• 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!

Which tax system is most 'fair'

Which tax system is most 'fair'?

  • Progressive Tax

    Votes: 28 46.7%
  • Regressive Tax

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Flat Percentage Tax Rate

    Votes: 14 23.3%
  • Flat Dollar Tax

    Votes: 4 6.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 14 23.3%

  • Total voters
    60
lets cut the crap-those who want progressive taxes do so because of class envy

Lets cut the crap-those who think that they have a right to inheritance (someone elses money) do so because of class envy (because they envy being in the working class)

People who accuse others of having class envy tend to be elitest (meaning they belive that some peole are entitled to something that they did not earn).
 
Thats EXACTLY why I support inheritance tax. Inheritance tax serves the purpose of redistributing wealth, but only after the person who created the wealth is finish with it. And it constantly redistributes wealth each and ever year so that in 50 more years we don't have to worry about redistribuing again. If "winners win" then indivudals who are winners will be able to become rich without the aid of inheritance. If "loosers loose" they really dont deserve any "free money" that they didn't earn to begin with.

the government has no business doing that and you seem to be envious. The government didn't earn it and people like you certainly didn't own it. What I earn I should have the right to determine what happens with it and if I want to set my son up so he can say train for the olympic games rather than work that is my business.

Tell me why you deserve what I worked hard to make and pay more than 50% of each additional dollar I make?

speaking of winners. DO you think your child would be able to compete-in terms of talent-with Andre Agassi and Steffi Graf's son if he decides to be a tennis pro? should we tax his gene advantage which will give him a huge advantage over the vast majority of children in the world? How about a daughter who is the offspring of two super models? She's most likely going to enjoy the huge advantages beautiful women have over their plainer peers.

the government's job is not to guarantee equality of outcome.
 
Because there is a base amount (personal exemption and standard deduction) that none of us have to pay tax on. Since most of us are not rich, we gain most of the tax advantage that the base amount creates. Thats the way it should be. By the way, I am not so sure that your numbers are valid, what are you defining rich as being, and where did you find that particular set of numbers? I am not saying those figures are wrong, just that I may tend to interpret them differently - such as the rich may actually pay 40% of the taxes, but it is highly likely that there "excess" income is something more like 99% of all "excess" income (defining "excess" as income that is above any normal wage or value of physical/mental effort put forth in creating it).

top 1%. Obama considers anyone making more than 200K a year rich enough to be targeted for additional soaking.

There was an interesting editorial in the WSJ today about the Obamacare debacle and how dems are now admitting its a massive wealth transfer mechanism. The editorial noted that in their desire to make things more "even" the dems are going to make the overall pie much much smaller which will actually hurt the dependent class more than it will help.

Killing the rich folks golden geese doesnt give the poor more eggs.
 
I dont know so much about that. The rich are rich because of our system of government and what the govenment provides. I would say that the rich pay more in taxes because they reap more of the benefits provided by government - thats why they are rich.

Really, what's it matter to a poor person if he gets robbed? He didn't loose much. But if a rich man gets robbed, he can loose millions. So wouldn't you agree that the rich man benefits more from our police and military and fire protection than the poor guy?

I'd say that income redistributionists and class warfare experts constantly say that but in reality its nonsense. Rich are rich because they engage in behavior that others find valuable. The government doesn't give them that wealth.

I refer again to the school situation-those who make top grades and get valuable scholarships aren't given anything more than the C students or the flunk outs. Why should a kid who busts his hump (even if his valedictorian award is aided by natural talent and caring parents that the flunk outs don't have) have to pay more for his public schooling than a class clown who comes to school stoned or hung over and never does his homework? BOth were given the same opportunities by the government yet the outcome is very different. taxes should be based on that opportunity not the Grade Point Average
 
I agree with the class warfare part. People who think it died or doesn't exist are deluding themselves.

Very true. The ruling class tends to make our tax laws, and they make them to benefit themselves. The ruling class voted themselves billions in bailout money, they got their hands of billions of the spendulous money, they created president for the government socializing losses whenever the losses are made by the ruling class. The ruling class has very much declared war on the masses.
 
What creates class warfare is a widening of the gap between the wealthy socially privileged and the underprivileged working poor. Many wealthy have done nothing or do very little compared to working class citizens.. They don't have to.

Your argument does not get to the heart of the matter. The axiom of needs having cost to live in a capitalist society is a greater cost to low income people then wealthy. The wealthy spend a microscopic percentage of their money on needs. Hence forth in a consumer market where such a large percentage of the population lives and works a flat tax is disproportionately punishing to the working class.

A flat tax is less fair to the working class and increases the wealth of the upper economic strata by differing it to lower incomes.

