesn't make much sense-we keep being told the MC is disappearing and there are more poor
 
Rich people started them to increase and protect their wealth.




Between 1936 and 1980, the top tax rate averaged over 81%. Despite the high tax rate for the top income earners, this was one of the most prosperous times for all Americans in our history.

"Though debt almost always increased under every president in the latter half of the 20th century, it declined as a percentage of GDP under all Presidents after 1950 and prior to Reagan."

Economic history of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"advocates of progressive taxation tend to be found among the majority of economists and social scientists, many of whom believe that completely proportional taxation is not a possibility. In the U.S., an overwhelming majority of economists (81%) support progressive taxation."

Klein, D. B.; Stern, C. (2004-12-06). "Economists' policy views and voting". Public Choice Journal. Retrieved 2007-07-02.
Boxx, W. T. & Quinlivan, G. M. (1994). The Cultural Context of Economics and Politics. Lanham, MA: University Press of America. ISBN 978-0-8191-9680-4




"In 1955, our 400 highest incomes averaged $12.3 million, in today’s dollars. But the top 400 in 1955 didn’t get to enjoy all those millions. On average, after exploiting every tax loophole they could find, they actually paid over half their incomes, 51.2%, in federal income tax.

Today’s super rich are doing better, fantastically better, both before and after taxes. In 2006, the top 400 averaged an astounding $263 million each in income. These 400 financially fortunate paid, after loopholes, just 17.2% of their incomes in federal tax."
Why Should We Tax the Rich? Because They Have the Money! | Dissenting Democrat




__________________________________________________________________________________________________


rich people started the wars to incease their wealth

my bs detector just redlined. Do you think the Jews bombed the WTC too?

what was the top rate when America was becoming the most powerful nation in the world?

that the majority of people who suckle from the public teat (economists) support a system that provides milk to the public teat is not surprising

why do you welfare socialists talk about 400 people to justify soaking millions
 
i thought you might try to provide some evidence to back up back up your claims.

Oh well, thanks for your opinion.
 
i thought you might try to provide some evidence to back up back up your claims.

Oh well, thanks for your opinion.

posting the opinions of people about what they want in taxes proves what?

If you aren't willing to pay 80 percent of your next dollar to a wasteful government you have no right to demand someone else should
 
that really doesn't make much sense-we keep being told the MC is disappearing and there are more poor

Well, I agree with you that the poor in the U.S. are generally better off than much of the world's poor, and I think that's a good thing. I also have seen firsthand how welfare helps raise the standard of living in poorer communities. I support the current system of progressive taxation and moderate welfare for exactly that reason, with the caveat that we must pay for it, not borrow for it. I actually don't know if there are more poor, I'd have to research that. Most of the stats I've seen indicate the median wage has stagnated, not that more people are poor. But I'm pretty certain that the poor we do have wouldn't be as well off without our safety nets. It also seems that the wealthy's share of the federal tax burden is line with their share of the wealth.

So I'm just wondering where the great injustice is, and how a flat tax solves this problem.
 
posting the opinions of people about what they want in taxes proves what?

If you aren't willing to pay 80 percent of your next dollar to a wasteful government you have no right to demand someone else should

Thanks for your opinion!
 
Well, I agree with you that the poor in the U.S. are generally better off than much of the world's poor, and I think that's a good thing. I also have seen firsthand how welfare helps raise the standard of living in poorer communities. I support the current system of progressive taxation and moderate welfare for exactly that reason, with the caveat that we must pay for it, not borrow for it. I actually don't know if there are more poor, I'd have to research that. Most of the stats I've seen indicate the median wage has stagnated, not that more people are poor. But I'm pretty certain that the poor we do have wouldn't be as well off without our safety nets. It also seems that the wealthy's share of the federal tax burden is line with their share of the wealth.

So I'm just wondering where the great injustice is, and how a flat tax solves this problem.

the great injustice is not the issue-its the mindset a progressive tax creates

the mindset comes from the vast majority of voters thinking that a bloated government is not a problem and a deficit is not a problem because their leaders tell them the rich can be taxed at higher and higher rates to solve those problems and give the masses all the government they want

as long as the majority that uses the majority of government spending don't have to suffer any increased taxes they have no incentive whatsoever to stop the unsustainable expansion of government

a flat tax means that when some guy making 25K a year supports more government and taxes have to rise, he's gonna feel it and maybe next time he won't be so keen for more government expansion

I also tire of the power congress grabbed with the PIT-it allows the dems to pander to those who want more goodies and others to pay for it while the GOP turns around and gets support by opposing wealth confiscation

a flat tax means there would be a more honest discussion in Congress
 
Thanks for your opinion!

which is as valid as any economist who is living off of tax dollars

btw what do you do for a living and what tax bracket are you in?
 
which is as valid as any economist who is living off of tax dollars

btw what do you do for a living and what tax bracket are you in?


When you answer Aunt Spiker's questions, I will answer yours?
 
No it isn't

subsidizing poverty and making it comfortable only increases it

You're going to stick with that eventhough the number of people who *qualify* for assistance was slashed significantly in the 60's upon formation of the system?
It remains at that low level, too - eventhough the poverty-line has increased.

*Most* poor are temporarily poor. In 1996 the measures taken to change the system made dependence on it more so temporary.

Without the system those problems in life that lead peopel to be temporarily dependent on support of said nature (divorce, illness, job-loss, etc) would be harder to get over - if one could get passed it at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom