• 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!

Should ALL citizens pay income taxes?

Should ALL citizens have to pay income taxes?

  • No, only those who make over the "living wage"

    Votes: 24 35.3%
  • No, only those in the top 10%

    Votes: 3 4.4%
  • Yes, every working person should have to pay.

    Votes: 22 32.4%
  • Other (specify)

    Votes: 19 27.9%

  • Total voters
    68
Someone that says this:
The fact is that the actions of interpreneurs, inventors, and yes even capitalists make the pie bigger for everyone.

Would also say something like this:
Its not MY responsibility to improve anyone's life, except mine, and only then if I choose to do so.
 
Someone that says this:
The fact is that the actions of interpreneurs, inventors, and yes even capitalists make the pie bigger for everyone.

Would also say something like this:
Its not MY responsibility to improve anyone's life, except mine, and only then if I choose to do so.
What the **** does that have to do with anything?

Please, I beg you, say something coherent.
 
What the **** does that have to do with anything?

Please, I beg you, say something coherent.

Ok, I'll try. Why do you believe that your so-called "slothful" are that way because they choose to be? And why do you believe that every so-called "industrious" is that way because of his ambishions? That's just simply not the way it works. Truth is, the son of a stock broker or company executive will have to work hard at being a failure to become one, while the son of a share cropper will have to work just as hard to become anything but another farm hand. The only way you can compare any two people's abilities is if they start at the same level. It doesn't happen that wat. It's so easy for someone born with a silver spoon to look down on others and say "why aren't you like me" when in reality, if you were born under the same conditions he was, you'd be just like him. You're taking credit for something you had no control over, and blaming others for something they had no control over. People that can be led to believe they deserve more because they were given more will also believe people that have less deserve less and do every thing they can to see that they get less.
 
If I have money taken from me it matters not if its by a criminal court or a criminal bunch of bureaucrats. The net is the same

Are you playing dense or merely contrarian? what extra do I get for being a top 1% tax payer that you do not get?
Yes but the scenarios are different. With taxes, the money and wealth you have is partially a result of the society around you.

No modern wealth or money is truly "self-created." That is a myth. Wealth in the modern world is derived from an individual or group of individuals using the existing mechanics of a society to their benefit. Without the society as a machine, wealth could not be produced. The greater amount of wealth someone has, the more extensively they have utilized their society to gain that wealth. Unless a person has ripped the raw materials needed to assemble that wealth from the ground with their own bare hands, there can be no such thing as a "self made man," forgetting for a moment that the very idea of "wealth" is one created, maintained, and cared for by the society a person lives in. It is the society itself that recognizes the value of what a rich person owns AS wealth and treats it accordingly.

It's not only a question of what one has gained by being in the top 1%, but what one has used society to achieve. That use demands a repayment if a society set up to be utilized in this way is to survive. If individuals are constantly taking from a system with resources in it without replenishing what they take out, the system will die.

The top 1% gain a significant amount by paying more. We have varying social attitudes about the "super rich" however it would be laughable to say we treat or value someone who makes $20,000 a year the same as we do someone who makes $2,000,000 a year. Our society has a much kinder view of the wealthy and treats them with far gentler hands in almost every aspect of it's operation. This can be ably demonstrated by the well-known maxim "Poor man's law, rich man's justice"; the fact that our legal system is slanted heavily in favor of the wealthy. Our political system is also a game for the wealthy; how many politicians do you know in the modern era who have to shop at the bargain bins? Our healthcare industry is also much more open to those with great amounts of money as they can afford comprehensive preventative care or new treatments that are often too expensive for your average 20k-er.

Our social mentality about the rich is also quite generous; despite some leanings in the opposite direction, the majority of our society tends to think highly of someone with money and those with less money will often go to great lengths to emulate the super wealthy. Our popular culture and entertainment glamorizes the lifestyle of obscene wealth and there are ways for even the poor to "try on" the high life if only for a while.

THAT is why I dont see a problem with taxing the wealthy at a higher rate than those who have less money.
 
Last edited:
Someone that says this:
The fact is that the actions of interpreneurs, inventors, and yes even capitalists make the pie bigger for everyone.

Would also say something like this:
Its not MY responsibility to improve anyone's life, except mine, and only then if I choose to do so.

Both statements drip with veracity. Those who pursue wealth normally bring wealth to others. Its like a man who plants a bountiful field of corn-not only does he gain more wealth, so do those who benefit from lower corn prices and the parasites like the field mice who eat the corn and give the farmer nothing in return
 
Yes but the scenarios are different. With taxes, the money and wealth you have is partially a result of the society around you.

No modern wealth or money is truly "self-created." That is a myth. Wealth in the modern world is derived from an individual or group of individuals using the existing mechanics of a society to their benefit. Without the society as a machine, wealth could not be produced. The greater amount of wealth someone has, the more extensively they have utilized their society to gain that wealth. Unless a person has ripped the raw materials needed to assemble that wealth from the ground with their own bare hands, there can be no such thing as a "self made man," forgetting for a moment that the very idea of "wealth" is one created, maintained, and cared for by the society a person lives in. It is the society itself that recognizes the value of what a rich person owns AS wealth and treats it accordingly.

It's not only a question of what one has gained by being in the top 1%, but what one has used society to achieve. That use demands a repayment if a society set up to be utilized in this way is to survive. If individuals are constantly taking from a system with resources in it without replenishing what they take out, the system will die.

The top 1% gain a significant amount by paying more. We have varying social attitudes about the "super rich" however it would be laughable to say we treat or value someone who makes $20,000 a year the same as we do someone who makes $2,000,000 a year. Our society has a much kinder view of the wealthy and treats them with far gentler hands in almost every aspect of it's operation. This can be ably demonstrated by the well-known maxim "Poor man's law, rich man's justice"; the fact that our legal system is slanted heavily in favor of the wealthy. Our political system is also a game for the wealthy; how many politicians do you know in the modern era who have to shop at the bargain bins? Our healthcare industry is also much more open to those with great amounts of money as they can afford comprehensive preventative care or new treatments that are often too expensive for your average 20k-er.

Our social mentality about the rich is also quite generous; despite some leanings in the opposite direction, the majority of our society tends to think highly of someone with money and those with less money will often go to great lengths to emulate the super wealthy. Our popular culture and entertainment glamorizes the lifestyle of obscene wealth and there are ways for even the poor to "try on" the high life if only for a while.

THAT is why I dont see a problem with taxing the wealthy at a higher rate than those who have less money.



you don't see a problem because you aren't one of those who are part of the group that the welfare socialists seek to soak. You also, like many socialists or pseudo socialists-use the "obscene rich" to justify punitive and confiscatory tax rates on people making over 200K a year

Lets suppose the government originally owned all property and everyone was given exactly the same thing-100 acres and a government supplied team of oxen. 30 years later some families were prosperous while other families were almost starving because one group worked hard and smart, the other did not

should taxes be based on what you got from t he government or what you ended up making with it

lets look at public education-1000 kids go to the same public school. should the kids who make A's be forced to share college scholarship offers with kids in the same class who are failing?

The bottom line is I tire of the parasite supporters claiming that I have a duty to fund them and those they pander to. The masses will revolt nonsense gets old as well.

Some are rich, some are poor, that's the way the world is
but I don't believe in laying back and saying how bad my luck is

(John Mellor-RIP)
 
By the way I am still wanting to know what I get for being in the top 1% in terms of getting more. I don't get an additional vote. I don't get the fire trucks to drive faster to my house if it is on fire. I don't use near as much police and I am not constantly in court due to violating laws. In fact, the rich get absolutely nothing additionally de jure and you confuse "getting" with Given. THe rich are GIVEN nothing by the society. They trade and gain wealth by doing stuff that others find valuable. IF Jimmy Page announces a Led Zep reunion and a Million People are willing to pay 100 dollars a ticket to see him and JPJ and Plant play, then that means one million people believe they are getting a hundred dollars in value from listening to greatest rock band in history. Page isn't being GIVEN anything. He is trading something to others and they are trading wealth to him as payment.

Why does someone like Page, who can provide more value to more people than you or I have a duty to keep far less of his next dollar than you do. and if you socialists truly believe the nonsense you say then why is 200,000 what you supporters of socialism call "rich"

its not
 
By the way I am still wanting to know what I get for being in the top 1% in terms of getting more. I don't get an additional vote. I don't get the fire trucks to drive faster to my house if it is on fire. I don't use near as much police and I am not constantly in court due to violating laws. In fact, the rich get absolutely nothing additionally de jure and you confuse "getting" with Given. THe rich are GIVEN nothing by the society. They trade and gain wealth by doing stuff that others find valuable. IF Jimmy Page announces a Led Zep reunion and a Million People are willing to pay 100 dollars a ticket to see him and JPJ and Plant play, then that means one million people believe they are getting a hundred dollars in value from listening to greatest rock band in history. Page isn't being GIVEN anything. He is trading something to others and they are trading wealth to him as payment.

Why does someone like Page, who can provide more value to more people than you or I have a duty to keep far less of his next dollar than you do. and if you socialists truly believe the nonsense you say then why is 200,000 what you supporters of socialism call "rich"

its not

I apologize for jumping into the middle of the discussion. Are you saying that since lower income people use more government services, they ought to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes?

I think we should tax income and consumption and property. Make the income tax a flat tax. Consumption taxes will tax the poor more than the rich (by percentage). Property taxes will tax the rich more than the poor (by percentage). Flat tax is flat.
 
I apologize for jumping into the middle of the discussion. Are you saying that since lower income people use more government services, they ought to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes?

I think we should tax income and consumption and property. Make the income tax a flat tax. Consumption taxes will tax the poor more than the rich (by percentage). Property taxes will tax the rich more than the poor (by percentage). Flat tax is flat.

I tire of people saying it is FAIR that the rich pay more. WHY? It is just as honest to say it is fair to pay for what you use. After all, when I go to McDonalds they don't have ten price lists depending on how much you make. A millionaire who parks his Bentley illegally gets the same 50 dollar ticket as some guy in a beat up POS chevy who does the same thing

I understand that there are reasons why many want the rich to pay more-from envy to political pandering to practicality

I oppose any system that allows the political pimps to pander to the many by promising them goodies that the "rich" have to pay for

if the government wants the rich to pay higher rates, the rich should get some government mandated benefits in return

right now they do not
 
That article is ridiculous. It assumes that income called something else, but still income is not income. ALL earned money, all capital gains should count as income in a flat tax system, not just payroll tax.

I also believe this should apply to all inheritance also. That's where most wealthy people get their money tax free. I know the old argument that it a "death tax", but it's still income to the receiver. Can I tell the guy that just painted my house that he doesn't have to pay taxes on the money I just gave him because I've already paid it? What's the difference?
 
I also believe this should apply to all inheritance also. That's where most wealthy people get their money tax free. I know the old argument that it a "death tax", but it's still income to the receiver. Can I tell the guy that just painted my house that he doesn't have to pay taxes on the money I just gave him because I've already paid it? What's the difference?

Why does the government have a right to income that was already taxed

Death is not a transaction unlike someone working for you. Its a gift and if it is income why not tax all heirs (which would get the politicians voted out) rather than the rich

the purpose behind the death confiscation tax was to capture wealth that was never taxed-there was not confiscatory progressive income taxes when that crap was enacted

its nothing more than illegitimate socialist engineering

nothing screams out envy more than supporting the death tax


I drove by a farm today that has been in a family for four generations. Why should these people have to spend 500K every time a generation dies to keep it?
 