A flat tax is not appropriate a progressive taxation is by far more egalitarian and fair. Arguing the rich deserve all the money they have is blatantly morally and intellectually dishonest. One can only rationalise that it is done out of shear political ideological partisanship and nauseating to anyone with a sense of fairness. You have no argument. You are suggesting working poor don't work? The wealthy deserve what they get from swindling the poor on cost of labour and selling the goods derived from that at a higher value then they paid for it.

Wow, you sound like a socialist (to the far right extreme). But it sounds about right to me (and I am not a socialist by the way). Excellent post.
 
your idiotic attacks on the rich that assume the rich somehow did something improper destroys and credibility you have on the issue. Does Elton John or the Eagles swindle people by charging 100 dollars a ticket? How about Andy Roddick making a few million a year hitting a tennis ball? what about a top doctor who has more people demanding his services than he has time? WTF have they swindled?

those who whine that the rich are rich due to cheating sounds like a poor loser.

Your are correct to the extent that those particular individuals did not swindle anyone. But they do live in a society that created such an economic atmospher in which they were able to become insainly rich. Is it to much to ask for them to pay a good portion in return for the benefits of our society that they have so fortunately enjoyed? There are other individuals though who have obtained great wealth in not so admirable circumstances. As long as great wealth can be obtained honorable, and moraly, and within our laws, there is nothing wrong with obtaining great wealth - just be prepared to pay up.

So far I have not seen any post by anyone sugggesting that we should sieze all the wealth of anyone. Most very rich people could afford a much higher rate of taxation and their lifestyle will not suffer one iota from it. However if you tax any one additional dollar from the average persons wage, they will at some point in their life be poorer for it.
 
Very true. The ruling class tends to make our tax laws, and they make them to benefit themselves. The ruling class voted themselves billions in bailout money, they got their hands of billions of the spendulous money, they created president for the government socializing losses whenever the losses are made by the ruling class. The ruling class has very much declared war on the masses.

there are two sides to that class

one side appeals to wealth creators and are often engaged in that behavior. Their goal is to make the pie as big as possible since they plan on owning alot of the pie. The other side of the rich want to take as much of the pie as the other side makes. They think that they are entitled to a large slice of the pie because they are intelligent or because it is "fair". They get their power not by producing the pie (like the first group) but by using pie others make to be voted into positions of power where they can control the slciing of the pie.

the politicians who represent the first group try to get power by telling their people that they will protect them from the pie stealers. The second group, of course-get their power by taking the pie and giving it to those who want it but don't make it.
 
Your are correct to the extent that those particular individuals did not swindle anyone. But they do live in a society that created such an economic atmospher in which they were able to become insainly rich. Is it to much to ask for them to pay a good portion in return for the benefits of our society that they have so fortunately enjoyed? There are other individuals though who have obtained great wealth in not so admirable circumstances. As long as great wealth can be obtained honorable, and moraly, and within our laws, there is nothing wrong with obtaining great wealth - just be prepared to pay up.

So far I have not seen any post by anyone sugggesting that we should sieze all the wealth of anyone. Most very rich people could afford a much higher rate of taxation and their lifestyle will not suffer one iota from it. However if you tax any one additional dollar from the average persons wage, they will at some point in their life be poorer for it.

every society has had very rich people compared to the average person. Its not the government in place that causes that so stop trying to justify looting the successful as some sort of payment allowing them to exist by the current government

since you are clearly not one of the very rich, HTF do you get off claiming the massive tax hikes that will hit them next year will not affect their lifestyles.

everyone should pay for what they use in an ideal society., Since we have people who are truly disabled through no fault of their own, as well as those who were injured or orphaned due to them or their parents serving the society or government, others will have to pick up their load. This is easily accomplished by a fair tax, or a flat tax without creating the evil a progressive income tax causes--ie the ability a a majority of looters to vote themselves more and more and more wealth of the producers--which, in the long run, cuts the throats of the parasites when the producers stop producing or move away.
 
:) the vast majority of millionaires are first-generation. small business owners and the like.

Why are we discussing the "vast majority of millionaires"? The vast majority of millionaires aint rich! The old lady down the street that saved all her life and now has a million bucks in the bank has nothing to do with anything. Except for real estate and cars we generally do not tax wealth in America, only income. The vast majority of millionaires are not even in the top income tax bracket.
 
Why are we discussing the "vast majority of millionaires"? The vast majority of millionaires aint rich! The old lady down the street that saved all her life and now has a million bucks in the bank has nothing to do with anything. Except for real estate and cars we generally do not tax wealth in America, only income. The vast majority of millionaires are not even in the top income tax bracket.

Income is wealth....
 
I'd say that income redistributionists and class warfare experts constantly say that but in reality its nonsense. Rich are rich because they engage in behavior that others find valuable. The government doesn't give them that wealth.

I refer again to the school situation-those who make top grades and get valuable scholarships aren't given anything more than the C students or the flunk outs. Why should a kid who busts his hump (even if his valedictorian award is aided by natural talent and caring parents that the flunk outs don't have) have to pay more for his public schooling than a class clown who comes to school stoned or hung over and never does his homework? BOth were given the same opportunities by the government yet the outcome is very different. taxes should be based on that opportunity not the Grade Point Average

GPA is a progressive measure.
 
Why are we discussing the "vast majority of millionaires"? The vast majority of millionaires aint rich! The old lady down the street that saved all her life and now has a million bucks in the bank has nothing to do with anything. Except for real estate and cars we generally do not tax wealth in America, only income. The vast majority of millionaires are not even in the top income tax bracket.

yet many of those "non rich people" are going to lose the same amount of their next dollar as the guy making a billion a month.

the dems often talk about Paris Hilton and Bill Gates yet go after the guy who just made partner (after working 70 billable hour weeks for a decade) at Cravath Swaine and Moore or a guy who slaved at his small business for most of his life.

Its sort of like the dem ploy of screaming about banning "assault weapons" while running a film clip of Rambo hosing down half the NVA with a belt fed FN heavy machine gun when in reality the law targets the gun I used to win a couple dozen major skeet tournaments with or the pistol my roommate (when I was on the national junior teamI used in an Olympic games pistol competition
 
that is a clever attempt at avoiding the point. A for effort, Fail for rebuttal

Ok, your right.

Of course, 4.0 counts for grades 96-100. Why would we do that? Are we soaking the smart people, taking away their well deserved perecentage points?
 
Ok, your right.

Of course, 4.0 counts for grades 96-100. Why would we do that? Are we soaking the smart people, taking away their well deserved perecentage points?

since you want to avoid my point about people being given the same opportunities but not the same results lets ask this

What would happen to the overall rate of knowledge acquisition if a teacher gave everyone the same grade no matter how they did? What would be the incentive to be a top scholar if you had to give half of your A grades to someone who made D's-be his poor grades are due to lack of intelligence, lack of a stable family or lack of effort?>
 
since you want to avoid my point about people being given the same opportunities but not the same results lets ask this

What would happen to the overall rate of knowledge acquisition if a teacher gave everyone the same grade no matter how they did? What would be the incentive to be a top scholar if you had to give half of your A grades to someone who made D's-be his poor grades are due to lack of intelligence, lack of a stable family or lack of effort?>

I realize what would happen, you have proven the failures of communism and the costs of equality very well. My point was for a progressive tax system, not communist russia. Why do we give everyone who gets 96-100% the same result, a 4.0 GPA. Stability, those people have worked very hard for a 100%, it would be terrible for them to lose it all by dropping 1%.
 
I realize what would happen, you have proven the failures of communism and the costs of equality very well. My point was for a progressive tax system, not communist russia. Why do we give everyone who gets 96-100% the same result, a 4.0 GPA. Stability, those people have worked very hard for a 100%, it would be terrible for them to lose it all by dropping 1%.

a progressive tax system along with a death confiscation tax was a main plank in the book that the Russian Communists claimed to follow
 
I'd say that income redistributionists and class warfare experts constantly say that but in reality its nonsense. Rich are rich because they engage in behavior that others find valuable. The government doesn't give them that wealth
That's true of many self-made entrepreneurs but it definitely cannot be generalized to the wealthy classes as a whole. In fact, capitalist elites have been in bed with the State from the beginning. They rely on the banditry of the State for their largesse. If this were not true they would throw their support behind libertarians and even anarchists. Clearly they do not which is why the Libertarian Party performs so poorly in elections. For starters I recommend an eye-opening and well-written essay by Kevin Carison: The Iron First Behind the Invisible Hand: Corporate Capitalism As a State-Guaranteed System of Privilege.
 
since you want to avoid my point about people being given the same opportunities but not the same results lets ask this

What would happen to the overall rate of knowledge acquisition if a teacher gave everyone the same grade no matter how they did? What would be the incentive to be a top scholar if you had to give half of your A grades to someone who made D's-be his poor grades are due to lack of intelligence, lack of a stable family or lack of effort?>
We've had "fair' throughout the history of humanity.
Some people for reason of IQ, knack, or other advantage (including inheritance), end up with all the marbles.

Look back at the planet 500 years or 5000 years.
What would happen is a system of Lords and Serfs.. landowners/servants/slaves.
Or look back at this very country 100 years and Why they instituted the income tax in the first place; The robber barrons Rockefeller, Morgan, Carnegie, etc. It was just to tax the top few percent.
While men in virtual indenture servitude worked in mines, rail gangs, etc.

Then look a THIS country in the 1950's through the 1980s when the top marginal rate was a "Communist" 50%-91%. We grew like crazy with less income disparity.
Why bring in "Russia" .. we have US!

The countries with the highest GDPs are the most 'socialist'. EU and Scandinavia. (and Japan)
 
Last edited:
That's true of many self-made entrepreneurs but it definitely cannot be generalized to the wealthy classes as a whole. In fact, capitalist elites have been in bed with the State from the beginning. They rely on the banditry of the State for their largesse. If this were not true they would throw their support behind libertarians and even anarchists. Clearly they do not which is why the Libertarian Party performs so poorly in elections. For starters I recommend an eye-opening and well-written essay by Kevin Carison: The Iron First Behind the Invisible Hand: Corporate Capitalism As a State-Guaranteed System of Privilege.

sorry, I already own a black helicopter, am a freemason and a member of skull and bones.
 
We've had "fair' throughout the history of humanity.
Some people for reason of IQ, knack, or other advantage (including inheritance), end up with all the marbles.

Look back at the planet 500 years or 5000 years.
What would happen is a system of Lords and Serfs.. landowners/servants/slaves.
Or look back at this very country 100 years and why they instituted the income tax in the first place; The robber barrons Rockefeller, Morgan, Carnegie, etc. While men in virtual indenture servitude worked in mines, rail gangs, etc.

Then look a THIS country in the 1950's through the 1980s when the top marginal rate was a "Communist" 50%-91%. We grew like crazy with less income disparity.
Why bring in "Russia" .. we have US!

so what. I don't have a moral duty to pay for your existence merely because you demand I do so. Your existence does not benefit me so why should I be forced to benefit you?

Now I believe in private charity (something Obama seems to want to cut back on) but that is different than being forced to pay for others.

Your existence is not a just claim on the wealth of others and I am not responsible or at fault for your situation

Those
 
a progressive tax system along with a death confiscation tax was a main plank in the book that the Russian Communists claimed to follow

Ok, well that is not my point. I am saying people are willing to sacrifice some for stability. Why would someone with a 100% want to have the same score as someone with a 96%? Most likely so they can still maintain a 4.0 GPA, even if they happen to bubble in the wrong answer on accident. They have worked really hard and want a little insurance in case their grade drops.

Put this in context of a tax. I am not going to say a rich person has not worked hard. They obviosly have, and they most likely deserve their money. However, some people might be concerned their income could fall. They may prefer to have their income taxes get smaller if their income takes a turn for the worst.

Also, like in the GPA, someone with a 97% sure values that 1% more than the below average, lazy student getting a D. The lazy student could care less if he gets a 69% or a 61% most likely. Put this in the context of someones income. Someone who makes $1,000,000 would certainly hate to now make $990,000. A person who makes 10,000 would certainly hate to now make 9,900. However, someone making only $10,000 loosing $100 of income is going to have to make some tough choices about what they are going to be able to buy. They value each dollar a lot, because they have less, just like someone earning a 97% would value a percentage point more than someone getting a 65.
 
so what. I don't have a moral duty to pay for your existence merely because you demand I do so. Your existence does not benefit me so why should I be forced to benefit you?

Now I believe in private charity (something Obama seems to want to cut back on) but that is different than being forced to pay for others.

Your existence is not a just claim on the wealth of others and I am not responsible or at fault for your situation

Those
First let's be clear.
If anyone is paying for anyone else tax-wise.. it's me for you.
[unlike you] I understand the economy/manage money and have been paying top rates when they were astronomical.

Second.
You didn't/Couldn't answer me.
Because as I pointed out.. what's "fair" (in the most brutal/simple sense) doesn't work.
You remember. Serfs and Castles.. JP Morgan, Rail gangs, and 500 servants.
The whole expanse of history.

That's your basic problem. How do you solve it?
Put 85% of the country on the whim of charity or let them have some self-respect?
Alas. we're [eventually] a democracy and even tho some are really stupid (poor AND conservative), they have/will eventually distribute the money so the majority can live. Ahh democracy.

You couldn't answer either when I pointed out this countries greatest growth and world ascendency was it's highest tax rates; During the Cold War. Destroying your "Communist" ploy.
 
Last edited:
First let's be clear.
If anyone is paying for anyone else tax-wise.. it's me for you.
[unlike you] I understand the economy/manage money and have been paying top rates when they were astronomical.

Second.
You didn't/Couldn't answer me.
Because as I pointed out.. what's "fair" (in the most brutal/simple sense) doesn't work.
You remember. Serfs and Castles.. JP Morgan, Rail gangs, and 300 servants.

That's your basic problem. How do you solve it?
Put 85% of the country on the whim of charity or let them have some self-respect?

You couldn't answer either when I pointed out this countries greatest growth and world ascendency was it's highest tax rates; During the Cold War. Porking your "Communist" ploy.

cause and effect apparently is not your strong point. America became the greatest nation in the world before we had a massive welfare state.

Self respect doesn't come from being addicted to the dole and beholden to your Dem masters

how are you paying my share of the taxes? THat is a major laugher
 
Back
Top Bottom