• 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!

Tax Reform

Just wondering...

How much do the poor pay in taxes? Will a tax cut REALLY help them?

Tax reform should do the following things:

1- raise taxes on everybody making dollar one on up a full five points across the board
2 - tax all income according to the same schedule regardless of where the money originates
3- start paying the debt
 
Tax reform should do the following things:

1- raise taxes on everybody making dollar one on up a full five points across the board
2 - tax all income according to the same schedule regardless of where the money originates
3- start paying the debt

Well...okay...if you say so. But what does that have to do with my post? You didn't seem to answer my questions.
 
Well...okay...if you say so. But what does that have to do with my post? You didn't seem to answer my questions.

You are right that in terms of income tax - the poor do not pay much. My proposal RAISES their income taxes along with everybody else. So the idea of the poor getting free ride with income taxes would be over.
 
You are right that in terms of income tax - the poor do not pay much. My proposal RAISES their income taxes along with everybody else. So the idea of the poor getting free ride with income taxes would be over.

Ummm...no, I'm not right since I didn't say the poor do not pay much in taxes. In fact, I ASKED how much the poor pay in taxes.
 
you miss a point that needs repeating

the reason why progressive income taxes are so popular is that they allow politicians to pander to the many while only increasing the taxes on a few. If voting was based on what you paid, progressive income taxes would die a quick death.

the problem with progressive income taxes is that they encourage politicians to make more and more promises in order to win votes and that in turn requires more government spending. When those who are doing the voting in of spendthrift politicians and those voters don't get massive tax hikes to pay for what they want, they have no incentive to reign in big spending politicians. Its easy for a politician to say-as Obama did-lets have Obamacare and we will jack up the taxes on the top 5% to pay for it. Why would the other 95% be opposed? they are getting something that others pay for.

and sooner or later-as Dame Thatcher said-the problem with socialism is you run out of other peoples' money.

many of those think that its "unfair" that some do well and the tax system should afflict the comfortable to slake the envy of the class warriors. that sadly is a main driving force behind things like the death tax and high progressive income taxes. but we keep coming back to a basic truth. Your existence should not create a just claim on what someone else has or earns
The point that needs repeating is that the progressive income tax system is over 100 years old and has worked splendidly to provide government with needed funds without burdening the masses into serfdom.

As for your assertion that "the problem with progressive income taxes is that they encourage politicians to make more and more promises in order to win votes," that's undercut by the fact that federal spending, as a p% of GDP, has been relatively stable for nearly 70 years.

usgs_line.php


While you think that my embrace of progressive taxes is a disgrace to America’s founders and an affront to the Constitution -- and that all workers, poor and rich, should be protected from high taxes equally, redistribution is in reality as American as apple pie. During the Progressive Era, it was commonplace and widely accepted to support high taxes on the rich specifically in order to keep the rich from getting richer -- a position that few people in politics today would dare espouse.

One point Piketty makes is that the modern notion that redistribution and "penalizing success" is un- and anti-American is completely at odds with our country's actual history. One subsection in Piketty's book is titled "Confiscatory Taxation of Excess Incomes: An American Invention"; he shows that America actually pioneered very high taxes on the rich:
When we look at the history of progressive taxation in the twentieth century, it is striking to see how far out in front Britain and the United States were, especially the latter, which invented the confiscatory tax on "excessive"incomes and fortunes.
Why was this the case? Piketty points to the American egalitarian ideal, which went along with fear of creating a hereditary aristocracy. High taxes, especially on estates, were motivated in part by "fear of coming to resemble Old Europe."
 
The point that needs repeating is that the progressive income tax system is over 100 years old and has worked splendidly to provide government with needed funds without burdening the masses into serfdom.

As for your assertion that "the problem with progressive income taxes is that they encourage politicians to make more and more promises in order to win votes," that's undercut by the fact that federal spending, as a p% of GDP, has been relatively stable for nearly 70 years.

usgs_line.php


While you think that my embrace of progressive taxes is a disgrace to America’s founders and an affront to the Constitution -- and that all workers, poor and rich, should be protected from high taxes equally, redistribution is in reality as American as apple pie. During the Progressive Era, it was commonplace and widely accepted to support high taxes on the rich specifically in order to keep the rich from getting richer -- a position that few people in politics today would dare espouse.

One point Piketty makes is that the modern notion that redistribution and "penalizing success" is un- and anti-American is completely at odds with our country's actual history. One subsection in Piketty's book is titled "Confiscatory Taxation of Excess Incomes: An American Invention"; he shows that America actually pioneered very high taxes on the rich:

Why was this the case? Piketty points to the American egalitarian ideal, which went along with fear of creating a hereditary aristocracy. High taxes, especially on estates, were motivated in part by "fear of coming to resemble Old Europe."

why should I give a damn about
"Pikety". the death tax lost any value (if there is any value to the progressive idiocy behind it) when we instituted progressive income taxes. and you really didn't address my point at all. that the current system encourages pandering by politicians to people who get handouts they don't have to pay for.
 
remind those who don't know, what "FICA taxes" are supposed to pay for

Supposed to pay for? :lol:

Remind those who don't know what percentage of total revenues FICA taxes account for. How about we take it a step further... what percentage of total public debt is represented by the Social Security Trust Fund?

:2wave:
 
Supposed to pay for? :lol:

Remind those who don't know what percentage of total revenues FICA taxes account for. How about we take it a step further... what percentage of total public debt is represented by the Social Security Trust Fund?

:2wave:

why don't you just answer the question. Is it too tough for you
 
why don't you just answer the question. Is it too tough for you

Why should i have to answer anything requested by someone that failed to address a single statement he decided to quote?
 
Why should i have to answer anything requested by someone that failed to address a single statement he decided to quote?

FICA was not supposed to be a "tax" in the traditional sense" was it? And Yes I know what Fleming v Nestor h held. Its dishonest to try to pretend the FICA "tax" is the same as a progressive income tax or trying to use it to negate the fact that the bottom 50% don't pay-no matter how you define "fair share"-their "fair share" of the income tax and many don't pay any at all
 
why should I give a damn about
"Pikety". the death tax lost any value (if there is any value to the progressive idiocy behind it) when we instituted progressive income taxes. and you really didn't address my point at all. that the current system encourages pandering by politicians to people who get handouts they don't have to pay for.
First, it's "Piketty" not "Pikety," not to be picky.
Second, we should all be influenced by facts, evidence and the views of people smarter than ourselves.
Third, I did indeed address your point (the fact that you don't like the answer 'that don't confront me' {George Michael reference}):

As for your assertion that "the problem with progressive income taxes is that they encourage politicians to make more and more promises in order to win votes," that's undercut by the fact that federal spending, as a p% of GDP, has been relatively stable for nearly 70 years.

usgs_line.php
How unseemly of elected officials to actually enact laws and institute programs that make the lives of their constituents better.
 
Its dishonest to try to pretend the FICA "tax" is the same as a progressive income tax or trying to use it to negate the fact that the bottom 50% don't pay-no matter how you define "fair share"-their "fair share" of the income tax and many don't pay any at all

The FICA tax is payed by every American that earns a legit paycheck, and it is regressive.

I notice you still failed to address my statement. I'm not surprised....
 
OECD%20Tax%20Revenue.png


U.S. is a low tax country, comparatively. 30 OECD countries collect more in tax revenue than us. You'd think they were all Eastern Block hellholes by now, rather than the happiest countries in the world.
 
First, it's "Piketty" not "Pikety," not to be picky.
Second, we should all be influenced by facts, evidence and the views of people smarter than ourselves.
Third, I did indeed address your point (the fact that you don't like the answer 'that don't confront me' {George Michael reference}):

How unseemly of elected officials to actually enact laws and institute programs that make the lives of their constituents better.

That's one reason I voted for Trump
 
The FICA tax is payed by every American that earns a legit paycheck, and it is regressive.

I notice you still failed to address my statement. I'm not surprised....

Life is regressive-so what? I bet your buying a cheeseburger or a car is "regressive" compared to me doing the same thing. SO WHAT?
 
Life is regressive-so what? I bet your buying a cheeseburger or a car is "regressive" compared to me doing the same thing. SO WHAT?

Way to show class (and your inability to discuss the topic).
 
Way to show class (and your inability to discuss the topic).

translation, I won't let you dictate what the issue is. and yes, life is regressive. I don't see the need to constantly demand that everything in the tax code be done to "even that out". The fact is, the FICA "taxes" are claimed to be regressive but that avoids the fact that for majority of low income earners, they often get a payback above of what they contributed which offsets that. why should what are essentially insurance payments be progressive?
 
I won't let you dictate what the issue is.

It was a classless statement that lacks any and all applicability to the subject. This isn't the first time, nor am i surprised in the least.

the fact that for majority of low income earners, they often get a payback above of what they contributed which offsets that.

Not only do you lack class, but you're prone to dishonesty. If you've done even the slightest bit of research on the topic, you'd be aware that low income earners are far less likely to pull in more than they've paid. You're making this discussion way too easy.

why should what are essentially insurance payments be progressive?

Weak strawman. I never claimed social insurance taxes need be progressive. On the contrary, i did claim that anyone earning a legit paycheck pays FICA taxes.
 
Last edited:
Ummm...no, I'm not right since I didn't say the poor do not pay much in taxes. In fact, I ASKED how much the poor pay in taxes.

The internet has features that should help you locate that information.
 
It was a classless statement that lacks any and all applicability to the subject. This isn't the first time, nor am i surprised in the least.



Not only do you lack class, but you're prone to dishonesty. If you've done even the slightest bit of research on the topic, you'd be aware that low income earners are far less likely to pull in more than they've paid. You're making this discussion way too easy.



Weak strawman. I never claimed social insurance taxes need be progressive. On the contrary, i did claim that anyone earning a legit paycheck pays FICA taxes.

I love how you argue. you try to limit any debate to a very narrow and stilted pigeonhole which ignores equity, fairness, political reality and sustainability while trying to camouflage class envy and greed with grandiose claims of "the greater economic" good for the masses. I realize everyone who collects a pay check makes forced contributions to FICA but to dismiss the absolute fact that many Americans are not paying a proper share of the FEDERAL INCOME TAX by claiming they pay FICA taxes is blatantly dishonest.
 
I love how you argue.

You don't even argue.

you try to limit any debate to a very narrow and stilted pigeonhole which ignores equity, fairness, political reality and sustainability while trying to camouflage class envy and greed with grandiose claims of "the greater economic" good for the masses.

I have yet to come across a statement of yours that addresses equity, fairness, political reality... and most importantly sustainability. These claims of class envy and greed are just a compounded strawman argument.

I realize everyone who collects a pay check makes forced contributions to FICA

Agreed. But....

Can we be honest for a brief moment? Seriously, afterwards you can go back to whatever works.

Excess FICA taxes account for 18% of total federal debt. That you're even making this argument is comical at this point. When it is shown that S.S. repayment is also regressive in terms of income levels, another shift.

but to dismiss the absolute fact that many Americans are not paying a proper share of the FEDERAL INCOME TAX by claiming they pay FICA taxes is blatantly dishonest.

What is America's income share? I asked for clarification in my first post, and so far you've been talking about me... not the topic.

So I must ask, what is this share? Should the top 10% of income earners pay only 10% of the total income taxes? Or... should 50% of income earners pay 50% of the taxes? Or... should 25% of the population pay 25% of the taxes? Or are you just focused on the 1%? Curious as to how it could work.
 
You don't even argue.



I have yet to come across a statement of yours that addresses equity, fairness, political reality... and most importantly sustainability. These claims of class envy and greed are just a compounded strawman argument.



Agreed. But....

Can we be honest for a brief moment? Seriously, afterwards you can go back to whatever works.

Excess FICA taxes account for 18% of total federal debt. That you're even making this argument is comical at this point. When it is shown that S.S. repayment is also regressive in terms of income levels, another shift.



What is America's income share? I asked for clarification in my first post, and so far you've been talking about me... not the topic.

So I must ask, what is this share? Should the top 10% of income earners pay only 10% of the total income taxes? Or... should 50% of income earners pay 50% of the taxes? Or... should 25% of the population pay 25% of the taxes? Or are you just focused on the 1%? Curious as to how it could work.

I believe people should ideally pay the same for the same citizenship benefits but I also realize that is impossible. However, if the top one percent makes 20% of the income they certainly shouldn't pay more than 20% of the income tax and all of the estate tax
 
I believe people should ideally pay the same for the same citizenship benefits but I also realize that is impossible. However, if the top one percent makes 20% of the income they certainly shouldn't pay more than 20% of the income tax and all of the estate tax

You see there is no logic in that stance. The whole idea of a country/state/town/other similar entity, is burden and the improvement of all over time.