Both statements drip with veracity. Those who pursue wealth normally bring wealth to others. Its like a man who plants a bountiful field of corn-not only does he gain more wealth, so do those who benefit from lower corn prices and the parasites like the field mice who eat the corn and give the farmer nothing in return

I disagree totally with this. Most wealth that is gained is at the expense of someone else. An "interpreneur" that figures out that he can make more money shutting down a factory in the US and have his product made in china is actually cheating the system. He wants to use cheap labor to make his product, but expects his customers to make US wages to afford to buy his product. Most wealthy people got that way by figuring out how to cheat the poor man.
 
By the way I am still wanting to know what I get for being in the top 1% in terms of getting more. I don't get an additional vote. I don't get the fire trucks to drive faster to my house if it is on fire. I don't use near as much police and I am not constantly in court due to violating laws. In fact, the rich get absolutely nothing additionally de jure and you confuse "getting" with Given. THe rich are GIVEN nothing by the society. They trade and gain wealth by doing stuff that others find valuable. IF Jimmy Page announces a Led Zep reunion and a Million People are willing to pay 100 dollars a ticket to see him and JPJ and Plant play, then that means one million people believe they are getting a hundred dollars in value from listening to greatest rock band in history. Page isn't being GIVEN anything. He is trading something to others and they are trading wealth to him as payment.

Why does someone like Page, who can provide more value to more people than you or I have a duty to keep far less of his next dollar than you do. and if you socialists truly believe the nonsense you say then why is 200,000 what you supporters of socialism call "rich"

its not

I suppose you're just so high in your pediostool that you can't even see all the little meaningless nobodies below you that are holding it up for you.:doh
 
Why does the government have a right to income that was already taxed

Uh...a sizable amount of estate tax liability has not been taxed. In fact, if your estate is primarily made up of appreciated property, that hasn't been taxed. The whole notion of trusts in estate planning is to remove appreciation from taxation upon death. Seriously, your tax planner is awful.

the purpose behind the death confiscation tax was to capture wealth that was never taxed-there was not confiscatory progressive income taxes when that crap was enacted

Except that estate tax liability often hasn't been taxed in the first place.

I drove by a farm today that has been in a family for four generations. Why should these people have to spend 500K every time a generation dies to keep it?

Uh...there are ways to get even the largest family asset down to zero in terms of estate liability.

Seriously, get a better tax planner.
 
Why does the government have a right to income that was already taxed

Are you saying that I can tell the painter that painted my house that he doesn't have to pay taxes on the money I just gave him because I've already paid taxes on it when I earned it? I fail to see the difference between that and someone that has inherited a Swiss bank account. I have to report everything of value that someone gives me as income. Why do only the wealthy have an exemption for them? I suppose that's just another one of those benefits the wealthy get that they just can't seem to see.
 
Double post AGAIN (server FAIL!)
 
Last edited:
Double post
 
Last edited:
you don't see a problem because you aren't one of those who are part of the group that the welfare socialists seek to soak.
If you'd like to pay me over 200k a year to see if I'll pay taxes with no complaint, you're more than welcome to do so.

You also, like many socialists or pseudo socialists-use the "obscene rich" to justify punitive and confiscatory tax rates on people making over 200K a year

Lets suppose the government originally owned all property and everyone was given exactly the same thing-100 acres and a government supplied team of oxen. 30 years later some families were prosperous while other families were almost starving because one group worked hard and smart, the other did not

should taxes be based on what you got from t he government or what you ended up making with it

lets look at public education-1000 kids go to the same public school. should the kids who make A's be forced to share college scholarship offers with kids in the same class who are failing?
You seem to miss the point of what I was originally saying: wealth is not attained alone and those who attain it do so with the help of society and that help must be repaid if society is to continue and that repayment comes, partially, in the form of taxes.

By the way I am still wanting to know what I get for being in the top 1% in terms of getting more.
See now I KNOW you didn't read what I wrote because I explained that in detail.

Why does someone like Page, who can provide more value to more people than you or I have a duty to keep far less of his next dollar than you do.
Im assuming this Page person is wealthy and as such has many more dollars than the most of us. Someone paying 30-40% of a million dollar income is not going to significantly effect their standard of living unless they are irresponsible with their money.

and if you socialists truly believe the nonsense you say then why is 200,000 what you supporters of socialism call "rich"
$200,000 was simply an arbitrary number meant to be far higher than the average yearly wage of MOST middle class and working poor individuals.
 
If you'd like to pay me over 200k a year to see if I'll pay taxes with no complaint, you're more than welcome to do so.

You seem to miss the point of what I was originally saying: wealth is not attained alone and those who attain it do so with the help of society and that help must be repaid if society is to continue and that repayment comes, partially, in the form of taxes.

See now I KNOW you didn't read what I wrote because I explained that in detail.

Im assuming this Page person is wealthy and as such has many more dollars than the most of us. Someone paying 30-40% of a million dollar income is not going to significantly effect their standard of living unless they are irresponsible with their money.

$200,000 was simply an arbitrary number meant to be far higher than the average yearly wage of MOST middle class and working poor individuals.



The claim that those who make more money had more help from "society" is complete and utter BS.

That is like saying Tiger Woods or Roger Federer had more "help" from the PGA or ATP than did the guys in the middle of the PGA or ATP rankings.

BTW Nothing psses me off more than people who don't make as much saying that those who do make say a million ought to pay 40% or more of their income because they can "afford it" and their lifestyle is still better than the parasites who want to jack up their taxes.


That's more of that malignant "from each according to their ability" crap that is ruining this country.

If you want the rich to have to pay far far more of the load than you, the rich should be given government sponsored privileges. My solution has always been more votes since someone who pays a million in taxes ought to have more say than someone living off of the public dole.
 
Are you saying that I can tell the painter that painted my house that he doesn't have to pay taxes on the money I just gave him because I've already paid taxes on it when I earned it? I fail to see the difference between that and someone that has inherited a Swiss bank account. I have to report everything of value that someone gives me as income. Why do only the wealthy have an exemption for them? I suppose that's just another one of those benefits the wealthy get that they just can't seem to see.

Death should not be a taxable transaction and if it should be then it should be applied to everyone not just a small voting block that cannot outvote the envious and the parasitic
 
I disagree totally with this. Most wealth that is gained is at the expense of someone else. An "interpreneur" that figures out that he can make more money shutting down a factory in the US and have his product made in china is actually cheating the system. He wants to use cheap labor to make his product, but expects his customers to make US wages to afford to buy his product. Most wealthy people got that way by figuring out how to cheat the poor man.

This is the classic leftwing claim-that if you win someone else has lost. Even if that is true, so what. But you lefties labour under the delusion that the pie can never be bigger and you do everything in your power to impose that belief on America
 
Uh...a sizable amount of estate tax liability has not been taxed. In fact, if your estate is primarily made up of appreciated property, that hasn't been taxed. The whole notion of trusts in estate planning is to remove appreciation from taxation upon death. Seriously, your tax planner is awful.



Except that estate tax liability often hasn't been taxed in the first place.



Uh...there are ways to get even the largest family asset down to zero in terms of estate liability.

Seriously, get a better tax planner.


Justifying confiscatory taxes on the grounds that those victimized by it should engage in expensive tax avoidance planning is like telling a rape victim she should wear a mumu and a chastity belt rather than a short dress and cute heels.
 
The claim that those who make more money had more help from "society" is complete and utter BS.

That is like saying Tiger Woods or Roger Federer had more "help" from the PGA or ATP than did the guys in the middle of the PGA or ATP rankings.

...

No, you are confused. It would be like saying Tiger Woods gets (or got) 'help' from his sponsors. You can't compare the people in the middle of PGA rankings to middle income households.
 
Back
Top Bottom