• 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!

Voluntary Tax

Would you Sign up for the Voluntary Tax


  • Total voters
    23
You seem to forget that income taxes rates have always and always will be based on what the taxpayer can afford to pay. Somehow that simple rule just goes right over your heads. You continue to forget that taxing people who spend all their income in the economy is self defeating as those taxes come right out of GDP. Taxing income not spent is far more efficient in a consumer economy. In other words a progressive tax system maximizes GDP growth. The decline in growth in the last 25 years is a least in part because of the reduction in progressivity of our tax structure.
The idea that some citizens can opt out of the social contract is ludicrous. Ihe desire to do so and to form a class based society would make our forefathers blood boil.

They'd be opting out of one service within our society. You can not sit there and tell me that absolutely every single government service MUST be part of a free and prosperous society. There's no reason that some things can't be a la carte.

And the rich already do pay more than the poor, that's how percentages work. Even if Romney, for instance, paid 13%, that's still millions more than you paid.
 
Taxes aren't a charity, they are an absolute requirement for a functioning nation state. Taxes are raised and lowered according to the political and economic requirements of the nation, not to satisfy emotional nonsense.
 
I would definitely pay more taxes voluntarily! I think I'm going to buy an Obamacare health insurance policy from the exchange, even though I already have great health insurance through my employer, just because it's so ****ing awesome! :thumbs:
 
Hypothetical kind of a spin off of the thread on reps and dems empathy by aberrant:

Say the government offered a voluntary tax. One that you could sign up for that would increase your taxes by 15%. The money from that voluntary tax is exclusively used for government funded healthcare, food, and employment programs. This is not a tax applied to everyone, only if you agree to it.

Would you/could you afford to sign up for it?
I'd find a street person to give it to or a homeless family first. On a long, long list of possible recipients, the government would be at the absolute bottom. According to Pelosi, we can't cut anymore. We could send her home and save a few hundred thousand that she isn't worth to start with.
 
I'd find a street person to give it to or a homeless family first. On a long, long list of possible recipients, the government would be at the absolute bottom. According to Pelosi, we can't cut anymore. We could send her home and save a few hundred thousand that she isn't worth to start with.

:agree: But what is a Pelosi, and why does it matter what it thinks? :lamo:
 
:agree: But what is a Pelosi, and why does it matter what it thinks? :lamo:
I'm not sure. People say a Pelosi is a Congress person from San Francisco. We can all agree a Pelosi doesn't think, though, regardless of what it is. San Francisco could send a rock to Congress and expect better results. A rock doesn't require a salary or a health care subsidy, and it generally doesn't demand a sumptuous flight back and forth between DC and California.
 
Why should taxes go up to pay for health care when UHC would be cheaper than what we have now?

See, I think we can do all of the things I want to do with the money we already take in. Flaw in the poll, I guess. :shrug:
 
Why should taxes go up to pay for health care when UHC would be cheaper than what we have now?

Are taxes paying for the health care for everyone today? The simple answer is no..
 
I already spend hundreds of dollars a year for worthy causes, most notably for extra curricular programs in schools, and donate money all the time to worthy causes of those who are in need (food, shelter, sickness, disaster relief, etc.).

So I guess my answer would be that I already do.
 
Last edited:
I'd rather donate my time and money directly, removing the costly overhead of the government, which reduces the value of the money from the get go.

A donation of time and labor is even better then money sometimes... it costs you nothing, gets the job done, keeps you fit and for those who need it, gives you that 'I've done the right thing' feeling.
 
Hypothetical kind of a spin off of the thread on reps and dems empathy by aberrant:

Say the government offered a voluntary tax. One that you could sign up for that would increase your taxes by 15%. The money from that voluntary tax is exclusively used for government funded healthcare, food, and employment programs. This is not a tax applied to everyone, only if you agree to it.

Would you/could you afford to sign up for it?

you can already give more than you owe

funny how all the rich Obama fans who claim they need to be taxed more never do that

Look at arch Obama slurper Warren Buffett. HE sets his salary so almost all of it is in lower taxed non earned income: most executives of his level have salaries in the 4-8 million dollar range but he pays himself only 100K so only that amount is subject to the higher rates
 
No. But they could.

Which would basically be forcing everyone onto a government system. Though I suppose to the "choice" party that is more choices somehow. Kind of like how the exchange system is somehow offering people more choices. :roll: Even if in reality it just gives government control.
 
Which would basically be forcing everyone onto a government system. Though I suppose to the "choice" party that is more choices somehow. Kind of like how the exchange system is somehow offering people more choices. :roll: Even if in reality it just gives government control.

UHC systems vary. Not all of them are like Canada or the UK.
 
They'd be opting out of one service within our society. You can not sit there and tell me that absolutely every single government service MUST be part of a free and prosperous society. There's no reason that some things can't be a la carte.

And the rich already do pay more than the poor, that's how percentages work. Even if Romney, for instance, paid 13%, that's still millions more than you paid.

The question when it comes to Romney is can he afford to pay more? We both know the answer to that.
 
UHC systems vary. Not all of them are like Canada or the UK.

Can I decide to go without healthcare coverage in any of these countries that have UHC?
 
The question when it comes to Romney is can he afford to pay more? We both know the answer to that.

That's not how we decide taxes. Every American can afford to pay more taxes, the question is WHY? I guarantee you could afford to pay more taxes. Maybe we could downsize your house a bit, make you buy the bargain brands at the grocery store. All so we can funnel more cash in.

The government is not a black hole of cash sucking up every free penny in our economy. Money belongs to the people who earned it.
 
So, out of 5 pages of posts so far, there have been 2 people that would be willing to pay more tax voluntarily (going to specific areas designated in the OP), and only one was liberal, though I doubted that person's sincerity. More or less this has become a debate about the reality of a hypothetical tax...which of course does not make sense.

So we have learned the following:

Liberals are not, in fact, more empathetic than anyone else

Liberals only want to make everyone to pay social charity taxes, as they are unwilling to shoulder extra burden themselves (I'll have a shot of idealism with a splash of authoritarianism please).
 
First of all I couldn't afford 15% additional. If I could I'd rather give directly to charity groups (which I already do, not 15% though). This is for a few good reasons:

1. Government is inefficient in the way it distributes goods and services.
2. The use of charitable organizations promotes gratitude, which builds relationships and trust between givers and receivers, however governmental distributions become entitlements that build a climate of expectations and fraud which tears apart communities and creates class divisions.
3. Charitable organizations tend to be more local and therefore know the needs of the community they serve best.
 
Hypothetical kind of a spin off of the thread on reps and dems empathy by aberrant:

Say the government offered a voluntary tax. One that you could sign up for that would increase your taxes by 15%. The money from that voluntary tax is exclusively used for government funded healthcare, food, and employment programs. This is not a tax applied to everyone, only if you agree to it.

Would you/could you afford to sign up for it?

Yes and I would not work for and boycott any Corporation that did not volunteer.
 
Yes and I would not work for and boycott any Corporation that did not volunteer.

I am sure the stockholders would care. I'd file a lawsuit as a stockholder against management if they agreed to such idiocy
 
That's not how we decide taxes. Every American can afford to pay more taxes, the question is WHY? I guarantee you could afford to pay more taxes. Maybe we could downsize your house a bit, make you buy the bargain brands at the grocery store. All so we can funnel more cash in.

The government is not a black hole of cash sucking up every free penny in our economy. Money belongs to the people who earned it.

Tax rates are determined by what the individual can afford to pay AFTER spending what they need to live. Those that spend all their income in the economy by definition can NOT afford more taxes and still spend the same. That's why we have progressive taxes, they siphon off unspent income and use it to fund the Govt which spends it in the economy. Taxing income that will be spent is self defeating as the money collected comes straight out of GDP.
 
Tax rates are determined by what the individual can afford to pay AFTER spending what they need to live. Those that spend all their income in the economy by definition can NOT afford more taxes and still spend the same. That's why we have progressive taxes, they siphon off unspent income and use it to fund the Govt which spends it in the economy. Taxing income that will be spent is self defeating as the money collected comes straight out of GDP.

That's exactly what I accused you of believing. Any penny you have extra after buying only what you need to live, belongs to the government. So after you pay for your rent in a wooden shack, and buy enough scrapings to eat, you're covered as to what you need to live. The rest belongs to the state.

The point is, you're drawing an insanely arbitrary line as to what belongs to someone and what doesn't. You claim every penny you earn you deserve, yet anyone that lives better than you should pay more. Ridiculous.
 
That's exactly what I accused you of believing. Any penny you have extra after buying only what you need to live, belongs to the government. So after you pay for your rent in a wooden shack, and buy enough scrapings to eat, you're covered as to what you need to live. The rest belongs to the state.

The point is, you're drawing an insanely arbitrary line as to what belongs to someone and what doesn't. You claim every penny you earn you deserve, yet anyone that lives better than you should pay more. Ridiculous.

You may call it ridiculous but in our consumer economy taxing income not spent at a higher rate is how we became the richest nation in the world. The further we stray from that path the worse GDP growth has become.
 
You may call it ridiculous but in our consumer economy taxing income not spent at a higher rate is how we became the richest nation in the world. The further we stray from that path the worse GDP growth has become.

Considering I just suggested you want to tax everyone into poverty (taking away everything but the bare minimum) and you didn't disagree, I don't think we have anything else to discuss.
 
Back
Top Bottom