• 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!

Let's put this one to bed. TAXES.

There should be NO taxes at all.


  • Total voters
    28
constantly

the class warfare jihadists constantly claim i don't want to pay any taxes

in reality I only want to pay my fair share based on what I use and my share of common benefits. In other words, I should pay far less than I do since I don't get any additional de jure benefits for facing a de jure much higher tax bill than most voters

They should tx the rich based on their characters. Maybe then you'd feel it was fair?
 
I chatted with a guy who said there should be zero taxes. He claimed that people would pay up if anything went wrong in their community. I roundly defeated him in that argument. How naive can people be?
 
They should tx the rich based on their characters. Maybe then you'd feel it was fair?

you need to re-examine whatever course of study you are pursuing at that college. That makes no sense either.

why are you so afraid of a tax system that prevents people like you voting up the rates of people like me without you having to pay any more taxes.

we should all pay the same rate so if you vote for a higher tax rate-you have to pay more as well
 
I chatted with a guy who said there should be zero taxes. He claimed that people would pay up if anything went wrong in their community. I roundly defeated him in that argument. How naive can people be?

On the flipside, when I said that I think property taxes should not result in forfeiture of the property if you can't pay (presumably some other penalty could be instituted), not even talking about how MUCH they are, I got the standard "IF YOU WANT ROADS AND SCHOOLS AND POLICE AND PUPPIES AND MORNING DEW, YOU HAVE TO PAY TAXES!!!!" (Plus other weirdness which doesn't factor into this thread.)
 
Don't believe it happens if it makes you feel better. But those of us who argue for lower taxes know all too well that it does.

I don't feel strongly one way or another.

constantly

the class warfare jihadists constantly claim i don't want to pay any taxes

in reality I only want to pay my fair share based on what I use and my share of common benefits. In other words, I should pay far less than I do since I don't get any additional de jure benefits for facing a de jure much higher tax bill than most voters

That would depend on how you define 'use'. If American society and economy exists in an equilibrium, and taxes go into maintaining that equilibrium, then as a as a person more heavily invested in the success of the American economy than the average American, you should pay more.
 
Last edited:
I don't feel strongly one way or another.



That would depend on how you define 'use'. If American society and economy exists in an equilibrium, and taxes go into maintaining that equilibrium, then as a as a person more heavily invested in the success of the American economy than the average American, you should pay more.

under a flat tax or a consumption tax the rich will pay more but their rates cannot be constantly voted up by those who suffer no additional rates.

and I reject your opinion that I have a duty to pay more

its actually the middle and lower classes use more government services
 
On the flipside, when I said that I think property taxes should not result in forfeiture of the property if you can't pay (presumably some other penalty could be instituted), not even talking about how MUCH they are, I got the standard "IF YOU WANT ROADS AND SCHOOLS AND POLICE AND PUPPIES AND MORNING DEW, YOU HAVE TO PAY TAXES!!!!" (Plus other weirdness which doesn't factor into this thread.)

I asked this guy I was chatting with what happens if I didn't pay for the new road in town. He said that I wouldn't be allowed to use the road since it didn't "belong" to me. We debated back and forth for probably 30 - 45 minutes. I think he ended up knowing what he said was ridiculously stupid, but was too proud to admit it.
 
under a flat tax or a consumption tax the rich will pay more but their rates cannot be constantly voted up by those who suffer no additional rates.

and I reject your opinion that I have a duty to pay more

its actually the middle and lower classes use more government services

Those services maintain American society. You need that society more than them, if not culturally, at least as far as maintaining your wealth goes. A middle class person can become middle class again in the next nearest tolerable society, but you'll probably never obtain the amount of wealth you enjoyed in America.
 
Last edited:
Those services maintain American society. You need that society more than them, if not culturally, at least as far as maintaining your wealth goes.

BS again. you are making claims you cannot back up in order to justify parasitic taxes on others

tell me, why are you afraid of a flat tax or a consumption tax.

society needs wealthy people in order to subsidize the untalented and the unproductive

you probably labour under the delusion that society GIVES the rich their wealth
 
under a flat tax or a consumption tax the rich will pay more but their rates cannot be constantly voted up by those who suffer no additional rates.

and I reject your opinion that I have a duty to pay more

its actually the middle and lower classes use more government services
You're rich? I never knew that :shrug: Can I be your fishin' buddy?
 
