• 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!

There is something very strange about the GOP tax plan

Captain Adverse said:
I do NOT "espouse the basis of trickle down economics." :roll:

I recognize that wealth held in the hands of a few is mostly wealth not spent.

Although an argument can be made that it is investments by wealthy that fund advancements.

No...I espouse the idea that my property is MINE, however much or little it may be.

It should be MY choice how much or how little I wish to share with others.

I believe in Democratic principles...but I do not believe in pure democracy which always turns into a tyranny of the majority...leading to redistribution of wealth (i.e. legal robbery) by "fair voting."
Click to expand...

Your property IS yours, earned in an environment made possible by government, tax funded services.

Your notion of "fairer" taxation has been going on for the last 30 years, under the guise of trickle down economics....so I ask again, how's that been working out?
 
KevinKohler said:
Your property IS yours, earned in an environment made possible by government, tax funded services.

Your notion of "fairer" taxation has been going on for the last 30 years, under the guise of trickle down economics....so I ask again, how's that been working out?
Click to expand...

What part of "my argument has nothing to do with trickle down economics" did you not understand?

I merely mentioned that people with wealth spend it on more expensive things, and invest to make more money...while recognizing that neither act necessitates a major benefit for everyone else.

I'm not going to argue for or against something I did not advocate. :roll:

See my tagline.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
I'm not rich, and I never expect to be unless I win the Lottery (and I don't play the Lottery).

Still, I've always wondered why so many people feel that merely having more money requires that a person must pay more?

What is wrong with a flat tax for everyone?

Let's for example say 10%.

If I live at the bottom tax bracket earning $100.00, I'd pay $10.00.

Middle of the bracket earning $500,00, and I'd pay $50.00.

Top of the bracket earning $100,000.00 and I'd pay $10,000.00.

The argument I always hear is "Well giving up $10.00 is harder on the low end because it is a significant portion of their income when faced with every day living expenses." Followed by, "The rich can afford to pay more!"

While this may be true; it is also true that each amount is a "fair share" of the tax burden one should bear if they expect to reap the benefits from the pot of money collected for the social good. Much of that pot is redirected at the poorest members anyway. (Isn't that what taxes are for?)

So the "rich" get a tax break? They are still paying multiples more in taxes than the lower brackets. So what's the beef?
Click to expand...

The older I get the more appealing a flat tax sounds. However, the idea is that most other taxes are regressive and a progressive income tax offsets it. If you got every locality, city, and state to eliminate all their other taxes and switch to a flat income tax, then it would make more sense. Right now, you would just be making a massive shift of the tax burden onto the middle and poorer classes.
 
Captain Adverse said:
What part of "my argument has nothing to do with trickle down economics" did you not understand?

I merely mentioned that people with wealth spend it on more expensive things, and invest to make more money...while recognizing that neither act necessitates a major benefit for everyone else.

I'm not going to argue for or against something I did not advocate. :roll:

See my tagline.
Click to expand...

I acknowledge that you don't support trickle down. My point is, what YOU support, very closely resembles what we've been getting for the past 30 years....a dramatic reduction in progressive taxation, specifically, on the uppermost bracket.

So....again, how's that working out for us?
 
KevinKohler said:
I acknowledge that you don't support trickle down. My point is, what YOU support, very closely resembles what we've been getting for the past 30 years....a dramatic reduction in progressive taxation, specifically, on the uppermost bracket.

So....again, how's that working out for us?
Click to expand...

Well, I think the point is that people are demanding more and more "services" from government and expect the money to come from "somewhere" because they can't afford it themselves.

I prefer LESS government and more free market. Yes, people offering goods and services can set their prices based on supply and demand; but competition ends up balancing the equation eventually if what is being offered is too expensive to afford.

Government should only provide for the needs of society, not the wants. Like my Grandma used to say when I wanted this toy or those sneakers...don't let your wants get in the way of your needs.

So if I want something then I work and save to pay for it. My needs come first, and if I can't pay for those, then I must seek others with similar needs and we agree to split the costs. (Or accept charity.)

Governments are instituted to take care of such group needs.

Groups wants? Not so much IMO. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Somehow people seem to think that the more money you have the more percentage your fair share should be.
Click to expand...

But a flat tax makes a claim to fairness that is just as arbitrary. Let me ask you this, why is it fair that people who earn more money should pay more money in taxes? Why shouldn't everyone be required to pay the same dollar amount (actual dollar amount, not percentage)? And what allows you to claim that the mathematical relationship that is most fair between what a person earns and what they should pay is linear?

These are rhetorical questions; you have no justification for these. Because there is no more objective justification for a flat tax "being fair" than there is a progressive tax. These aren't mathematical determinations of what is "most fair", these are judgements.

IMO what should be shared equally is neither dollar amount nor percent of income but the tax burden. And it's pretty clear to me that a single mom earning $30k a year having to pay 25% is a far heavier burden on her than someone earning $3million a year having to pay 25%.
 
the_recruit said:
And it's pretty clear to me that a single mom earning $30k a year having to pay 25% is a far heavier burden on her than someone earning $3million a year having to pay 25%.
Click to expand...

So do you want the single mom to pay less in the supermarket too or only to pay less than her fair share for govt?
 
Captain Adverse said:
Income.

Since Corporations are "paper people," tax them like we tax other people.

The Fed and States deduct money for income taxes before we get paid. (Then they get to slap on sales taxes, which need to be debated too IMO).

In the case of Corporations, that would be off the top of any profit which is their "income."
Click to expand...

Not trying to he a dick, but what would my income be?

There is no "profit" on wages. I pay rent, utilities, buy food and clothing, etc.

So I get to deduct nothing, but corporations would only pay taxes on what they get over and above their overhead, which you summarily deducted for some reason.
 
What if...? said:
Not trying to he a dick, but what would my income be?
There is no "profit" on wages. I pay rent, utilities, buy food and clothing, etc.
So I get to deduct nothing, but corporations would only pay taxes on what they get over and above their overhead, which you summarily deducted for some reason.
Click to expand...

No point in arguing with idealogues. Ignore and wait for them to go away.
 
Fruityfact said:
No point in arguing with idealogues. Ignore and wait for them to go away.
Click to expand...

Jesus Hitler Stalin Mao Jefferson Hamilton all had firm ideas. It would be utterly senseless not to argue with those with whom you disagree. Democracy is debate and a huge privilege, not ignoring and waiting. Do you understand?
 
Captain Adverse said:
Since Corporations are "paper people," tax them like we tax other people.
Click to expand...
Corporations pass on tax cost to us just like any other cost so there is no point in taxing them. It makes them lose focus, waste time and energy dodging/avoiding taxes rather than focusing on making the best products in the world. Do you understand?
 
Captain Adverse said:
I am not arguing that at all.

I am arguing "fair share."

Somehow people seem to think that the more money you have the more percentage your fair share should be.
Click to expand...

The fairness of the flat tax idea is somewhat elusive. Why is a "fair share" a percentage? Maybe a fair share is 1/4 of the amount over the median income? Maybe a fair share should be based on discretionary income? Just as arbitrary as anything you've suggested, imo.
 
JMR said:
The fairness of the flat tax idea is somewhat elusive. Why is a "fair share" a percentage? Maybe a fair share is 1/4 of the amount over the median income? Maybe a fair share should be based on discretionary income? Just as arbitrary as anything you've suggested, imo.
Click to expand...

obviously fair is when everybody pays the same just like in the supermarket.
 
James972 said:
obviously fair is when everybody pays the same just like in the supermarket.
Click to expand...

Actually no. In the supermarket a box of spaghetti is $1.29 for everyone. Not 10% of what's in your wallet. Are you suggesting an actual flat tax?
 
JMR said:
In the supermarket a box of spaghetti is $1.29 for everyone.
Click to expand...
and does anyone claim that is not fair? why doesn't everyone pay the same price for govt too?
 
James972 said:
and does anyone claim that is not fair? why doesn't everyone pay the same price for govt too?
Click to expand...

I assume because when the Income Tax first came to be, it was decided that everyone should keep enough to cover their necessary human expenses, and then the government would collect what was needed (for the good and protection of all) from the rest of the income. It is certainly not the fault of the poor that most of the income belongs to a very few at the top.

So now the "fairness" of a flat tax has drifted from a "fair" percent of income to everyone pays the same?
 
JMR said:
It is certainly not the fault of the poor that most of the income belongs to a very few at the top.
Click to expand...
it is not their fault but that does not mean they have the right to steal from those at the top rather than earn their own money. Do you understand?
 
JMR said:
So now the "fairness" of a flat tax has drifted from a "fair" percent of income to everyone pays the same?
Click to expand...
exactly, just like in the supermarket!! Do you see people complaining about rich and poor fairly paying the same in the supermarket? Why should govt be different?
 
James972 said:
Jesus Hitler Stalin Mao Jefferson Hamilton all had firm ideas. It would be utterly senseless not to argue with those with whom you disagree. Democracy is debate and a huge privilege, not ignoring and waiting. Do you understand?
Click to expand...

People who can't agree with basic facts are not worth debating with e.g. modern day republicans.
 
Fruityfact said:
People who can't agree with basic facts are not worth debating with e.g. modern day republicans.
Click to expand...

1) so do you want to suspend democracy since you have decided Republicans don't agree with basic facts?
2) do you know why you are so afraid to tell what the most significant basic fact Republicans don't agree with is?
3) do you think your fear of debating is really based on your own inability to debate?
 
James972 said:
1) so do you want to suspend democracy since you have decided Republicans don't agree with basic facts?
2) do you know why you are so afraid to tell what the most significant basic fact Republicans don't agree with is?
3) do you think your fear of debating is really based on your own inability to debate?
Click to expand...

1) Nope
2) Not afraid
3) Nope

No point in debating with republicans any more. Simply not a reasonably party right now. It'll all about getting the democratic voter turnout and not turning off independents.
 
James972 said:
So do you want the single mom to pay less in the supermarket too or only to pay less than her fair share for govt?
Click to expand...

Are you expecting to me advocate that government set the prices of goods? Clearly I'm talking about tax policy.
 
Fruityfact said:
1) Nope
2) Not afraid
3) Nope

No point in debating with republicans any more. Simply not a reasonably party right now. It'll all about getting the democratic voter turnout and not turning off independents.
Click to expand...

When did the Republican Party start going downhill?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom