• 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?

I understand perfectly-you want people to pay based on their ability (from each according to their ability). I reject that. If you receive the same value you ought to pay the same but I will accept paying the same percentage even if that means the second guy pays many times more for the same value

Also, I don't want people to pay according to their ability ... I just don't see the point in taxing those who have no money to be taxed ... how is that going to help anything? I am looking at the big picture, taxing those who have nothing will only keep them in poverty ... what is your reasoning to taxing those who have nothing? what do we gain from it? what utility does it have?
 
Last edited:
The overwhelming majority of average people in both of these countries lives in poverty with a small percentage of people living in luxury. Ultimately, capitalism ends in some type of feudalism.

I would have said UNBRIDLED capitalism, but I agree with you...
As long as the capitalists run the politicians and the politicians run the country, we are in trouble...

Our kids are grown, ages 38 and 40. I tell them to invest where they live, in their homes. Pay off ALL debt as soon as possible, don't incur any other debt. If you have debt other than a mortgage, you should not be investing in the stock market...
Like they say, gamble only with money you can afford to lose...
 
You just don't get it. You are blind to philosophies that reject your belief that the main issue is cost imposed on a person. What is really selfish is saying those who can afford more taxes (based on your belief that they don't need all that "extra money") havea duty to not only pay what they use but to pay for thousands of others. You are far more selfish than me because you want to impose massive costs on others merely because they are more industrious than you are. You reject the entire concept of paying your share for what you get

Please TurtleDude, don't assume you know what I am thinking unless I have said it .. that is very rude. If you want to know what I am thinking and why I see things the way I do, just ask me.

Secondly, as I posted above, please help me understand the utility in taxing those who have nothing? i.e. what good does it do?
 
If you understood what I am saying, I don't think you would think that the wealth are heavily burdened by paying more taxes than the poor .. I mean seriously ... do you think its such a burden to the wealthy? Give me a break! Are you basing your opinion on some illogical ideological principle that is completely selfish in nature, or do care at all about your fellow man/woman?
I know a fellow like TD, his kids are parasites....they live off him. That is fine for now, but eventually he will pass and his kids will have to fend for themselves, or live on the public dole. Guess which is more likely....
 
So India is an example of true free market capitalism aye?. Again, you are not providing fully truthful information, no one is arguing that capitalism does not have is positive qualities ... however, you seem to refuse to admit that capitalism needs to be regulated .. am I hearing you argument correctly?
Who is debating "true free market capitalism"? I'm not. And why did you mix "true" in with free market? And why then tack on capitalism too? Clearly I wrote about economic capitalism.

Similar to this:
Originally Posted by sangha
Private enterprise alone does not make a system capitalism

Are you guys really arguing about "true free markets" not existing? The same is done with "True marxist states", or "true socialist regimes". It's absurd to argue about that sort of thing. Forgive me if I assumed that just couldn't be what you're debating.
 
You just don't get it. You are blind to philosophies that reject your belief that the main issue is cost imposed on a person. What is really selfish is saying those who can afford more taxes (based on your belief that they don't need all that "extra money") havea duty to not only pay what they use but to pay for thousands of others. You are far more selfish than me because you want to impose massive costs on others merely because they are more industrious than you are. You reject the entire concept of paying your share for what you get

Rightwingers just don't get it. They are blind to philosophies that reject their belief that the main issue is cost imposed on a person. What is really selfish is saying those who can afford more taxes (based on their belief that they are entitled to all that "extra money") have no duty to pay their fair share and stop stealing from others. They are far more selfish than anyone else because they want to impose massive costs on the middle class merely because they are more industrious than the rich are. They reject the entire concept of paying their fair share, so they claim that people should pay for what they use even though they can't even explain how that works
 
As long as the capitalists run the politicians and the politicians run the country, we are in trouble...
OK. Let me ask you this Utah. If politicians had less power over us, i.e. were less able to "run our lives", would that not be a reasonable solution to your proposed problem?
Capitalist run politicians, but politicans can't effectively run our lives...problem solved? For that matter, why would they invest so much time and energy into controlling politicians if it didn't get them results anyway.

Consider the federal budget, can we cut that by 50% and still keep strong corporate regulation and enforcement, considering the largest budget items are not related to regulation and enforcement?
 
Last edited:
Who is debating "true free market capitalism"? I'm not. And why did you mix "true" in with free market? And why then tack on capitalism too? Clearly I wrote about economic capitalism.

The rightwingers in this thread. Their free market ideology is what they base their objections to a progressive tax on


Are you guys really arguing about "true free markets" not existing? The same is done with "True marxist states", or "true socialist regimes". It's absurd to argue about that sort of thing. Forgive me if I assumed that just couldn't be what you're debating.

The only ones who claim that these "true marxist" and "true socialist" states exist are the rightwingers who are pushing for a "true free market". And yes, their arguments are absurd

The most absurd was claiming that China and India were examples of a free market economy
 
The rightwingers in this thread. Their free market ideology is what they base their objections to a progressive tax on




The only ones who claim that these "true marxist" and "true socialist" states exist are the rightwingers who are pushing for a "true free market". And yes, their arguments are absurd

The most absurd was claiming that China and India were examples of a free market economy

Exactly, and the word "true" had to be added because these people arguing that China and India were free markets couldn't understand that while these were examples of economies that had qualities of the theory of a free market, these were indeed not examples of free markets in the truest sense of the theory.
 
You're dodging. Stop. This directly addresses your post
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/104392-do-you-want-higher-taxes-40.html#post1059662383


Answered:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy...ublic_of_China


China was centrally planned (under communism of course) and was stagnant for decades.
They added capitalism to their markets and it EXPLODED, taking their poverty rate from 53% to 2.5%. Freedom good eh?

Of course that's just one example. Freedoms in the marketplace are prone to lifting entire populations out of poverty, improving quality of life, giving more people political and social power, etc.


So is your point that free markets operating under Communism work better than free markets operating under a Democracy?
 
I understand perfectly-you want people to pay based on their ability (from each according to their ability). I reject that. If you receive the same value you ought to pay the same but I will accept paying the same percentage even if that means the second guy pays many times more for the same value


The blood from a turnip plan. Balance the budget on the backs of the poor! Just the kind of plan we have come to expect from you! :sun
 
yeah-the sad part is that some of them keep pretending they want it for the good of the nation rather than out of envy or to pander to the losers

Again with this crap?

It's honestly hard for me to imagine that someone can survive living off of such stereotypical views. But I guess that's because I don't stereotype people.

I envy you nor anyone wealthy their wealth.

If these so-called "job creators" are creating jobs and doing good for America, why does the economy suck so much? If these current tax rates are so good for us, why does everything stink so much?

Cutting taxes didn't create jobs in 2001 or 2003, just as raising taxes in 1993 didn't kill jobs as we were told.

The only thing that can create jobs is demand for products and services. The rich clearly aren't spending enough of their money right now - and there's a reason for that. There is only so much a person CAN spend.

A hedge fund manager making $1 Billion a year has a much smaller stimulative impact on our economy than the 200 families making $50,000 a year do.

This whole argument is about making this nation work its best for the most people - instead of simply looking out for approximately 1% of the country.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
If these so-called "job creators" are creating jobs and doing good for America, why does the economy suck so much? If these current tax rates are so good for us, why does everything stink so much?

Cutting taxes didn't create jobs in 2001 or 2003, just as raising taxes in 1993 didn't kill jobs as we were told.

So whenever a politician suggests government should create jobs, call bull****. Government doesn't create jobs.

This whole argument is about making this nation work its best for the most people - instead of simply looking out for approximately 1% of the country.

Consumers look out for the 1% by buying from their corporations and electing the puppet-type leaders.
 
The blood from a turnip plan. Balance the budget on the backs of the poor! Just the kind of plan we have come to expect from you! :sun

some gaping stupidity in that post. You fail to grasp two concepts

1) many of those not paying any federal income taxes are not poor

2) allowing people to continue to demand more and more government without making them pay anything for that only leads to more and more government and more and more spending
 
some gaping stupidity in that post.

From your perspective that the working class are parasites, I can see how you reach that delusion.

You fail to grasp two concepts

1) many of those not paying any federal income taxes are not poor

That is being looked at by both sides in the tax reform discussions.

2) allowing people to continue to demand more and more government without making them pay anything for that only leads to more and more government and more and more spending

We are in agreement there, if the rich had not received tax breaks for the last 3 decades we would not have spent near as much. Our unfunded ME wars are the biggest examples of that wasteful spending. Who ever heard of cutting peoples taxes with 2 decade long wars?
 
From your perspective that the working class are parasites, I can see how you reach that delusion.



That is being looked at by both sides in the tax reform discussions.



We are in agreement there, if the rich had not received tax breaks for the last 3 decades we would not have spent near as much. Our unfunded ME wars are the biggest examples of that wasteful spending. Who ever heard of cutting peoples taxes with 2 decade long wars?

that last comment is really stupid. you cannot prove it and your constant rants about the rich are pathetic

the "war on poverty" has cost billions more than any real war since that nonsense started and all it has done is created millions of dependent addicts
 
some gaping stupidity in that post. You fail to grasp two concepts

1) many of those not paying any federal income taxes are not poor

2) allowing people to continue to demand more and more government without making them pay anything for that only leads to more and more government and more and more spending

1) many of those not paying any FIT are Fortune 500 corporations
2) allowing the rich to demand more and more government without making them pay anything for that only leads to increased deficits and debt, and lower job creation
 
that last comment is really stupid. you cannot prove it and your constant rants about the rich are pathetic

the "war on poverty" has cost billions more than any real war since that nonsense started and all it has done is created millions of dependent addicts

that last comment is really stupid. you cannot prove it and your constant rants about the middle class are pathetic

the "war on poverty" has cost trillions less than real war since that nonsense started and all it has lifted millions out of poverty
 
during the hubub over the possible Federal govt. shutdown, ABC News pointed out that the Tea-Party plan to reduce the deficit did NOT include any cuts in farm-subsidies, much of which goes to wealthy agro-businesses, and even wealthy GOP farmers in Congress.

lovely how that works, right?

these Conservatives want to cut Medicaid and Medicare, but don't you DARE touch their farm subsidies!!!!!

;)
 
Again with this crap?

It's honestly hard for me to imagine that someone can survive living off of such stereotypical views. But I guess that's because I don't stereotype people.

I envy you nor anyone wealthy their wealth.

If these so-called "job creators" are creating jobs and doing good for America, why does the economy suck so much? If these current tax rates are so good for us, why does everything stink so much?

Cutting taxes didn't create jobs in 2001 or 2003, just as raising taxes in 1993 didn't kill jobs as we were told.

The only thing that can create jobs is demand for products and services. The rich clearly aren't spending enough of their money right now - and there's a reason for that. There is only so much a person CAN spend.

A hedge fund manager making $1 Billion a year has a much smaller stimulative impact on our economy than the 200 families making $50,000 a year do.

This whole argument is about making this nation work its best for the most people - instead of simply looking out for approximately 1% of the country.

Your post is either the product of ignorance or willful blindness. This board teems with people who are whining about the rich and whether you want to call it envy, class hatred or just butt hurt boo hoo whining because they are mad others are rich and they are not, its the same thing

here are some recent examples (in addition to Haymarket's malignant hatred of the rich contained in the signature quote)


The Ebenezer Scrooge depiction

True. And everything most of this board is throwing against raising taxes is just an attempt to muddy the issues. The truth of what has happened to the wealth of this country. The wealthiest people on this board only have holdings. *they say* They don't have true wealth, i.e., intelligence, wisdom, insight, compassion, comprehension; the list goes on. But what they do have, they intend to keep. If all I had put me on the same playing field as Ebenezer Scrooge, I'd be hanging on for dear life as well.

Here we have the paranoid populist rant

Do you think the "playing field" is level? that the games aren't rigged? Wall Street is the new face of organized crime, with a complicit congress participating in the cover-up. The president COULD appoint special prosecutors to go after those guilty of betraying the public trust, but that would create a panic in the market, not something we need right now, but should be done anyway.

Blame the rich for millions losing jobs

Rightwingers believe that the economy is doing fine, even if millions have lost their jobs. Just as long as the rich keeping making money.

whining about the rich making money

What you call "wealth redistribution", we call "undoing the systematic abuse and oppression." Wealth is redistributed in a pure capitalist society, too. It's just only redistributed to the rich from the poor.

the if You are rich you exploited someone nonsense

Or those who benefited from the hard work of others paying back the spoils they reaped. It's funny because you'd have to be lying to yourself to not see how anything we gain requires taking it from another. I can go back and see where I have taken from others in order to get ahead, and I'm not wealthy at all. And I have never heard of anyone who did not follow this maxim. Ever.

here is a good one-an implied threat of violent looting of the wealthy


And later we get the obligatory right wing posts from gun worshippers bragging what good shots they are, how many weapons they own, descriptions of those weapons as if they were looking at a Playboy centerfold, and reproductions of their marksmanship ratings and abilities.

And that is suppose to keep the people at bay.

some populist ranting at the financial sector


success? like Bernie Madoff? and all the other criminals/leeches on Wall Street?
 
..This board teems with people who are whining about the rich and whether you want to call it envy, class hatred or just butt hurt boo hoo whining because they are mad others are rich and they are not, its the same thing..

what about the supposed rich-folks who whine about paying an additional.....OMG....3% in income taxes?
 
here are some recent examples


The Ebenezer Scrooge depiction



Here we have the paranoid populist rant



Blame the rich for millions losing jobs



whining about the rich making money



the if You are rich you exploited someone nonsense



here is a good one-an implied threat of violent looting of the wealthy




some populist ranting at the financial sector

You didn't include me in your listing of patriots above, I'm hurt. :sun
 
what about the supposed rich-folks who whine about paying an additional.....OMG....3% in income taxes?

If the rich have to pay a little more, the earth will stop turning on its axis, half the world population will die off, and the GOP will blame the democrats for all of it.
Funny how we have the LOWEST tax rates ever and the unemployment rate is still too high...
But cutting taxes creates jobs, right? Seems like some oxymorons are at work here...
 
during the hubub over the possible Federal govt. shutdown, ABC News pointed out that the Tea-Party plan to reduce the deficit did NOT include any cuts in farm-subsidies, much of which goes to wealthy agro-businesses, and even wealthy GOP farmers in Congress.

lovely how that works, right?

these Conservatives want to cut Medicaid and Medicare, but don't you DARE touch their farm subsidies!!!!!

;)

Well, that's pretty understandable

Anti-socialist Bachmann got $250K in federal farm subsidies - On Congress - POLITICO.com
 
Back
Top Bottom