BS again. you are making claims you cannot back up in order to justify parasitic taxes on others

tell me, why are you afraid of a flat tax or a consumption tax.

society needs wealthy people in order to subsidize the untalented and the unproductive

you probably labour under the delusion that society GIVES the rich their wealth

People generally don't "give" things in capitalism.

Basically, yes, the wealthy need to foot the bill on social welfare programs. But those programs prevent the United States from winding up like a third-world country, with a mobile mass of unskilled laborers. It's better for the wealthy that they pay more taxes than for the United States wind up like a third-world country.
 
Last edited:
You're rich? I never knew that :shrug: Can I be your fishin' buddy?

I wasn't aware working in an outdoor retail store makes anyone rich. :lamo

Now if you supply that store with a one of a kind specialty item they can't get anywhere else like I do... ;)
 
actually capitalists tend to be far more charitable to others than socialists and liberals

Sort of. I edited my post to respond more roundly to your objection, by the way.
 
People generally don't "give" things in capitalism.

Basically, yes, the wealthy need to foot the bill on social welfare programs. But those programs prevent the United States from winding up like a third-world country, with a mobile mass of unskilled laborers. It's better for the wealthy that they pay more taxes than for the United States wind up like a third-world country.

1) the rich will always pay more taxes-what i object to is allowing the dem politicians to buy the votes of the many by promising them more and more handouts or entitlements that they won't have to pay any additional taxes for because the rich are saddled with more and more taxes

2) there is no evidence we would end up a third world nation with a flat tax or a consumption tax. we became the greatest nation in the world before we had massive income redistribution and the war on poverty appears to be nothing more than a scheme to create more people addicted to the dem party's handouts
 
1) the rich will always pay more taxes-what i object to is allowing the dem politicians to buy the votes of the many by promising them more and more handouts or entitlements that they won't have to pay any additional taxes for because the rich are saddled with more and more taxes

2) there is no evidence we would end up a third world nation with a flat tax or a consumption tax. we became the greatest nation in the world before we had massive income redistribution and the war on poverty appears to be nothing more than a scheme to create more people addicted to the dem party's handouts

I agree with you, but sadly it is a moot point. When 90% of the voting populace do not qualify as "rich" it will be nigh impossible to make them understand the wisdom behind reducing entitlements. :shrug:
 
the rich will always pay more taxes-what i object to is allowing the dem politicians to buy the votes of the many by promising them more and more handouts or entitlements that they won't have to pay any additional taxes for because the rich are saddled with more and more taxes

I don't think it's that simple.

2) there is no evidence we would end up a third world nation with a flat tax or a consumption tax. we became the greatest nation in the world before we had massive income redistribution and the war on poverty appears to be nothing more than a scheme to create more people addicted to the dem party's handouts

Depends on how you define greatness and what period you are talking about. A society can exist with wealth and power concentrated in the hands of the few and be very successful in terms of how it relates with other nations, but it's a transitional state. Eventually, the people on the lower rungs will want some of the wealth and power, and will refuse to comply with social and economic norms if they don't get it. Thus, child labor laws went out the window, public education became the norm, unemployment subsidies were instituted, etc.

The United States was a powerful nation at the start of the 20th century, but not egalitarian.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you, but sadly it is a moot point. When 90% of the voting populace do not qualify as "rich" it will be nigh impossible to make them understand the wisdom behind reducing entitlements. :shrug:

yeah I agree, the progressive income tax was designed to give congress more and more power

they will learn the hard way when the house of cards collapses
 
This country came into existence because of a revolution against over taxation. If Obama and the democrats continue a revolution could happen again.
 
I don't think it's that simple.



Depends on how you define greatness and what period you are talking about. A society can exist with wealth and power concentrated in the hands of the few and be very successful in terms of how it relates with other nations, but it's a transitional state. Eventually, the people on the lower rungs will want some of the wealth and power, and will refuse to comply with social and economic norms if they don't get it. Thus, child labor laws went out the window, public education became the norm, unemployment subsidies were instituted, etc.

The United States was a powerful nation at the start of the 20th century, but not egalitarian.

good

attempting to create equality has killed more people than any other thing over the last 100 years
 
Back
Top Bottom