• 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!

Do You Want Higher Taxes?

Badmutha said:
Me and Ben will not budge....

"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."
.
.
.
Click to expand...

Could not agree more with this statement.

The following is my understanding of my State's welfare program:

Currently, there are built in rewards for the poor to make more money (at least in my State; see below for an example). However, there are consequences for making too much money. Families can easily use thousands of dollars worth of government food stamps, housing assistance and healthcare. Unfortunately, families can make say $1,000 more during a year and loose state assistance. In other words, if a family is using $4,000 worth of state healthcare, then someone gets a raise (for example) putting their household income $1,000 more than they made before, they are suddenly taken of state healthcare and are down $3,000 per year. If the family understands this concept and they are already barely scraping by (which is the case when on welfare), they are likely to avoid making that extra $1,000 in order to avoid loosing $3,000 in welfare. Therefore, if this ceiling were not in place, and those on welfare were not penalized for making more money, I believe more people would be making efforts to come off welfare.

The built in reward (which many are not aware of ) is that for programs that are based on percentiles, e.g. there is a housing assistance program in which those approved pay only 30% of their income toward rent, there is incentive to make more money. For example, the below two income levels and budgets are simplified versions of the "built in reward system":

Family 1:
Income = $12,000 per year ($1,000 per month)

Rent = $300

This family would be left with $700 per month for the rest of their bills.

Family 2:
Income = $24,000 per year ($2,000 per month)

Rent = $600 per month

This family would be left with $11400 per month for the rest of their bills (that is double what family 1 has leftover for their bills). Therefore, under this program there are clearly benefits to making more money ... of course until you make a few hundred over the cut-off.

I am not sure if there are any built in tax reduction benefits for making more money in the lower income brackets, but if they do exist, I am not aware of them and obviously state workers should be educating those on welfare of such tax rewards (if they exist), as I have talked to many families and they do not know of such benefits. Additionally, most families are not aware of the built in rewards that are in place (see above) and thus social workers should be educating families about them.
 
Helvidius said:
I doubt most people want higher taxes for themselves. They want others to have higher taxes.
Click to expand...

TheDemSocialist said:
I believe in an extreme form of progressive taxation. The more you make the more you are taxed...
So yes i would like to see taxes raised.
Click to expand...

I guess socialism is a good thing if you get to live off other people's income.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Yep they are gonna hurt and get a big punishment if the riches taxes are raised. Such a punishment i feel so bad for them...


Yep the poor, middle and working class are just a bunch of failures arent they? Just failed at life...



Your a socialist now!
Welcome Comrade!
Click to expand...

I am not sure that they are understanding what you mean by progressive taxation. As we both know .. it is not a punishment at all! Lol! For example, under progressive taxation, someone who makes say $900,000 one year and $1,000,000 the next is not disallowed to make more money on the second year .. instead, the percent they are taxed is slightly higher. Therefore, they still make their big bucks and those who haven't inherited millions (not that all millionaires inherit there wealth, only to point out the fact that things have been uneven since the beginning of our society) won't starve and may have a roof over their heads.
 
Badmutha said:
Punish Success--Reward Failure........thats the spirit comrade.
Click to expand...

There's something you fail to appreciate: sometimes we rightfully punish success and reward failure. For instance, if I am successful at killing a bunch of innocent people, I am punished. If I am unsuccessful, my reward is a much lighter sentence compared to what I would have gotten. Ditto someone who rips a bunch of people off as compared to someone who tries but fails.

I think it's at least the perception of quite a few people that most of the wealthy people in America got their wealth by theft. Which means that they ought to be punished if that supposition is correct (a principle with which you agree, I would assume).

As for the poll answer: yes, I believe taxes should be raised on the wealthy and corporations. I'm not in the top tax brackets any more, but I used to be, and I supported those policies then, and willingly donated my money.
 
ashurbanipal said:
There's something you fail to appreciate: sometimes we rightfully punish success and reward failure. For instance, if I am successful at killing a bunch of innocent people, I am punished. If I am unsuccessful, my reward is a much lighter sentence compared to what I would have gotten. Ditto someone who rips a bunch of people off as compared to someone who tries but fails.

I think it's at least the perception of quite a few people that most of the wealthy people in America got their wealth by theft. Which means that they ought to be punished if that supposition is correct (a principle with which you agree, I would assume).

As for the poll answer: yes, I believe taxes should be raised on the wealthy and corporations. I'm not in the top tax brackets any more, but I used to be, and I supported those policies then, and willingly donated my money.
Click to expand...

I am not sure if you are being facetious or not, but I certainly do not believe that the rich stole their money. I do believe that many have inherited their wealth though. I also prescribe to an ethic that states that if you hoard so much money .. to the point of allowing others to starve .. you are actually indirectly murdering. This is the short but sweet version of the ethical stance .. but that's the idea.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
I am not sure if you are being facetious or not, but I certainly do not believe that the rich stole their money. I do believe that many have inherited their wealth though. I also prescribe to an ethic that states that if you hoard so much money .. to the point of allowing others to starve .. you are actually indirectly murdering. This is the short but sweet version of the ethical stance .. but that's the idea.
Click to expand...

how does hoarding what you earned cause anyone else to starve?
 
I can't understand why people focus so much on how much poor people cost society with the current amount of corporate welfare and bail outs for the rich. If poor people are to pay for their own health care, there needs to be jobs that provide a decent wages and benefits to support families. Otherwise, some agency has to step in, at least for the kids.
 
TurtleDude said:
how does hoarding what you earned cause anyone else to starve?
Click to expand...

Its very simple actually. If there are plenty of resources for all and someone hoards most of them .. then they are keeping those resources from others.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Its very simple actually. If there are plenty of resources for all and someone hoards most of them .. then they are keeping those resources from others.
Click to expand...

so you are saying someone who accumulates wealth by earning it has taken something from those who are unable to earn it themselves.

like the world is one big grocery store and the rich go in and grab all the food before those poor people even can get in the doors?
 
MusicAdventurer said:
It involves the concept of sharing resources, versus being stingy with them.
Click to expand...

"sharing"

you mean from each according to their ability?

so its bad to compete and succeed? do you believe in a zero sum game? that wealth is limited?
 
TurtleDude said:
so you are saying someone who accumulates wealth by earning it has taken something from those who are unable to earn it themselves.

like the world is one big grocery store and the rich go in and grab all the food before those poor people even can get in the doors?
Click to expand...

In its most simple form .. that is exactly what I am saying. Using the word "earn" instead of "accumulate", or "hoard" does not change the reality of the situation. Its simple, if some are better at swooping into the "grocery store" and taking more food than they can eat (letting that food go to waste) and as a result people starve due to the "grocery store" being depleted, they have indirectly engaged in killing.
 
TurtleDude said:
socialism is a pipe dream that appeals to losers and those who pander to them
Click to expand...
Since we've had a income tax, it's always been a progressive income tax. So according to TD, the U.S. is a bunch of losers?
 
TurtleDude said:
"sharing"

you mean from each according to their ability?

so its bad to compete and succeed? do you believe in a zero sum game? that wealth is limited?
Click to expand...

"to each according to their ability" .. I am not sure what you mean by that .. are you quoting something .. it seems familiar?

I do not believe it is bad to compete .. I believe it is good to better ones self .. only not to the point of starving others ... does this answer your question?
 
pbrauer said:
Since we've had a income tax, it's always been a progressive income tax. So according to TD, the U.S. is a bunch of losers?
Click to expand...

I know right? Lol! I will cut TD some slack though .. as there was a time in my adult life that I did not know that the U.S. has always used a progressive income tax :).
 
MusicAdventurer said:
In its most simple form .. that is exactly what I am saying. Using the word "earn" instead of "accumulate", or "hoard" does not change the reality of the situation. Its simple, if some are better at swooping into the "grocery store" and taking more food than they can eat (letting that food go to waste) and as a result people starve due to the "grocery store" being depleted, they have indirectly engaged in killing.
Click to expand...


so those who do well have a duty to feed those who are either lazy or incompetent?

what value do the producers get for feeding those who are unable to do that for themselves?
 
pbrauer said:
Since we've had a income tax, it's always been a progressive income tax. So according to TD, the U.S. is a bunch of losers?
Click to expand...

well it has always appealed to losers and those who gain power from their votes
 
TurtleDude said:
so you are saying someone who accumulates wealth by earning it has taken something from those who are unable to earn it themselves.

like the world is one big grocery store and the rich go in and grab all the food before those poor people even can get in the doors?
Click to expand...

Investors aren't earning money in the sense that they actually work for it. They use certain variables in their favor to build wealth by speculation. The economy favors those with capital to invest. It takes money to make money. Other people are merely a resource to be exploited. To claim that investors (the wealthiest class in society who consequently pay a lower percentage of their "income" in taxes) earn money is rather moronic.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
"to each according to their ability" .. I am not sure what you mean by that .. are you quoting something .. it seems familiar?

I do not believe it is bad to compete .. I believe it is good to better ones self .. only not to the point of starving others ... does this answer your question?
Click to expand...


I think there is plenty out there for those willing to work

its why all those dirt poor illegals come here and they aren't starving. and most of them arent on the dole
 
evanescence said:
Investors aren't earning money in the sense that they actually work for it. They use certain variables in their favor to build wealth by speculation. The economy favors those with capital to invest. It takes money to make money. Other people are merely a resource to be exploited. To claim that investors (the wealthiest class in society who consequently pay a lower percentage of their "income" in taxes) earn money is rather moronic.
Click to expand...
but you assume most investors are filthy rich

and you fail to understand that jacking up taxes on investment income is going to hurt just about everyone except the feelings of the envious who aren't smart enough to have investment income
 
TurtleDude said:
I think there is plenty out there for those willing to work

its why all those dirt poor illegals come here and they aren't starving. and most of them arent on the dole
Click to expand...

You have a good point .. only I am not sure that most of the top earners work as hard as immigrants. Still, the concept stays the same, hurting others by hoarding is not O.K. - whether its starvation, no health care, no shelter, substandard living etc.
 
TurtleDude said:
but you assume most investors are filthy rich

and you fail to understand that jacking up taxes on investment income is going to hurt just about everyone except the feelings of the envious who aren't smart enough to have investment income
Click to expand...

I am interested in why you think taxing the wealthiest at higher percentiles is going to hurt everyone?
 
MusicAdventurer said:
You have a good point .. only I am not sure that most of the top earners work as hard as immigrants. Still, the concept stays the same, hurting others by hoarding is not O.K. - whether its starvation, no health care, no shelter, substandard living etc.
Click to expand...


nature-you work and get food or you starve. no one really starves in the USA. there are plenty of charities. we subsidize sloth because that creates dependence on some politicians
 
MusicAdventurer said:
I am interested in why you think taxing the wealthiest at higher percentiles is going to hurt everyone?
Click to expand...

because in the long run too many people become used to thinking that it is the duty of the rich to pay all the bills so those who don't keep demanding more and more spending
 
TurtleDude said:
nature-you work and get food or you starve. no one really starves in the USA. there are plenty of charities. we subsidize sloth because that creates dependence on some politicians
Click to expand...

Sounds great .... the majority of those without inherited money: work hard, very hard and get a pittance for a wage ... and for those with inherited money: work little and hoard ridiculous amounts of money .... sounds like a great plan aye?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom