• 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
What if they weren't (directly) getting anything other than basic fire, road, and military services from the government. No welfare, no "refundable tax credits", no social security, no free healthcare AND what if they contributed to our society by working normal (40+/- hrs a week) cleaning your toilets or cooking your food, paid no direct income taxes, but paid taxes on things like gasoline and alcohol. Would they still be moochers?

Is the extremely rich heiress who married some rich dude, and never worked a day in her life, but has millions in passive investments that she did nothing to earn (other than to marry well) and who pays someone else to manage her investements, and gets to pay a discount tax rate (capital gains tax) which is lower than people who have jobs have to, not a moocher?

no she is not because she is not requiring or causing anyone else to pay for her existence. And if you note she pays someone a service to handle her investments and she probably pays far far more than she uses.

there should be no tax on income or if there is everyone should pay the same rate. 15% on her income is far more than at least half the country pays.
 
What if they weren't (directly) getting anything other than basic fire, road, and military services from the government. No welfare, no "refundable tax credits", no social security, no free healthcare AND what if they contributed to our society by working normal (40+/- hrs a week) cleaning your toilets or cooking your food, paid no direct income taxes, but paid taxes on things like gasoline and alcohol. Would they still be moochers?

Is the extremely rich heiress who married some rich dude, and never worked a day in her life, but has millions in passive investments that she did nothing to earn (other than to marry well) and who pays someone else to manage her investements, and gets to pay a discount tax rate (capital gains tax) which is lower than people who have jobs have to, not a moocher?

Yes she is lazy. But she is paying for her existence and not asking for others to pay more so she can pay less. So the heiress would not be a moocher.

As to your first point: The rich get the same national security and military services from the government, ideally, as the poor. The taliban doesn't invade my home just the same as it doesn't invade the rich people's homes. If the poor asks the rich to pay more for the same services the poor gets so that the poor doesn't have to pay as much, then yes, the poor is mooching. Even if there were no entitlement programs. Including entitlement programs, they are just more severe moochers. As far as basic fire and military services, these are things that the federal government shouldn't provide (or be involved in at all). If the people in ask more local governments to provide these for the people, so be it. But that is up to the more local governments and the people they represent.
 
Back
Top Bottom