• 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
GhostlyJoe said:
I find your examples flawed.

The owner of the cheeseburger shop is free to charge different customers different amounts. When I worked at a McDonald's, I got an employee discount. That's a common practice. The owner sometimes gave away food to his friends.

Your dentist does not charge the cubicle bunny the same as you, most likely. Does the cubicle bunny have insurance? Is the particular dentist in network? The insurance company will almost always pay a different rate than an out-of-pocket customer. And, of course, someone who isn't able to pay is likely to receive some amount of charity care.

And consider a Certificate of Deposit or an interest rate on a bank loan. The higher your income, the less you'll pay in interest. The more you invest, the better return you'll get. The wealthy get better interest rates and face fewer penalties and fees in practice.

In all of the above examples, the price you pay depends on whether or not you are a member of a particular group or class.
Click to expand...

weak examples


the vast majority of stuff that is sold or services are rendered is based on the value given, not the income of the buyer
 
TurtleDude said:
some of us don't worship government to the extent you do or give government so much a benefit of the doubt

that the masses can vote up the taxes of the most industrious is a fact

that this is proper I disagree with and would ban it if I could

and in the long run its gonna ruin this nation
Click to expand...

Then your problem is with the constitutional republic, which does allow the masses to vote up taxes on the wealthy. But, theoretically, the masses will only do so if they lack wealth. Which direction the majority's political will pushes will ever be dependent on the current situation. So one would expect, as the wealthiest command a greater share of the overall wealth, more political pressure will build for redistributive policies -- and vice versa.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Then your problem is with the constitutional republic, which does allow the masses to vote up taxes on the wealthy. But, theoretically, the masses will only do so if they lack wealth. Which direction the majority's political will pushes will ever be dependent on the current situation. So one would expect, as the wealthiest command a greater share of the overall wealth, more political pressure will build for redistributive policies -- and vice versa.
Click to expand...

yeah the constitutional republic as originally created didn't allow such taxes

morons changed that without having a clue of the damage it would and dd cause

welfare-socialism is the new opiate of the masses and those so addicted are no longer as able to compete
 
TurtleDude said:
weak examples


the vast majority of stuff that is sold or services are rendered is based on the value given, not the income of the buyer
Click to expand...

The vast majority, yes. But the big stuff is graduated and often regressive. Almost all homeowners take out a mortgage. And you simply pay less if you have more to pay with. A bigger down payment. A larger income. More assets. Having those things will get you a better price. And that's true of just about anything bought on credit.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
The vast majority, yes. But the big stuff is graduated and often regressive. Almost all homeowners take out a mortgage. And you simply pay less if you have more to pay with. A bigger down payment. A larger income. More assets. Having those things will get you a better price. And that's true of just about anything bought on credit.
Click to expand...

that is based on the risk to the loaner-your example fails

income isn't the issue-credit rating is

and on a 300K mortgage a guy making a billion a year is treated no differently than someone with the same credit rating making 500K a year
 
Turtle
in thread after thread, in post after post after post, for month after month after month, and no matter what the topic and how it varies - you demonstrate a complete lack of comprehension in the differences between a) the relationship between a government and its citizen in a representative democracy, and b) a commercial transaction in which you purchase a good for a price.

Why is this?
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah the constitutional republic as originally created didn't allow such taxes

morons changed that without having a clue of the damage it would and dd cause

welfare-socialism is the new opiate of the masses and those so addicted are no longer as able to compete
Click to expand...

I can't disagree that welfare policies create adverse incentives, but not so much that it will prevent someone from trying to improve his or her life. The welfare life is not particularly glamorous. And your stance discounts social mobility. Very few people collect welfare their whole lives. Most people move in and out of tax brackets. My stance is that social safety nets and the progressive income tax help preserve that social mobility by diverting wealth into poorer communities.
 
haymarket said:
Turtle
in thread after thread, in post after post after post, for month after month after month, and no matter what the topic and how it varies - you demonstrate a complete lack of comprehension in the differences between a) the relationship between a government and its citizen in a representative democracy, and b) a commercial transaction in which you purchase a good for a price.