In your example we have 3 people and a 20% flat tax rate.

Person 1 earns 100 dollars. That leaves them 80 dollars for food and housing which costs lets say 70 dollars minimum.
Person 2 earns 1000 dollars. That leaves 800 dollars for food and housing which still costs 70 dollars minimum. Yes they can afford more fancy housing.
Person 3 earns 10000 dollars. That leaves 8000 dollars for food and housing which still costs 70 dollars minimum. Yes they can afford more fancy housing.

Total tax collected is 2220 dollars.

Now the burden on person 1 is massive, compared to the 2 others. Person 1 does not have much wiggle room and certainly needs help and luck to move up in the world.

Now how about we did this instead.

Person 1 still earns 100 dollars, but his tax is now 5% instead. So he has 95 dollars left, 70 for food and housing and now he can go to night school for a better education.
Person 2 still earns 1000 dollars, and his tax rate can be lowered to 15%. He now has a tad more money but in the whole scheme of things it is pretty irrelevant.
Person 3 still earns 10000, but his tax rate is now 30%, which still leaves him 7000 dollars to play with... more than enough for food, education, housing.

Total tax collected 3030 dollars.

So you have a larger tax income to pay for the education or help to person 1 and sooner or later, person 1 moves up to person 2 tax bracket or even person 3. That would certainly almost never happen in your example, since the economic restraints of person 1 is so bad that missing a pay check would put them out on the street.

Point is, if you want to live in a society where anyone can be anything, then you have to "rig the system" to make it so, else you become Victorian England or worse, where it is more important where you were born and who your parents were, than your skills in general.

So what if the top 1% pay more than 20% of the taxes, they also earn far far more than most and can easily afford it.
 
Question: 1. What are the stipulations of the tax reform?
2. Who benefits? Who loses?

1. No bill has been written
2. The people, the government
 
You see there is no logic in that stance. The whole idea of a country/state/town/other similar entity, is burden and the improvement of all over time.

In your example we have 3 people and a 20% flat tax rate.

Person 1 earns 100 dollars. That leaves them 80 dollars for food and housing which costs lets say 70 dollars minimum.
Person 2 earns 1000 dollars. That leaves 800 dollars for food and housing which still costs 70 dollars minimum. Yes they can afford more fancy housing.
Person 3 earns 10000 dollars. That leaves 8000 dollars for food and housing which still costs 70 dollars minimum. Yes they can afford more fancy housing.

Total tax collected is 2220 dollars.

Now the burden on person 1 is massive, compared to the 2 others. Person 1 does not have much wiggle room and certainly needs help and luck to move up in the world.

Now how about we did this instead.

Person 1 still earns 100 dollars, but his tax is now 5% instead. So he has 95 dollars left, 70 for food and housing and now he can go to night school for a better education.
Person 2 still earns 1000 dollars, and his tax rate can be lowered to 15%. He now has a tad more money but in the whole scheme of things it is pretty irrelevant.
Person 3 still earns 10000, but his tax rate is now 30%, which still leaves him 7000 dollars to play with... more than enough for food, education, housing.

Total tax collected 3030 dollars.

So you have a larger tax income to pay for the education or help to person 1 and sooner or later, person 1 moves up to person 2 tax bracket or even person 3. That would certainly almost never happen in your example, since the economic restraints of person 1 is so bad that missing a pay check would put them out on the street.

Point is, if you want to live in a society where anyone can be anything, then you have to "rig the system" to make it so, else you become Victorian England or worse, where it is more important where you were born and who your parents were, than your skills in general.

So what if the top 1% pay more than 20% of the taxes, they also earn far far more than most and can easily afford it.

you look at it the wrong way

Joe has 100 dollars-he has to buy 5 gallons of gas to get to work each week-that leaves him 85 dollars

Dave has 1000 dollars-he also needs five gallons of gas-that leaves him with 985


George has 10,000 dollars and he too needs that amount of gas-that leaves him with 9985 dollars

each bought five dollars of gas and paid the same amount since they each received the same amount of value
 
Back
Top Bottom