• 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!

5% Additional Tax on Gross Income

How would your life change if the government imposed an additional 5% tax?

  • It would be way worse. I don't think I'd handle it.

    Votes: 7 53.8%

  • It would be a little worse but I could handle it.

    Votes: 3 23.1%

  • My life would be exactly the same as it is now.

    Votes: 3 23.1%

  • My life would be a lot better. (explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .
Kal'Stang said:
I see that the left is no longer disguising that they want to redistribute the wealth from the wealthy to the poor.

As for the OP, it would hurt me lots. Doesn't matter if its going towards something useless or helpful to the general populace.
Click to expand...
I'm not the Left.
I do have positions on both sides of the spectrum and about 50% of my likes come from the Right.
My biggest issues on this board are with the Left, or even the liberal PC.
PCism straddling/including Both parties and one can see it in the DNA of this board.
There's only a single countable hand of us non-PCers here.

My stance here is based on MATH. (other issues too: quantitative, or science-based)
One can't deny, and you didn't take issue with what I see as two biggest problems: Wealth/income disparity and lack of jobs.
I also proposed this tax on gross income be ONLY on the wealthy (150k or 500k or even 1 mil). NOT on you.
So you didn't address anything I Posted, just ad-hommed 'Left'.

Further, on this income disparity/redistribution..
If one looks at was HAS happened to Top Marginal Rates and Cap Gains/Divs/Estate taxes for the last 30+ Years, it has been toward a more Regressive policy.
Any attempt to address/reverse the Class Warfare that has been successfully Waged and won by the Rich/Right is Ironically/'Goebbelsianly' called 'Class Warfare' by those with No history, just Hannity.

ie
mbig said:
...
But I hope we can Reverse somewhat the Class Warfare Viciously Waged and won by Ronald Reagan-omics.
Who lowered top marginal income tax rates from 70% in 1980 to 28% in 1988.

Including
Tax Reform Act of 1986 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%. Many lower level tax brackets were consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate (married filing jointly) was increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year. This package ultimately consolidated tax brackets from fifteen levels of income to four levels of income.[1] This would be the Only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. In addition, capital gains faced the same tax rate as ordinary income.
[......]
Click to expand...
me said:
Historical income tax rates:
Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)
Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)

Year/ Top Rate%/ Over

1913 --- 7% 500,000
1914 --- 7% 500,000
1915 --- 7% 500,000
1916 --- 15% 2,000,000
1917 --- 67% 2,000,000
1918 --- 77% 1,000,000
1919 --- 73% 1,000,000
1920 --- 73% 1,000,000
1921 --- 73% 1,000,000
1922 --- 58% 200,000
1923 --- 43.5% 200,000
1924 --- 46% 500,000
1925 --- 25% 100,000
1926 --- 25% 100,000
1927 --- 25% 100,000
1928 --- 25% 100,000
1929 --- 24% 100,000
1930 --- 25% 100,000
1931 --- 25% 100,000
1932 --- 63% 1,000,000
1933 --- 63% 1,000,000
1934 --- 63% 1,000,000
1935 --- 63% 1,000,000
1936 --- 79% 5,000,000
1937 --- 79% 5,000,000
1938 --- 79% 5,000,000
1939 --- 79% 5,000,000
1940 --- 81% 5,000,000
1941 --- 81% 5,000,000
1942 --- 88% 200,000
1943 --- 88% 200,000
1944--- 94 200,000
1945 --- 94% 200,000
1946 --- 86% 200,000
1947 --- 86% 200,000
1948 --- 82.% 400,000
1949 --- 82% 400,000
1950 --- 84.36% 400,000
1951 --- 91% 400,000
1952 --- 92% 400,000
1953 --- 92% 400,000
1954 --- 91% 400,000
1955 --- 91% 400,000
1956 --- 91% 400,000
1957 --- 91% 400,000
1958 --- 91% 400,000
1959 --- 91% 400,000
1960 --- 91% 400,000
1961 --- 91% 400,000
1962 --- 91% 400,000
1963 --- 91% 400,000
1964 --- 77% 400,000
1965 --- 70% 200,000
1966 --- 70% 200,000
1967 --- 70% 200,000
1968 --- 75.25% 200,000
1969 --- 77% 200,000
1970 --- 71.75% 200,000
1971 --- 70% 60% 200,000
1972 --- 70% 50 200,000
1973 --- 70% 50 200,000
1974 --- 70% 50 200,000
1975 ----70% 50 200,000
1976 --- 70% 50 200,000
1977 --- 70% 50 203,200
1978 --- 70% 50 203,200
1979 --- 70% 50 215,400
1980 --- 70% 50 215,400
1981 --- 69% 50 215,400
1982 --- 50% 85,600
1983 --- 50% 109,400
1984 --- 50% 162,400
1985 --- 50 % 169,020
1986 --- 50 % 175,250
1987 --- 38.5% 90,000
1988 --- 28% <8> 29,750 <8>
1989 --- 28% <8> 30,950 <8>
1990 --- 28% <8> 32,450 <8>
1991 --- 31% 82,150
1992 --- 31% 86,500
1993 --- 39.6% 89,150
1994 --- 39.6% 250,000
1995 --- 39.6% 256,500
1996 --- 39.6% 263,750
1997 --- 39.6% 271,050
1998 --- 39.6% 278,450
1999 --- 39.6% 283,150
2000 --- 39.6% 288,350
2001 --- 39.1% 297,350
2002 --- 38.6% 307,050
2003 --- 35% 311,950
Click to expand...
So again, any attempt to reverse this is Perversly called 'Class warfare' or 'Leftist'.
So we have the Rich and the S&P 500 sitting on record cash hoards with no place/reason to invest because they have all the marbles.
The middle/poor have no money to buy the goods (computers, cars, low-price-housing, etc) the riches companies make.
We're dead in the water unless we unlock the log-jam of wealth. (aka, no 'velocity')
 
Last edited:
If you're proposing to raise my taxes by some amount, you better be willing to raise your own and everyone elses by the same amount. That's only fair.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
How would your life change if the federal government imposed a 5% tax on your gross income without any deductions? The proceeds would pay for digging deep holes, covering them up, digging the holes again and then covering them up again.

Would your life be a lot better? about the same? or way worse?
Click to expand...

That would absorb nearly every penny that I am able to contribute to an IRA, meaning I would have no hope of saving for retirement. I would become an elderly dependent of the state, with my life and sustenance in the hands of dishonorable and ruthless politicians. NO thanks.
 
why would any sane person want this wasteful government taking any more money from ANYONE
 
mbig said:
The jobs may very well have stimulated a better economy by then.
The tax would solve our two Biggest problems Now: Wealth disparity and lack of Jobs.

Corps and the wealthy are sitting on record Cash hoards in absolute dollars and percent.
A 5% tax, even if permanent, somewhat addresses both.

The 5% need not be phased out completely, maybe dropped to 2%, raised to 6%, or be permanent.
What it does is take money that is hoarded in .1% T-bills now, and creates more consumers as well as jobs.

It's quite arguable we do need a permanently more progessive tax based on increased wealth/salary disparity.
What better way than to create a 5% tax on income over a Million and Earmark it for Infrastructure jobs.
Click to expand...

how about imposing it on those who want more government or those who want the rich to pay more?
 
vasuderatorrent said:
How would your life change if the federal government imposed a 5% tax on your gross income without any deductions? The proceeds would pay for digging deep holes, covering them up, digging the holes again and then covering them up again.

Would your life be a lot better? about the same? or way worse?
Click to expand...

I feel like you're trying to make some kind of point with this, but I can't figure out what it is.

I can't see how an additional 5% tax burden that serves absolutely zero purpose would make anyone's life better. It would certainly make mine worse.
 
molten_dragon said:
I feel like you're trying to make some kind of point with this, but I can't figure out what it is.

I can't see how an additional 5% tax burden that serves absolutely zero purpose would make anyone's life better. It would certainly make mine worse.
Click to expand...

the only good thing is that since everyone would suffer the 5% theft, it will prevent the usual assortment of parasites from hoping to stick the rich without suffering themselves.

that's why I want a flat tax-if you want the rich to pay more, you will pay the same increase yourself
 
TurtleDude said:
how about imposing it on those who want more government or those who want the rich to pay more?
Click to expand...

How about raising taxes on everyone who got rich off the Iraq war? After all, they couldn't have gotten rich without the US government and the blood sacrifice of our troops and millions of innocent people. Tax them until the war debt is paid off and every injured vet has easy access to a VA hospital.
 
Moot said:
How about raising taxes on everyone who got rich off the Iraq war? After all, they couldn't have gotten rich without the US government and the blood sacrifice of our troops and millions of innocent people. Tax them until the war debt is paid off and every injured vet has easy access to a VA hospital.
Click to expand...

I have a better idea

lets raise taxes on all those who got rich off the failed "War on Poverty"
 
TurtleDude said:
I have a better idea

lets raise taxes on all those who got rich off the failed "War on Poverty"
Click to expand...

What do you have against veterans?


War on Poverty was Nancy Reagans idea, wasn't it?
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
I doubt too many of the poor got rich from the war on poverty but it might have helped to raise their standard of living.
Click to expand...

far more people have gotten rich off the war on poverty. its been going on for decades. all that money sucked out of the pockets of productive people to be "given to the poor" was a large pool for greedy vultures to stick their greedy beaks into
 
Moot said:
I doubt too many of the poor got rich from the war on poverty, but it might have helped to raise their standard of living.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what the definition of rich is.
 
Last edited:
vasuderatorrent said:
Moot said:
I doubt too many of the poor got rich from the war on poverty, but it might have helped to raise their standard of living.[ QUOTE]

I guess it depends on what the definition of rich is.
Click to expand...

we aren't talking about the poor getting richer. we are talking about the poverty pimps who pander to the poor getting richer
Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
far more people have gotten rich off the war on poverty. its been going on for decades. all that money sucked out of the pockets of productive people to be "given to the poor" was a large pool for greedy vultures to stick their greedy beaks into
Click to expand...

The war on poverty was Nancy Reagan's idea, wasn't it? The only ones who got rich from that war were drug dealers, cartels and privately owned prisons.
 
Moot said:
The war on poverty was Nancy Reagan's idea, wasn't it? The only ones who got rich from that war were drug dealers, cartels and privately owned prisons.
Click to expand...

wrong

LBJ started it
 
I think the intent of this poll was lost. The issue isn't about other people getting taxed or about who should be taxed or any of that nonsense.

The question was how would an additional 5% tax on your gross income impact your life?

Would you be forced into poverty? Would you be forced into starvation? Would it simply make you mad when you seen the dollar amount? or would your life remain relatively the same?

The digging of holes and then covering them up was representative of a public service that you personally deem as wasteful. You could have filled in the blanks with your own wasteful project in order to make it realistic. I just wanted to make sure that it was universally viewed as wasteful so that I could retrieve purer data.

If I said that it went to schools, for military, for libraries, for schools or something like that people may forget about the negative impact because they advocate the government project. These people would skew my data. Just imagine that the 5% is going to something that you firmly disagree with.
 
Moot said:
It's not wrong to ask a question. :roll:
Click to expand...

I was actually answering your suggestion that Reagan started it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom