• 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 .
Jesus has no relevance to this argument. Parasitic politicians basking in phony altruism that others are forced to pay for are a cancer on society. So are the greedy parasites who whine about NEEDING handouts and damn those of us who are net tax payers for not wanting to pay even more.

Yeah sure ... compartmentalize your morality when it is expediente to your political greed. No relevance ...say that again.
 
Self interested financial gain and altruistic concerns are not necessarily mutually exclusive character attributes. They obviously CAN be exclusive of one another when we examine the actions of the Kochs or the Waltons...But people like Bill and Melinda Gates show us that the motivation of greed and the motivation of altruism can, and do, exist within the same personality. No one in the market place has ever been more ruthless than Bill Gates and very very few have been so giving to mankind.

Good tax planning can be packaged to look many different ways. What is the motivation of the billionaires who have re-manufactured the Progressive Movement?
 
Yeah sure ... compartmentalize your morality when it is expediente to your political greed. No relevance ...say that again.

You think actively taking what someone else has made is not greed but wanting to keep what one has made is

that is the rationalization that the parasitic leftwing banks on

to you subjecting the unwilling and the unable to benign neglect is evil but looting the wealth of those who work hard is acceptable since it is how your political masters win elections
 
No. Morality is a sense of what is right and what is wrong.

"The sense" may lead to realization that we need a system of rules, morality. Just as empathy leads there. But to rely on intuition is to invite disaster. Heart is blind.
 
Good tax planning can be packaged to look many different ways. What is the motivation of the billionaires who have re-manufactured the Progressive Movement?

I heard Arthur Laffer explain why so many uber rich were "liberals". he said there were two basic reasons

1) billionaires gain wealth trading with other wealthy entities. a government that has more and more money is such an entity

2) the more common and sinister explanation is that the mega rich think they can run the government and a leftwing government is more controlling than a libertarian or decentralized federal government. In other words, billionaires figure they will have more controls over others if government is bigger
 
The marketplace is an activity. Activities are based on motivations.
Why would I want to sell something if not for self interested financial gain?

You do realize that wanting to profit from an activity doesn't prove greed, right? Unless you can show that every man that runs a business has an excessive desire to acquire wealth you have no case.

Btw, you should look into the origins of capitalism and tell me how those men were greedy. Have fun with that.
 
Last edited:
That is really twisted immoral logic.
I believe you know that, but you are just trying to make a self interested point.

I know nothing of the sort. My answer was an answer respecting property and being against pillaging the treasury for favors.
 
I heard Arthur Laffer explain why so many uber rich were "liberals". he said there were two basic reasons

1) billionaires gain wealth trading with other wealthy entities. a government that has more and more money is such an entity

2) the more common and sinister explanation is that the mega rich think they can run the government and a leftwing government is more controlling than a libertarian or decentralized federal government. In other words, billionaires figure they will have more controls over others if government is bigger

When one studies the life and history of some of these people, George Soros for example, it's difficult to refute what you posted.
 
Good tax planning can be packaged to look many different ways. What is the motivation of the billionaires who have re-manufactured the Progressive Movement?
So you are dismissing Bill Gates' altruistic generosity as just writing off good tax planning?
That is so typically cynical of you.
Billionaires who support the progressive movement need not have any more self interested gains than the middle class guy with the same political slant. You know that but your cynical greed motivated mind won't let you come to terms with it.
 
So you are dismissing Bill Gates' altruistic generosity as just writing off good tax planning?
That is so typically cynical of you.
Billionaires who support the progressive movement need not have any more self interested gains than the middle class guy with the same political slant. You know that but your cynical greed motivated mind won't let you come to terms with it.

why are you so desirous to attribute greed to those who want to become wealthy through their own enterprise but so reticent to attribute greed to those who want to gain wealth through public office by buying the votes of people like you with the money of the first group?

and why do you ignore the sins of jealousy and envy that motivate so much of the rich bashing from the left?
 
why are you so desirous to attribute greed to those who want to become wealthy through their own enterprise but so reticent to attribute greed to those who want to gain wealth through public office by buying the votes of people like you with the money of the first group?

and why do you ignore the sins of jealousy and envy that motivate so much of the rich bashing from the left?
I don't. Greed is a great motivator to attain many stations in life, wealth is a great carrot.
I don't necessarily condemn greed as a motivator I am just willing to do what you all seem to want to deny... I recognize the reality of the situation. Greed does not become evil until it is the only motivator in ones life... Like the Kochs.
Let's look at the Walton family ...They pour billions into campaigns to keep their workers from getting any raise in the minimum wage they must pay their employees. Not one penny. The family is worth 150 BILLION. How much can you hope to spend on yourself in one lifetime?
If that ain't pure greed you tell me what you think it is.
 
So you are dismissing Bill Gates' altruistic generosity as just writing off good tax planning?
That is so typically cynical of you.
Billionaires who support the progressive movement need not have any more self interested gains than the middle class guy with the same political slant. You know that but your cynical greed motivated mind won't let you come to terms with it.

Cynical? Naw. Truthful. Why let the goverment confiscate billions upon ones death, when one can become immortalized by buildings and other such memorials, for eternity via a non-profit foundation?

Middle class guys with the same political slant dont create think tanks, fund websites, and place their agenda in classrooms across the country, like the billionaires who define what you're suppose to believe, and instruct you on how to act.

Fortunately for them, there are those who need such mentors to give them purpose, since it's apparent they have been uable to discover that themselves.

Of course, the typical insult only proves how indoctrinated Progressive are.
 
Why must you reveal the obvious? Of course, I'm right. That was already a given.
Sorry I forgot that to understand sarcasm one must possess the ability to empathize with another's point of view.
I'll try not to let that happen again. It's easy to forget I am sadly dealing with someone with such a disability.
 
Sorry I forgot that to understand sarcasm one must possess the ability to empathize with another's point of view.
I'll try not to let that happen again. It's easy to forget I am sadly dealing with someone with such a disability.

I only empathize with people, not views based on nonsense.
 
I don't. Greed is a great motivator to attain many stations in life, wealth is a great carrot.
I don't necessarily condemn greed as a motivator I am just willing to do what you all seem to want to deny... I recognize the reality of the situation. Greed does not become evil until it is the only motivator in ones life... Like the Kochs.
Let's look at the Walton family ...They pour billions into campaigns to keep their workers from getting any raise in the minimum wage they must pay their employees. Not one penny. The family is worth 150 BILLION. How much can you hope to spend on yourself in one lifetime?
If that ain't pure greed you tell me what you think it is.

Pure greed is demanding others compensate you for your own failings.
 
You seem to be referring to the Laffer curve of conservative tax theory.

It is an elementary notion that was popularized by Laffer in a crude and politicized form. It was called the ibn Khaldun curve where I studied in my youth.

In practice the tax cuts of the Bush Jr administration that ( according to Laffer) should have produced higher revenues, had the opposite effect and are largely responsible for the towering debt we now operate under.

Government spending covered by borrowing is responsible for debt, and nothing else. The revenues, mind you, kept growing under Bush, all the way till the financial crisis kicked in: from about $ 1.78 T in 2003, when the Bush tax cuts were enacted, to about $ 2.57 T in 2007. (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200)
Revenues were higher, it is just not clear what made them so. You may argue that they would be greater without tax cuts, or the other way around. The fact is that we were spending much more than we were taking in.


The Laffer curve would have predicted that J Paul Getty would shut down all his oil dericks and closed up shop when approaching that tax rate.
He didn't.

What are you talking about? It has precious little to do with J Paul Getty feelings - it has everything to do with resources being yanked out the "real economy" and pushed through the leaky pipes of government, with all the transaction costs, opportunity costs, misallocation and corruption attached. Less capital invested means less capital generated in the next round, i.e. less of a revenue base. Nobody ever disputed that. The question is, will it be so much less that actual revenues at the same rate of taxation will drop? At any given point, Republicans claim to know that the answer is "Yes", Democrats claim to know that the answer is "No", and both are basically full of it.


No one will close up shop if they are asked to pay the rates they did when Reagan took office .

Be careful with this "no one". Ironically, the very rich are not that affected by higher taxes on the very rich, on the personal level. But proportional underinvestment in businesses run by the not-so-rich very well may close a bunch of shops. Small, science-rich companies I have worked for my whole life are absolutely dependent on repeated injections of capital from venture capitalists. They have less money - I have lower chances of getting funded.

and those rates will solve our current fiscal problems.

No they won't. Our current fiscal problems are caused by spending that always catches up with any increase in revenues. Period. This is like a teenager maxing out her dad's credit cards and telling him to get a second job, so that the "increased revenues" "solve our current problem".
 
Last edited:
Cynical? Naw. Truthful. Why let the goverment confiscate billions upon ones death, when one can become immortalized by buildings and other such memorials, for eternity via a non-profit foundation?

Middle class guys with the same political slant dont create think tanks, fund websites, and place their agenda in classrooms across the country, like the billionaires who define what you're suppose to believe, and instruct you on how to act.

Fortunately for them, there are those who need such mentors to give them purpose, since it's apparent they have been uable to discover that themselves.

Of course, the typical insult only proves how indoctrinated Progressive are.

Your posts are dripping with self aggrandizing patronizing cynicism. No billionaire motivates or instructs me on "how to act". That, you see, is a primarily a republicon trait. You just can't get past the fact that someone may be a billionaire and still care about his fellow human beings that he shares his country with.
I do understand your deep need for dismissive cynicism though, with your lack of moral empathy and inability to appreciate heart felt humanity it must be the only way you can get yourself to sleep at night.
I actually feel sorry for you...
and that is the honest truth.
 
Your posts are dripping with self aggrandizing patronizing cynicism. No billionaire motivates or instructs me on "how to act". That, you see, is a primarily a republicon trait. You just can't get past the fact that someone may be a billionaire and still care about his fellow human beings that he shares his country with.

That makes no sense what so ever.

1. Endorsing progressive taxation is not caring for your fellow human beings.
2. Supporting a compulsory tax model is not caring for your fellow human beings.
3. Supporting people pillaging the treasury for personal favor is not caring for your fellow human beings.

Many of these people you speak of actually do pillage the treasury and ask the government for such favor.

I do understand your deep need for dismissive cynicism though, with your lack of moral empathy and inability to appreciate heart felt humanity it must be the only way you can get yourself to sleep at night.
I actually feel sorry for you...
and that is the honest truth.

A man that supports violating the property rights of people and treating others as slaves to their desires is not one to speak on morality.
 
Your posts are dripping with self aggrandizing patronizing cynicism. No billionaire motivates or instructs me on "how to act". That, you see, is a primarily a republicon trait. You just can't get past the fact that someone may be a billionaire and still care about his fellow human beings that he shares his country with.
I do understand your deep need for dismissive cynicism though, with your lack of moral empathy and inability to appreciate heart felt humanity it must be the only way you can get yourself to sleep at night.
I actually feel sorry for you...
and that is the honest truth.

:lamo

I got it, your billionaires are better than mine. Obviously, their indoctrination works on some people. As long as your greed is fed, it's all good. Right?
 
What is mine is mine, what is your's is yours.

What about a poll asking "what is your argument for having locks on your doors and not leaving your keys in your car?"
 
No they won't. Our current fiscal problems are caused by spending that always catches up with any increase in revenues. Period. This is like a teenager maxing out her dad's credit cards and telling him to get a second job, so that the "increased revenues" "solve our current problem".
Be careful with that "always" ...Under Bill Clinton revenues increased much faster than spending when he raised taxes on the wealthy and he actually started to to pay down the debt.
The bragging that revenues doubled under Reagan and Bush are pretty silly points to bring up. Under all administrations revenues have always doubled or more within any eight year period.
The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. Hence, claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn.
Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts
 
History, look at what we have done with our tax dollars in the last 50 years. Then look how far the US has fallen in the last 50 years. Pretty simple math.
 
:lamo

I got it, your billionaires are better than mine. Obviously, their indoctrination works on some people. As long as your greed is fed, it's all good. Right?

No. You missed my point.I don;t "have " billionaires. I have morality.
 
Back
Top Bottom