• 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!

What is your favorite argument against higher taxes?

What is your favorite argument against higher taxes?


  • Total voters
    36
  • Poll closed .
Sometimes less is more. Why do I feel like I'm arguing for a flat tax? lol


Without getting too personal, why aren't you obligated to pay taxes?

Very low income and two children. I get the standard deduction just like most people, then I get a deduction for every person in my family. That adds up to quite a bit and leaves me with very little taxable income but then that gets gobbled up with non-refundable credits which take my tax down to zero. After line 44 I start getting refundable tax credits. I get $2,000 in additional child tax credit and a pretty good bit for earned income credit.

I would say after you added up the Social Security Taxes I pay, the Social Security Taxes that my employer pays, the Medicare taxes that I pay, the Medicare taxes my employer pays and the Federal Income Tax withheld (which I try to keep at $0.00) I still come out with more money than I paid in.

Be poor, have kids and pay no taxes. North Carolina is full of people that live this way. People rarely brag about it because they don't want anybody to find out there secret.

I just think transparency is very valuable when it comes to solving problems.
 
The winner is, I don't agree with any of these arguments.

14
7
6
1
7
20

Thank you for your participation.
 
:roll: More Rush Limbaugh nonsense.

Actually I don't think I've ever heard him discuss Hausers' Law, but then, I'm not much of a listener.


Anywho, the historical reality is fairly solid on this one:
TaxRatesVsRevenues.png


Higher tax rates do not actually give you the higher revenue you are expecting.


Now, there is some room for argumentation that reduced rates increase revenue through increased economic activity:

reynolds-ibd-11-6-12.jpg


The problem being one of time - how long does it take for the increased economic activity to produce enough additional revenue to make up the initial loss. At this point, we are probably facing diminishing returns on nominal rate reductions for individual income (which doesn't mean they don't exist), and should look to tax code simplification in a manner designed to maintain revenues, keep the system progressive, and yet strip out complexity costs, which can cost us somewhere between $400 and $500 Billion annually.
 
Actually I don't think I've ever heard him discuss Hausers' Law, but then, I'm not much of a listener.

This is Rush Limbaugh's favorite nonsense to repeat. He doesn't only use it as a nightlight. He also sleeps with it like a little teddy bear.
 
This is Rush Limbaugh's favorite nonsense to repeat. He doesn't only use it as a nightlight. He also sleeps with it like a little teddy bear.

So.... you ignored the data I gave you, and prefer simply to create some kind of weird strawman about Rush Limbaugh's teddy bear.


Right. Well, that's about as implicit an admission of defeat as you'll find out there, so, I accept :).
 
it reminds me of the feudal lords of the middle ages
 
Because the government already has WAY more money then it needs to do the things I believe it needs to do.
 
Back
Top Bottom