• 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!

The "Tax The Rich" Delusion on the Left

telling a million people they will get say free healthcare and it will be paid for by jacking up the taxes on the top 3% or so is buying votes. And if a STATE does that-what will happen=the takers will flock to that state and that state will have to keep raising taxes on the top 3%. And when it gets too parasitic, those being parasitized by politicians will leave the state. And then those politicians will have to figure a way to keep pandering to the public teat sucklers when those who paid for the milk are no longer under their jurisdiction. Left-wingers love the federal government doing this because its much harder to leave the USA than it is say california or NY

That's not how universal HC works. It must be nationwide for it to work and if the wealthy don't like the care they can pay for their own and we will use the profits to subsidize the rest of us. The costs per person will be less than we are paying now only the costs of "luxury" care will keep going up. It is a win win don't you agree? Oh and the wealthy will be paying the same tax on ALL their income like the rest of us too. We are swimming in capital and there is no need to incentivize it any longer.
 
Last edited:
We should switch over to a state system where the federal government handles foreign policy, military, trade, and civil rights. The states handle healthcare, welfare programs, education, regulations, etc. If we do need a federal policy in these areas, they should be only enacted with a super-majority.

That would be great, but unless we repeal the 16th and 17th amendments I see no chance of such happening. The Federal government should have NO direct dealings with the population, and Federal spending will only become controlled by returning to the States the duty to tax their citizens/residents proportionate to their population as originally intended, with the House representing the peoples wants and the Senate representing the States ability to provide the revenue to pay in full their proportionate share of the costs of a balanced Federal budget while still maintaining the spending by State and local governments with the remainder of tax revenue after paying their Federal bill. When people find each dollar of Federal spending results in a decrease of spending or an increase in their taxes at State and/or local government, they are mush more likely to apply controls on Federal spending when little or none of it is coming back home.
 
That's not how universal HC works. It must be nationwide for it to work and if the wealthy don't like the care they can pay for their own and we will use the profits to subsidize the rest of us. The costs per person will be less than we are paying now only the costs of "luxury" care will keep going up. It is a win win don't you agree?

exactly and that is why it is too bad Roberts decided to be clever and pretend it was a tax after he said it was a violation of the tenth amendment but was OK as a tax.
 
That would be great, but unless we repeal the 16th and 17th amendments I see no chance of such happening. The Federal government should have NO direct dealings with the population, and Federal spending will only become controlled by returning to the States the duty to tax their citizens/residents proportionate to their population as originally intended, with the House representing the peoples wants and the Senate representing the States ability to provide the revenue to pay in full their proportionate share of the costs of a balanced Federal budget while still maintaining the spending by State and local governments with the remainder of tax revenue after paying their Federal bill. When people find each dollar of Federal spending results in a decrease of spending or an increase in their taxes at State and/or local government, they are mush more likely to apply controls on Federal spending when little or none of it is coming back home.

LOL This is not the 18th Century and we certainly cannot afford the inefficiency of 50 bureaucracies and 50 different rules for every program. Medicare is the most popular HC program and also the most cost efficient for a reason, it is nationwide and Govt. run without profit motive. We must continue to support the UNITED States like our founders envisioned. Ever wonder why they didn't call us the "Independent States"? :lol: It's because even then they knew that would never work.
 
Last edited:
LOL This is not the 18th Century and we cannot afford the inefficiency of 50 bureaucracies and 50 different rules for every program. Medicare is the most popular HC program and also the most cost efficient for a reason, it is nationwide. We must continue to support the UNITED States like our founders envisioned. Ever wonder why they didn't call it the "Disjointed States"? :lol:

I said nothing at all about Medicare, and each State would be much more efficient in applying rules more fitting to their citizens needs/wants in a most efficient and cost effective way.
No, but ever wonder why they didn't call it the "United State of America"?
 
I said nothing at all about Medicare, and each State would be much more efficient in applying rules more fitting to their citizens needs/wants in a most efficient and cost effective way.
No, but ever wonder why they didn't call it the "United State of America"?

LOL You sound like you are still at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 There is nothing efficient about it and all "State Rights" are a result of our history not expedience which is why we have been correcting it for 200 years. If we are to remain a country we need to act like one.
 
Ah. So, candidates promising to pass laws that make the lives of voters better, is buying votes? What do you call it when billionaire donors fund candidates who promise to lower taxes on billionaire donors?

What we need is a more level tax rate that treats all equally, including the elimination of nearly all tax breaks.

The tax rate is actually too high for higher income people. They end up paying a smaller percentage than many because of the tax breaks they get.

Reduce tax rates and tax deductions both.
 
Yet 1000's still go hungry and you don't care. Shame on you.

I love the leftwing trump card. If we don't agree to socialist welfare income redistribution, we don't CARE if people go hungry. If we don't agree to ban guns, we don't "Care" if "children are killed". IF we don't want the federal government taking over our health care, we "don't care if people die without medical care"
 
telling a million people they will get say free healthcare and it will be paid for by jacking up the taxes on the top 3% or so is buying votes. And if a STATE does that-what will happen=the takers will flock to that state and that state will have to keep raising taxes on the top 3%. And when it gets too parasitic, those being parasitized by politicians will leave the state. And then those politicians will have to figure a way to keep pandering to the public teat sucklers when those who paid for the milk are no longer under their jurisdiction. Left-wingers love the federal government doing this because its much harder to leave the USA than it is say california or NY

Yet the left wonders why business and the rich are leaving California.
 
That would be great, but unless we repeal the 16th and 17th amendments I see no chance of such happening. The Federal government should have NO direct dealings with the population, and Federal spending will only become controlled by returning to the States the duty to tax their citizens/residents proportionate to their population as originally intended, with the House representing the peoples wants and the Senate representing the States ability to provide the revenue to pay in full their proportionate share of the costs of a balanced Federal budget while still maintaining the spending by State and local governments with the remainder of tax revenue after paying their Federal bill. When people find each dollar of Federal spending results in a decrease of spending or an increase in their taxes at State and/or local government, they are mush more likely to apply controls on Federal spending when little or none of it is coming back home.

We shouldn't repeal them, just modify them with another amendment.
 
What we need is a more level tax rate that treats all equally, including the elimination of nearly all tax breaks.

The tax rate is actually too high for higher income people. They end up paying a smaller percentage than many because of the tax breaks they get.

Reduce tax rates and tax deductions both.

the most important thing-the government cannot raise the taxes on a small group. any tax raise must impact everyone. that is the best way to reign in too much government. Why should the bottom 85% care if taxes are raised on the rich? hell, many of them vote for politicians who promise them more -that will be paid for by taxes on the rich.
 
Yet 1000's still go hungry and you don't care. Shame on you.

I'm a tough love type person. I am sick and tired of people feeling entitled, and people like you who believe in entitlements. The war on poverty must include mitigation, else it just gets worse with entitlement hand-outs.

There must be something to shame, or otherwise mitigate, those who have children when they cannot afford to raise them.

I am not the bad actor here. The bad actors are those who believe such irresponsibility is their right to take from others.
 
How would that work, exactly? Poor states, like Mississippi and Louisiana would fund their own versions of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Snap, without the tax base? What happens when people move from one state to another?

We have federal programs because it is uniform and doesn’t require 50 sets of rules.

I'd actually draw state lines so we'd have fewer states and those little states would be grouped together, maybe about 15 states. Nations in Europe already have an arrangement like this and an overall confederation, and it works fine. Poor states are not so poor when you factor in cost of living. We can set up something where rich states can help out poor states or set up national programs like universal healthcare but that would require a super-majority vote. So no more tax cuts imposed on the whole country because 51% supports them. Having a state-run system will allow liberal states to be as liberal as they want without having to deal with conservatives. Sounds pretty sweet to me.
 
I'm a tough love type person. I am sick and tired of people feeling entitled, and people like you who believe in entitlements. The war on poverty must include mitigation, else it just gets worse with entitlement hand-outs.

There must be something to shame, or otherwise mitigate, those who have children when they cannot afford to raise them.

I am not the bad actor here. The bad actors are those who believe such irresponsibility is their right to take from others.


I think Dr Thomas Sowell questioned why is it greedy to want to keep what you earned but not greedy to want others to pay for your upkeep?
 
I'm a tough love type person. I am sick and tired of people feeling entitled, and people like you who believe in entitlements. The war on poverty must include mitigation, else it just gets worse with entitlement hand-outs.

There must be something to shame, or otherwise mitigate, those who have children when they cannot afford to raise them.

I am not the bad actor here. The bad actors are those who believe such irresponsibility is their right to take from others.

Like I told the other Scrooge, there is no evidence that ignoring the plight of the impoverished helps eliminate the conditions that brought on their poverty. There is plenty of evidence for the reverse. Merry Christmas.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/30/poverty-negative-spiral-fear-self-loathing
 
Like I told the other Scrooge, there is no evidence that ignoring the plight of the impoverished helps eliminate the conditions that brought on their poverty. Merry Christmas.

so if people don't buy into socialist income redistribution, they are scrooges, while those who try to buy the love of the masses by taking money from others, are to be seen as altruistic?
 
the most important thing-the government cannot raise the taxes on a small group. any tax raise must impact everyone. that is the best way to reign in too much government. Why should the bottom 85% care if taxes are raised on the rich? hell, many of them vote for politicians who promise them more -that will be paid for by taxes on the rich.

Yep.

Those who pay a new zero or less in taxes have no dog in the fight, and will champion raising taxes. It must affect them too.

That is why for years now, I have advocated a one time mandatory increase of wages of 9.032%. We then take the employee and employer FICA payment and make the employee pay both sides of it.

Before, for every $100.00 earned:

FICA (medicare and SS): 0.0765%, leaves the employee with $92.35.

After, the $100 becomes $109.032.

0.0765% x 2 = 15.3%, leaving 84.7%

The employee keeps $109.032 x 84.7%, or $92.3501

The end result is the same. The employee see the actual cost of their employment in terms of what the government keeps. We rename this 15.3% tax, a social tax. It will be a tax that is the same rate from the first dollar, for everyone. When government needs to raise or lowerr taxes, they raise or lower this tax. A tax that affects all citizens, equal to their income.

This gives the lower class income people the same pain they with to impose on people like me.
 
Like I told the other Scrooge, there is no evidence that ignoring the plight of the impoverished helps eliminate the conditions that brought on their poverty. There is plenty of evidence for the reverse. Merry Christmas.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/30/poverty-negative-spiral-fear-self-loathing

It mitigates future actions. And to trust the perspective of The Guardian...

Wow...

So tell me. You disagree with my method of reducing people living in poverty. What is your solution that doesn't involve stealing from others?
 
LOL You sound like you are still at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 There is nothing efficient about it and all "State Rights" are a result of our history not expedience which is why we have been correcting it for 200 years. If we are to remain a country we need to act like one.

LOL The Constitutional Convention ended long ago, and our move to a more centralized form of government has brought about much corruption, fraud, and inefficiencies, while dividing us against one another more than any time in the past. If we are to remain a Country, we need to begin accepting the fact that we are ALL individuals, with differing opinions, needs, wants, abilities, shortcomings, etc. and recognize that government, and politicians in particular, only take advantage of our fighting amongst each other. Problems are best solved at their sources, NOT in Washington.
 
so if people don't buy into socialist income redistribution, they are scrooges, while those who try to buy the love of the masses by taking money from others, are to be seen as altruistic?

I hate it when politicians buy votes with tax dollars.
 
We shouldn't repeal them, just modify them with another amendment.

Repeal does not mean erase. That is essentially what would happen, like the 18th amendment which was repealed as a result of the 21st amendment. The words would forever remain in the document.
 
LOL The Constitutional Convention ended long ago, and our move to a more centralized form of government has brought about much corruption, fraud, and inefficiencies, while dividing us against one another more than any time in the past. If we are to remain a Country, we need to begin accepting the fact that we are ALL individuals, with differing opinions, needs, wants, abilities, shortcomings, etc. and recognize that government, and politicians in particular, only take advantage of our fighting amongst each other. Problems are best solved at their sources, NOT in Washington.

Actually what you are saying is the opposite of any Country no less the USA. It's sounds like a wild west free for all where the strong are free to prey on the weak, the rich free to use the poor. Some vision there... a real "City on the Hill" :lol: Besides there is far more "corruption" in State Govt. Too often gerrymandering and voter repression has kept minorities in power in States That's why we have a strong Federally enforced Bill of Rights because the Founders hated how the European aristocracy used it's poor. In order enforce our equal rights and freedoms in all States we need a strong Federal Govt. Weakening it endangers our rights....ask the Blacks in Mississippi.
 
Last edited:
Repeal does not mean erase. That is essentially what would happen, like the 18th amendment which was repealed as a result of the 21st amendment. The words would forever remain in the document.

I'm OK with repealing the 17th. I am in full favor of going back to state legislators deciding who to put in the senate. The 16th would require a replacement tax, without a serious disruption of the economy.
 
Back
Top Bottom