Why is this?
Click to expand...


for post after post, day after day you franticly claim that I don't understand because I argue what I think things should be and why that would be better than the current situation.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
I can't disagree that welfare policies create adverse incentives, but not so much that it will prevent someone from trying to improve his or her life. The welfare life is not particularly glamorous. And your stance discounts social mobility. Very few people collect welfare their whole lives. Most people move in and out of tax brackets. My stance is that social safety nets and the progressive income tax help preserve that social mobility by diverting wealth into poorer communities.
Click to expand...

we had far more social mobility because we had a massive welfare state. the net is way too big and has created far more sloths than the truly needy who have been saved

if people who spawn children they cannot pay for suffered severely for that, we'd have far less poverty
 
TurtleDude said:
for post after post, day after day you franticly claim that I don't understand because I argue what I think things should be and why that would be better than the current situation.
Click to expand...

Then please stick to your utopian dreams and stop trying to use what you think real life is to justify them. You cannot have it both ways.
 
TurtleDude said:
that is based on the risk to the loaner-your example fails

income isn't the issue-credit rating is

and on a 300K mortgage a guy making a billion a year is treated no differently than someone with the same credit rating making 500K a year
Click to expand...

The point is that people are treated differently based on their financial status in many areas of society. You don't characterize differing interest rates on loans as unjust, but you do characterize progressive taxation as unjust. Why is it justifiable to discriminate based on income in one sector but not the other?
 
TurtleDude said:
we had far more social mobility because we had a massive welfare state. the net is way too big and has created far more sloths than the truly needy who have been saved

if people who spawn children they cannot pay for suffered severely for that, we'd have far less poverty
Click to expand...

But you've said before that the poor have pretty good conditions in this country. So you want the poor to suffer more so that they have to work harder to have decent lives? I don't think that's a good solution to societal ills.
 
haymarket said:
Then please stick to your utopian dreams and stop trying to use what you think real life is to justify them. You cannot have it both ways.
Click to expand...


more strawman nonsense
 
GhostlyJoe said:
The point is that people are treated differently based on their financial status in many areas of society. You don't characterize differing interest rates on loans as unjust, but you do characterize progressive taxation as unjust. Why is it justifiable to discriminate based on income in one sector but not the other?
Click to expand...

the difference is that those with more means are treated better by a seller as they should be while the government does not. People are rich mainly because they act in productive ways that benefit others not because the government GAVE THEM SOMETHING EXTRA
 
GhostlyJoe said:
But you've said before that the poor have pretty good conditions in this country. So you want the poor to suffer more so that they have to work harder to have decent lives? I don't think that's a good solution to societal ills.
Click to expand...

iF WE MADE POVERTY more painful less people would remain mired in it
 
TurtleDude said:
why-because you said so-because politicians want to treat people differently to gain power

If I buy a cheeseburger I pay the same as you do no matter if I make 400,000 more a year

my dentist charges me the same as he does a guy making cubicle bunny wages.

the cars at the dealership where I shop don't have different prices based on income

so why should government be different? it wasn't for more than half our history

your assertions have no merit
Click to expand...



Because the economy doesn't work if the middle class doesn't have money to buy ****.
 
TurtleDude said:
iF WE MADE POVERTY more painful less people would remain mired in it
Click to expand...

But is that really a better outcome? If people choose to remain in relative poverty, that doesn't prevent the wealthy from enjoying the spoils of wealth.
 
TurtleDude said:
the difference is that those with more means are treated better by a seller as they should be while the government does not. People are rich mainly because they act in productive ways that benefit others not because the government GAVE THEM SOMETHING EXTRA
Click to expand...

And with that productivity comes the obligation to pay higher taxes. Who cares what other people make? Those things change. Wealth and poverty are not permanent conditions.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
But is that really a better outcome? If people choose to remain in relative poverty, that doesn't prevent the wealthy from enjoying the spoils of wealth.
Click to expand...

more impoverished people is a cancer on society-
 
GhostlyJoe said:
And with that productivity comes the obligation to pay higher taxes. Who cares what other people make? Those things change. Wealth and poverty are not permanent conditions.
Click to expand...

where do you get that being a fact or an obligation? what natural law or undeniable truth demands that?
 
TurtleDude said:
where do you get that being a fact or an obligation? what natural law or undeniable truth demands that?
Click to expand...

Not immutable truth ... just the tax code. It's the rules that we've drafted as a society.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Not immutable truth ... just the tax code. It's the rules that we've drafted as a society.
Click to expand...

rules that were unconstitutional for more than half our country's history

an amendment that has done far more harm than good IMHO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom