• 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
Since 1918 we have had 17 decreases in the top tax rate (although we have obviously had some increases also to finance wars and such).

Stop confusing the issue with facts.
 
What's the most 'fair' tax system? (not asking which is most sustainable, just which would be most 'fair', in a morality sort of way)

All the ones in effect today because they've all survived the test of time. It's not about morality, it's about legal obligation and paying your share.

ricksfolly
 
Or a guy claiming that he is conservative yet he thinks that he has some type of special right to the wealth of someone else.

Intelligent people back ideas that further their own best interests, not fuzzy philosophies that favor the super rich best interests.

ricksfolly
 
No, it is not safe to assume any of those things.

is it safe to assume that you are in either the lowest or second lowest tax bracket?

tax brackets notwihstanding, what is your profession?
 
All the ones in effect today because they've all survived the test of time. It's not about morality, it's about legal obligation and paying your share.

ricksfolly

some just have to pay a larger percentange than others right? because theyre successful, right?

damn, id be ashamed if i was in a low tack bracket and mooching off those who worked hard.
 
some just have to pay a larger percentange than others right? because theyre successful, right?

damn, id be ashamed if i was in a low tack bracket and mooching off those who worked hard.

some on this board not only are proud of it, they are angry if you call them moochers or parasites. They have grown up in the dem entitlement society where they are taught that your money was probably "stolen" from others and rightfully belongs to them.
 
Or a guy claiming that he is conservative yet he thinks that he has some type of special right to the wealth of someone else.

that sure hasn't come from me-though I did see another poster who claims to be conservative who is more a fascist-statist. But if my father decided to leave his estate to his sons, that was his right and for you to claim I have no right to it is specious horse dung

I am sorry that you are upset you didn't get the same breaks but that's life and you certainly have no just claim to what I was willed.
 
I will address your main point as soon as you address my main point that the productivity of people who receive government services, such as children going to public school and the disabled who receive prosthetics and other assistance contribute more to society than they take from tax dollars.

I deny that claim of yours
 
Turtledude,

Obviously progressive taxes have a redistributional effect. However, you must acknowlege everything the government does has distributive consequences.

Have fun working!

NOt redistributive.
 
some on this board not only are proud of it, they are angry if you call them moochers or parasites. They have grown up in the dem entitlement society where they are taught that your money was probably "stolen" from others and rightfully belongs to them.

It's common knowledge that rich get richer because Congress makes it easier for them with corporation welfare, Lax truth in advertising laws, where untold billions are squeezed out of deluded suckers every day with products that don't work. All because the government adopted the ruling where unsuspecting buyers get screwed and have no recourse... Let the buyer beware... It should read, Beware of unscrupulous sellers.

How to make a quick million... Screw a million suckers out of a dollar each, or 100,000 for ten dollars.

ricksfolly
 
It's common knowledge that rich get richer because Congress makes it easier for them with corporation welfare, Lax truth in advertising laws, where untold billions are squeezed out of deluded suckers every day with products that don't work. All because the government adopted the ruling where unsuspecting buyers get screwed and have no recourse... Let the buyer beware... It should read, Beware of unscrupulous sellers.

How to make a quick million... Screw a million suckers out of a dollar each, or 100,000 for ten dollars.

ricksfolly

that is as idiotic as claiming that the rules of Golf allow Tiger woods to become richer than say a guy who barely earned a tour card.

deluded suckers? I believe in darwinian evolution.
 
that is as idiotic as claiming that the rules of Golf allow Tiger woods to become richer than say a guy who barely earned a tour card.

deluded suckers? I believe in darwinian evolution.
Me too!
And that's why I showed what would/DID happen and what unmitigated Social Darwinism looked like for 5000 years (Serfs and Castles etc) and why they instituted the Income tax in this country.
And why you couldn't answer then and still can't.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/76601-which-tax-system-most-fair-26.html#post1058853836

So what will you do when "Fair" leads to a few percent having all the marbles? Which it will with no progressivity.
Do you really think People making $20k or $25k can pay a "fair"/Flat 25% as someone make $4 million can?
I don't want his BLOOD/FOOD money and he can't give it.

A FEW people ARE Much, Much, better than the rest in making money.... or keeping it.
Thus revolution in some countries and voting an income tax in this country and other democracies.
First just on the very rich, then a progressive tax Creating the world's largest Middle Class/people with a vested interest.
That's what America's success is; a large Middle class.
Tho incomes/assets are polarizing again because the very high Top tax rates of the 50's-80s are now much LESS Progressive.

Proof of the Pudding:
Thus, even at current Rates congress (Both parties) have several times had to send out Stimulous checks to make the current tax Less regressive so that the little guy can afford to buy the Goods (Cars, computers, etc) from the companies the big guys own. Even the self-interested big guys (like me and the Congressional GOP) understand this. But you want to squeeze the little consumer even more with a more regressive/flatter/"fairer" tax.
Yes, even WITH current very mildly Progressive rates.. we still need 'prebates'.
 
Last edited:
Me too!
And that's why I showed what would/DID happen and what unmitigated Social Darwinism looked like for 5000 years (Serfs and Castles etc) and why they instituted the Income tax in this country.
And why you couldn't answer then and still can't.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/76601-which-tax-system-most-fair-26.html#post1058853836

So what will you do when "Fair" leads to a few percent having all the marbles? Which it will with no progressivity.
Do you really think People making $20k or $25k can pay a "fair"/Flat 25% as someone make $4 million can?
I don't want his BLOOD/FOOD money and he can't give it.

A FEW people ARE Much, Much, better than the rest in making money.... or keeping it.
Thus revolution in some countries and voting an income tax in this country and other democracies.
First just on the very rich, then a progressive tax Creating the world's largest Middle Class/people with a vested interest.
That's what America's success is; a large Middle class.
Tho incomes/assets are polarizing again because the very high Top tax rates of the 50's-80s are now much LESS Progressive.

Proof of the Pudding:
Thus, even at current Rates congress (Both parties) have several times had to send out Stimulous checks to make the current tax Less regressive so that the little guy can afford to buy the Goods (Cars, computers, etc) from the companies the big guys own. Even the self-interested big guys (like me and the Congressional GOP) understand this. But you want to squeeze the little consumer even more with a more regressive/flatter/"fairer" tax.
Yes, even WITH current very mildly Progressive rates.. we still need 'prebates'.

If it matters, with my limited knowledge of the subject, and using my poor week brain :mrgreen:, I had a thought...

It seems to me that a less "progressive" income/earnings tax would encourage people to make more, as the more they make, the more they keep.

Now, as I understand the current system, this is already the case...

But a balance between rates that are too high and rates that are too low seems the optimum here.

Personally, I think that rates should not rise much at all up to and including an income (single or combined) of $300,000-400,000/year.

After that, sharper rate increases with earnings increases would, IMO, have less effect on people.

True, no matter the amount I was earning, I would like to keep 100% of it (wouldn't we all) to do with as I wished.

Hell, if I made that much, I would likely give some to charity.

But I dunno.
 
If it matters, with my limited knowledge of the subject, and using my poor week brain :mrgreen:, I had a thought...

It seems to me that a less "progressive" income/earnings tax would encourage people to make more, as the more they make, the more they keep.

Now, as I understand the current system, this is already the case...

But a balance between rates that are too high and rates that are too low seems the optimum here.

Personally, I think that rates should not rise much at all up to and including an income (single or combined) of $300,000-400,000/year.

After that, sharper rate increases with earnings increases would, IMO, have less effect on people.

True, no matter the amount I was earning, I would like to keep 100% of it (wouldn't we all) to do with as I wished.

Hell, if I made that much, I would likely give some to charity.

But I dunno.

I make little money now - just starting in my career. I find some money to give when a cause comes around that I care for. But if the total taxes I pay which currently exceed 54% of my income (including sales tax, property taxes, income tax, state tax, social security, medicare and local taxes) were reduced, I believe I would have more money to donate to charities. To help a lot of those same people that the government is taxing me to help anyway. The only difference is that I would get to choose who my money helps more directly. As of now, I have no choice - the government chooses and qualifies the people who are 'entitled' to my money and charities get barely anything.
 
I make little money now - just starting in my career. I find some money to give when a cause comes around that I care for. But if the total taxes I pay which currently exceed 54% of my income (including sales tax, property taxes, income tax, state tax, social security, medicare and local taxes) were reduced, I believe I would have more money to donate to charities. To help a lot of those same people that the government is taxing me to help anyway. The only difference is that I would get to choose who my money helps more directly. As of now, I have no choice - the government chooses and qualifies the people who are 'entitled' to my money and charities get barely anything.

I would note that the dems have stated they want to reduce charitable deductions. Which means if you make 500K and you give 100K to charity your taxable income was 400K and you pay taxes on that 400 rather than the 500K

the current dem plan is that you would only get a partial deduction meaning you would pay taxes on some amount between 420 and 440K even if you gave away 100K. That means charity would no longer merely cost you 60% of what you give (with the almost 40% tax rate the dems are putting in place next year) but it would cost you up to 80% meaning it will be far more expensive to donate to charity

I believe dems want to curtail private charity so they can claim we need more government enforced income redistribution. Many of them don't like that private charity is an argument against socialism
 
Me too!
And that's why I showed what would/DID happen and what unmitigated Social Darwinism looked like for 5000 years (Serfs and Castles etc) and why they instituted the Income tax in this country.
And why you couldn't answer then and still can't.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/76601-which-tax-system-most-fair-26.html#post1058853836

So what will you do when "Fair" leads to a few percent having all the marbles? Which it will with no progressivity.
Do you really think People making $20k or $25k can pay a "fair"/Flat 25% as someone make $4 million can?
I don't want his BLOOD/FOOD money and he can't give it.

A FEW people ARE Much, Much, better than the rest in making money.... or keeping it.
Thus revolution in some countries and voting an income tax in this country and other democracies.
First just on the very rich, then a progressive tax Creating the world's largest Middle Class/people with a vested interest.
That's what America's success is; a large Middle class.
Tho incomes/assets are polarizing again because the very high Top tax rates of the 50's-80s are now much LESS Progressive.

Proof of the Pudding:
Thus, even at current Rates congress (Both parties) have several times had to send out Stimulous checks to make the current tax Less regressive so that the little guy can afford to buy the Goods (Cars, computers, etc) from the companies the big guys own. Even the self-interested big guys (like me and the Congressional GOP) understand this. But you want to squeeze the little consumer even more with a more regressive/flatter/"fairer" tax.
Yes, even WITH current very mildly Progressive rates.. we still need 'prebates'.

i totally oppose progressive income taxes because it allows people like you to push for more and more government spending while not suffering any harm so you have no incentive to stop wasteful spending.
 
Me too!
And that's why I showed what would/DID happen and what unmitigated Social Darwinism looked like for 5000 years (Serfs and Castles etc) and why they instituted the Income tax in this country.
And why you couldn't answer then and still can't.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/76601-which-tax-system-most-fair-26.html#post1058853836

So what will you do when "Fair" leads to a few percent having all the marbles? Which it will with no progressivity.
Do you really think People making $20k or $25k can pay a "fair"/Flat 25% as someone make $4 million can?
I don't want his BLOOD/FOOD money and he can't give it.

A FEW people ARE Much, Much, better than the rest in making money.... or keeping it.
Thus revolution in some countries and voting an income tax in this country and other democracies.
First just on the very rich, then a progressive tax Creating the world's largest Middle Class/people with a vested interest.
That's what America's success is; a large Middle class.
Tho incomes/assets are polarizing again because the very high Top tax rates of the 50's-80s are now much LESS Progressive.

Proof of the Pudding:
Thus, even at current Rates congress (Both parties) have several times had to send out Stimulous checks to make the current tax Less regressive so that the little guy can afford to buy the Goods (Cars, computers, etc) from the companies the big guys own. Even the self-interested big guys (like me and the Congressional GOP) understand this. But you want to squeeze the little consumer even more with a more regressive/flatter/"fairer" tax.
Yes, even WITH current very mildly Progressive rates.. we still need 'prebates'.

Exactly! Thats why I proposed a big arse inheritance tax as the most "fair" tax.
 
some just have to pay a larger percentange than others right? because theyre successful, right?

damn, id be ashamed if i was in a low tack bracket and mooching off those who worked hard.

Most people in a low tax bracket work hard. Do you really think that the guy who has to pick up your trash has an easy job? Would you be willing to trade jobs with him?

If you want to bitch about the lazy, I am with you. But don't accuse people who don't make as much as you of being lazy.
 
Exactly! Thats why I proposed a big arse inheritance tax as the most "fair" tax.

oozing envy is what causes a demand for big inheritence taxes

do you wish to expand it to a sizeable voting block or just stick it to those who have a million in assets (which isn't all that much these days)
 
Personally, I think that rates should not rise much at all up to and including an income (single or combined) of $300,000-400,000/year.

After that, sharper rate increases with earnings increases would, IMO, have less effect on people.

True, no matter the amount I was earning, I would like to keep 100% of it (wouldn't we all) to do with as I wished.

Hell, if I made that much, I would likely give some to charity.

But I dunno.

Yes, you do-no. I agree totally. In an earlier post I suggested $400,000 as the point where taxes should become quite steep. The average attorney only makes about $90k, the average family MD only makes about $120,000. A lot of people think that is rich, but that is not rich at all. The average specialist MD makes about $360,000 and that is the highest average salary for any common job. Now certainly someone who is particularly sucessful in is career should be able to make a little more than "average", so $400,000K seems to be a natural cutoff point for a large tax bracket hike. If you exclude the top 1% of income earners, the average worker only makes about $40k, so that $400,000 cutoff is ten times average earnings. Also, the top 1% of income starts at, get this - about $400,000. $400,000 seems to be a quite natural taxation point.
 
Last edited:
Exactly! Thats why I proposed a big arse inheritance tax as the most "fair" tax.

The only fair tax that is directly laid on the people is one of apportionment. All others are unfair since it presupposes that you do not have the right to enjoy the gains of your own industry and the right to own and dispose of your property as you see fit.
 
Most people in a low tax bracket work hard. Do you really think that the guy who has to pick up your trash has an easy job? Would you be willing to trade jobs with him?

If you want to bitch about the lazy, I am with you. But don't accuse people who don't make as much as you of being lazy.

can you prove that claim that most people in a low tax bracket work hard? I call BS on that. Take for example the post office. Do you know how many people in the PO have limited or light duty? Do you know how many OIG investigations take place on this major league employer alone?

I agree, some at lower levels work very hard. But to say most of them? LOL ever driven by a road crew run by a government unit?
 
Yes, you do-no. I agree totally. In an earlier post I suggested $400,000 as the point where taxes should become quite steep. The average attorney only makes about $90k, the average family MD only makes about $120,000. A lot of people think that is rich, but that is not rich at all. The average specialist MD makes about $360,000 and that is the highest average salary for any common job. Now certainly someone who is particularly sucessful in is career should be able to make a little more than "average", so $400,000K seems to be a natural cutoff point for a large tax bracket hike. If you exclude the top 1% of income earners, the average worker only makes about $40k, so that $400,000 cutoff is ten times average earnings. Also, the top 1% of income starts at, get this - about $400,000. $400,000 seems to be a quite natural taxation point.

what does a doctor making 500K a year (or two married doctors making 275K a year) get de jure from the government that you do not.
 
Back
Top Bottom