• 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!

Already found the tax loopholes...

Kushinator said:
So please explain how changing the tax code achieves your desired goal. By all means, the floor is yours!

Edit:

You know what, I've already taken the discussion. The ability to borrow negates your entire premise. Not only does your position fail from an economic standpoint, it fails from a legal standpoint as well.

:lol:
Click to expand...

the house of cards collapses after a certain time. no revenues destroys the power to borrow.

tell me why you are such a fan of big government.
 
TurtleDude said:
the house of cards collapses after a certain time. no revenues destroys the power to borrow.
Click to expand...

We aren't talking no revenue, we are talking increased deficits, to which the U.S. economy has shown tremendous ability to absorb. But now you are stuck in a tough place... own deficit hypocrisy for 8 years. Hmmm....

tell me why you are such a fan of big government.
Click to expand...

I'm not really a fan of deficits during periods of (sustained) low economic growth and +2% inflation. If that means larger government then so be it.
 
jaeger19 said:
Hmmm didn't you just argue for the effectiveness of the mortgage interest credit in "getting people to spend" on buying a house:
Click to expand...

I didn't argue for its effectiveness, I pointed out it's stated purpose.

So is it effective in getting people to buy houses when they normally wouldn't.. or is it not effective? You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Again, wasn't supporting its effacy.

I would suggest that if you are buying a house you normally wouldn't buy.. but are doing so because of a tax policy.. then you are buying a house you shouldn;t be buying (thus eventually a boom and bust).



I am trying to be nice.

Most Birds fly.. so do airplanes.

Would you suggest that because of that similarity.. it makes sense that they would respond similarly to the same public policy?

Your " they can be affected by tax policy".. means they are about as similar as birds are to airplanes.
Click to expand...

Really? Well, since temperature, pressure, speed, and wing design affect both birds and airplanes, I guess you're agreeing with me that tax policy can be used to encourage chosen behaviors with both mortgages and wages.



no its not. Its about behavior..and what that behavior does to supply , demand, and a global economy.. \\
\
.
Oh we might.. but since doing so would be "just numbers".. the actual overall effect would likely be disastrous.
Click to expand...

Now you're just being difficult.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 
haymarket said:
We need to stop discriminating on the source of the money one places in their pocket and simply tax ALL money according to the same tax schedule.

A couple getting $10 million in inheritance pays ZERO on that money.
A couple getting $10 million in capital gains through investments pays 15% on that money.
A couple getting $10 million through salary pays 39% on that money.

That is inherently wrong and should stop with everyone paying from the same schedule on the same amount.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think everyone should pay the same as the one getting the inheritance.
 
LesGovt said:
I agree. I think everyone should pay the same as the one getting the inheritance.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. I despise the attitude that the government deserves a cut
 
TurtleDude said:
l

severely limits congressional extra-constitutional power.
Click to expand...

Penalizing spending in a country where 75% of the GDP is consumer spending would be a disaster. You only want it because most your earnings would go untaxed.
 
jaeger19 said:
\

Yep.. and here is where again you liberals are as bad as the right wingers. So when you realize that your argument doesn't work.. you start an argument and make up a position for me that I don't have.

so get ready...

NO.. CUTTING TAXES ACROSS THE BOARD IS LIKELY NOT SUSTAINABLE

got it? Now if the effective tax rate was something like 23% of GDP.. and we were dropping to our historical rate of around 18% of GDP.. well then.. that might be sustainable.

But this current proposal by republicans is not sustainable.

So don't tell me.. "that is whats wrong with your mentality". Stop your crap.



Well. and now you have fewer businesses that it would even apply to.. because when the income becomes over a million.. you start talking about more C corps than S corps and sole proprietorships and then you aren;t talking about pass through taxes.. Its a different tax animal. now what you tax me as an individual has little effect on a C corps behavior.

(have Jasper explain it to you.. he will tell you I am correct).



Actually it was mostly politics. to make you think the wealthy was paying way more.. when in reality.. not really. If you look back to what the country paid en mass.. it was about 16-17% of GDP during most of those times with higher rates. AND the poor and middle class paid a higher percentage of taxes. the reality is that effectively.. the wealthy were not paying any 80% for the most part.



You make the assumption that it will cause an increase in demand. That depends on the industry. it may simply cause inflation.. so the same number of widgets need to be produced.. (no need for more workers).. but now those widgets simply cost more.

It depends on how those wages are increased. IF wages are increased because there is more demand for my product.. and I pay more in wages to higher more skilled people to feed that demand.. and that happens on a national scale.. (as it did after WWII).. yeah.. that increase in overall wages will continue to spur demand. I agree it feeds back.

but you are basically simply injecting money back into the economy and saying.. "x will happen" and doing it in an artificial way.



Absolutely.. and some of that has to do with our tax policy.. encouraging people to take out bigger loans for homes.. because of the "tax advantages".
Click to expand...

Thanks you for agreeing with me that CEO's did not and would not take multi-million salaries when tax rates were much higher. They would have been nuts if they did. So what did they do with their profits? They spent it on business expansion and wages for their employees that is what. The when Reagan came in and called them "Job creators" and drastically cut their taxes, everything changed. It is all there in the data you just refuse to see it. Oh and we have a surplus of production worldwide and there is plenty of money for expansion if demand requires it. Inflation is well below Fed targets too. What is missing is capital in the hands of the 90%.
 
LesGovt said:
I agree. I think everyone should pay the same as the one getting the inheritance.
Click to expand...

As long as those inheriting have their money treated the same way everybody else does who earns it via work - no problem.

If that is some way you have come up with to criticize taxation in general - this nation does not operate on such personal selfishness nor is it a sane and rational program for society.
 
TurtleDude said:
you are out of your league when you want to argue political power issues, a NST takes away much of congressional extra-constitutional power that congress grabbed with the 16th amendment. Its time start rolling back the idiotic expansion of the federal government and reforming the tax system is an important part of that
Click to expand...
Are you really seriously thinking that the income tax should be repealed? Good luck with that.

don%20quixote.gif
 
Last edited:
MTAtech said:
I am merely stating that how different sources of income are taxed are arbitrarily decided by political decisions in legislatures, not taken down on stone tablets from Mt. Sinai. There is no reason that said legislatures couldn't decide that lottery winnings are capital gains (or not taxed at all) or that inheritance is ordinary income. Law already decides that life insurance benefits aren't taxed as income.
Click to expand...

That's true. My point was that all income is taxable unless specifically excluded, so IRS doesn't declare something taxable. If it's "income" it's taxable, unless Congress decided to make it tax free.

For estate and gifts, it would be enough for Congress to repeal that part of the code, and every transfer is fully taxed as ordinary income.

I agree with what you're saying - ultimately Congress can decide anything they want, really. But a big reason why the income tax works as well as it does is Congress and IRS don't have to go around declaring income is taxable. If it's income it is. Their job is limited to deciding what types of income to give special treatment.
 
haymarket said:
As long as those inheriting have their money treated the same way everybody else does who earns it via work - no problem.

If that is some way you have come up with to criticize taxation in general - this nation does not operate on such personal selfishness nor is it a sane and rational program for society.
Click to expand...

If given 100% of earning, people could get the great feelings from giving to charity. That is selflessness. Taking money from one group of people to give to another group of people is greed.
 
MTAtech said:
Are you really seriously thinking that the income tax should be repealed? Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

yes it should be. it would strip congress of lots of extra-constitutional power
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Penalizing spending in a country where 75% of the GDP is consumer spending would be a disaster. You only want it because most your earnings would go untaxed.
Click to expand...

the income tax penalizes spending and worse it penalizes savings
 
TurtleDude said:
yes it should be. it would strip congress of lots of extra-constitutional power
Click to expand...

The 16A made the federal income tax (FIT) constitutional, however, the 16A says nothing about basing the taxation of income from all sources on how or upon who that income was later spent which is now the bulk of the FIT code.
 
TurtleDude said:
yes it should be. it would strip congress of lots of extra-constitutional power
Click to expand...

Right...
Take away the funding to run the federal government.

I have a book recommendation for you:
 
TurtleDude said:
the income tax penalizes spending and worse it penalizes savings
Click to expand...

While that is true, if the federal income tax were dropped our existing infrastructure would deteriorate quickly, and our military would fall apart because the soldiers wouldn't get paid and the various weapons in our arsenal would never get replaced of updated.

Even if you exclude "entitlements", the federal government needs some revenue to function properly.

Shifting the burden to the states would be inconsistent. Some states like NY, MA, CA could function independently, but others that are more dependent on federal dollars (e.g. ND, Alabama) would probably end up imploding.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...tates-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/
 
MTAtech said:
Right...
Take away the funding to run the federal government.

I have a book recommendation for you:
Click to expand...

RINO BS

limit the spending, not take it away
 
LesGovt said:
If given 100% of earning, people could get the great feelings from giving to charity. That is selflessness. Taking money from one group of people to give to another group of people is greed.
Click to expand...

You need your own island where you can make laws that are radically different than almost every nation that I know of in this world.

No - its not called GREED .....Actually that is called a decent working civilization that recognizes it is not all about ME ME ME ME ME ME at the expense of everybody else.

So before we had any sort of income tax system both government and the poor were supported at todays levels?
 
beancounter said:
While that is true, if the federal income tax were dropped our existing infrastructure would deteriorate quickly, and our military would fall apart because the soldiers wouldn't get paid and the various weapons in our arsenal would never get replaced of updated.

Even if you exclude "entitlements", the federal government needs some revenue to function properly.

Shifting the burden to the states would be inconsistent. Some states like NY, MA, CA could function independently, but others that are more dependent on federal dollars (e.g. ND, Alabama) would probably end up imploding.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...tates-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/
Click to expand...

we'd cut back on crap that is not properly constitutional, and most importantly, the low wattage masses would start voting against politicians who used to pander to them with promises of handouts paid for by tax hikes on the rich
 
TurtleDude said:
income tax is anti-savings. a NST would reward savings.
Click to expand...

Opinion noted and rejected as sheer nonsense.

You've been informed of your error on multiple occasions.

consump21.gif


Flat taxes on either consumption or income are a de facto drag on consumption for those who don't have savings. Nevertheless, savings is already compensated via return of interest and/or capital appreciation.
 
Kushinator said:
Opinion noted and rejected as sheer nonsense.

You've been informed of your error on multiple occasions.

consump21.gif


Flat taxes on either consumption or income are a de facto drag on consumption for those who don't have savings. Nevertheless, savings is already compensated via return of interest and/or capital appreciation.
Click to expand...

more nonsense. if the income tax was eliminated the built in cost of that tax on goods would disappear. you never ever want to deal with the power angle of the income tax and that is what I want to eliminate and the ability of congress to pander with the tax
 
beancounter said:
While that is true, if the federal income tax were dropped our existing infrastructure would deteriorate quickly, and our military would fall apart because the soldiers wouldn't get paid and the various weapons in our arsenal would never get replaced of updated.
Click to expand...

Government can still borrow.

Even if you exclude "entitlements", the federal government needs some revenue to function properly.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But to what degree is unknown.

Shifting the burden to the states would be inconsistent. Some states like NY, MA, CA could function independently, but others that are more dependent on federal dollars (e.g. ND, Alabama) would probably end up imploding.
Click to expand...

TD is arguing for flat taxation on either consumption and/or income.
 
For everytime TD says the poor are envious, he really means that the rich are greedy. There is no argument that will sway him because his position is not founded in sound logic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom