• 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!

Federal Income Tax. You Pick the Rate.

Federal (Income) Tax. You Pick the Rate.

  • 5%

    Votes: 11 26.2%
  • 10%

    Votes: 7 16.7%
  • 15%

    Votes: 4 9.5%
  • 20%

    Votes: 6 14.3%
  • 25%

    Votes: 5 11.9%
  • 30%

    Votes: 2 4.8%
  • 35%

    Votes: 2 4.8%
  • 40%

    Votes: 2 4.8%
  • 45%

    Votes: 1 2.4%
  • 50% and higher

    Votes: 2 4.8%

  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
Scarecrow...

Firstly, we must ballance how "fair" it is for people to be forced to give money to the poor, and talented poor individuals having less opportunities then dumb rich people. They contridict sometimes, so we need to look at it on a case by case basis.

We are balanced.

The Constitution does not permit federal entitlements for the poor, ergo, zero federal tax dollars should go to the poor, ergo, it's "unfair" to steal money from working people to give to those who won't work.

That's fair.

The other side of "fairness" is that you, your own little self, are perfectly free to give your own personal money to any charity you choose to give it to, if you want to. Nothing stops you from helping the poor as much as you like but your own selfish desires.


There is something called an "amendment" to the Constitution which would allow for more enumerated powers. Therefore, it goes without saying that we would need those to make public education Constitutional.

That amendment has not been passed.

You do know that, don't you?

There are many ideas about how a free primary and highschool education system can work. If you want to debate the merits of those programs after an amendment to allow them was passed, then that would be great.

So you are aware that it's unconstitutional to waste federal tax dollars on public education.

It isn't productive to just decry all other ideas as Unconstitutional, when that can be changed.

Sure it is. It points out the hypocrisy and criminality of the left.

I have an idea about public education that can work,

I have an idea about a Constitutional form of public education.

The states pay for their own schools.
 
ROTFLMFAO.

It has been brought to my attention that the Marxists, Socialists, True Obamatrons and others of the Jealousy Brigade have been PMing to boost the high tax rate numbers.

What took you so long?

Still a meager representation, but keep PMing... you might get 2 or 3 more high/punitive tax votes.

.
 
Last edited:
ROTFLMFAO.

It has been brought to my attention that the Marxists, Socialists, True Obamatrons and others of the Jealousy Brigade have been PMing to boost the high tax rate numbers.

You mean the imaginary PMs?

I take it no response to this post eh?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1058020056-post78.html

And what did I predict?

If and when you ever want to discuss what people actually say instead of cherry picking and refusing to even acknowledge their statements exist, I'm open to discussion. Otherwise, you're just a sniping troll.

I say it here. It comes out over there.

High tax rates and an efficient IRS are two independent issues.
 
Not really. I didn't notice this thread. And I agree with RightInNYC.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057963228-post4.html

If you want to ignore my reasons for my arguments, that's fine. But you are acting dishonestly in your posting about what I actually said. To refute your dishonesty, the underfunding of the IRS allows around $500 billion in tax evasion to occur every year. If we had a fully funded and staffed IRS, we wouldn't have had deficits in the past decades and the debt growth would have stopped aside from refinancing. You ignore this point to serve your argument. You implicitly argue that I'm for expanding the IRS for dubious reasons despite my statements (3 so far) that I'm for actually funding and staffing them to do the job they exist for. And merely because we have a less complex tax code doesn't make people honest. You seem to think that reducing the IRS and simplifying the tax code will suddenly make people honest. That is ludicrous. Even in the simplest of tax codes, people cheat. What you propose is to make their incentives to cheat even greater.

And social engineering is what got us out of the last recession. As you ignored before (at least three times so far), Bush's bonus depreciation was massive in getting firms sitting on cash to spend it. It is simply easier for you to pretend what I say doesn't exist then actually respond to it with facts, intelligence and substance. That doesn't make you honest, nor does it make you a half decent debater.

If and when you ever want to discuss what people actually say instead of cherry picking and refusing to even acknowledge their statements exist, I'm open to discussion. Otherwise, you're just a sniping troll.

ROTFLOL...

You folks create a mess and then want more power and money to fix it.
Fannie, Freddie, IRS, perverted tax code...

.... just the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg.

You want a bigger IRS, you want social engineering... that's you view... OK.
I'm not being dishonest... I'm merely stating your position.

And you as I will keep pointing out contradicted yourself MASSIVELY in the initial post about tax code reform.
LOL... It will follow you around DP for the rest of your days... so long as I'm around.
You are who you are.

Say... "Thank you."

"Sniping troll"?
From you that's a compliment.
Thanks.

You're an All Star Left Winger.
Perhaps they should put you on the next NHL All Star ballot.

What is it about Liberty you don't like?
Freedom?
The Constitution?

You ooze jealousy... and are a poster child of Die Neidgesellschaft.
Ein echter Obamatron.
Genieß es.
Mein Gott Kind, Du hast es wirklich verdient!

.
 
Last edited:
ROTFLOL...

You folks create a mess and then want more power and money to fix it.
Fannie, Freddie, IRS, perverted tax code...

.... just the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg.

You want a bigger IRS, you want social engineering... that's you view... OK.
I'm not being dishonest... I'm merely stating your position.

How?

How are you merely stating my position?

And you as I will keep pointing out contradicted yourself MASSIVELY in the initial post about tax code reform.

Where? I already refuted your alleged contradiction. What language are you using? It ain't standard English.

And Zimmer again shows why no takes him seriously.

Anyways, more evidence you aren't here to debate. And thanks for proving you're a sniping troll who has no intention of honestly replying to anyone.
 
Question: Why is it fair to tax person X more than person Y simply because person X has a greater income?

Assumption: Both person X and Y are above the poverty line.
Because person X made more money from the labor of everyone else than person Y. Person X cannot make his money without person Y, so in order to make sure that person Y keeps making it possible for person X to make his money, person X pays more.

You can't get your trucking fleet out of your warehouse without a road and you'd never be profitable making the roads yourself.
 
It's the duty of every man, regardless of his economic station, to get off his dead ass and work to support himself and his family.

That's it.

It's not a privilege to work and have your wages and earnings stolen to support the parasitic lumps who won't work. Nor is it a privilege to be robbed to finance programs that aren't allowed by the Constitution.

A person being mugged on the street is contributing his best to society, but no one feels that it's a privilege. Wrapping it up in a red-tape bow and spraying perfume on it doesn't make it any nicer.
Are there fewer American citizens (%wise) dieing of starvation and exposure since the new deal or not? Do you care? Was rural electrification good for the country or not? Did all the wealthy people at the time offer to pay for it? Did they or their progeny benefit from it?
 
It's the duty of every man, regardless of his economic station, to get off his dead ass and work to support himself and his family.

That's it.

It's not a privilege to work and have your wages and earnings stolen to support the parasitic lumps who won't work. Nor is it a privilege to be robbed to finance programs that aren't allowed by the Constitution.

A person being mugged on the street is contributing his best to society, but no one feels that it's a privilege. Wrapping it up in a red-tape bow and spraying perfume on it doesn't make it any nicer.
Those who have gained the most benefit from society should pay more to maintain that society.

“It has been said that the measure of a society is found in how they treat their weakest and most helpless citizens.”

Our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members.~Pearl S. Buck (1892-1973), My Several Worlds [1954].

The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children.
~Dietrich Bonhoeffer

A decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization.
~Samuel Johnson, Boswell: Life of Johnson

The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities.~John E. E. Dalberg, Lord Acton, The History of Freedom in Antiquity, [1877].

"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi


"Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members -- the last, the least, the littlest."
~Cardinal Roger Mahony, In a 1998 letter, Creating a Culture of Life

The greatness of America is in how it treats its weakest members: the elderly, the infirm, the handicapped, the underprivileged, the unborn. ~Bill Federer


"A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members and among the most vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying,"
~Pope John Paul II

Aristotle has often been quoted as saying you can judge a nation by the way it treats its most vulnerable citizens.

English writer and journalist Harriet Martineau said, "If a test of civilization be sought, none can be so sure as the condition of that half of society over which the other half has power."
 
Last edited:
Why was 0% not an option?!

If government is a social contract, then when did I sign it? The moment I came out of my mom? Do I have a right to terminate my status in the social contract? Am I a slave by birth?
 
To me the more simple and transparent the tax policy the better. As of the end of 2008 total U.S. government spending at all levels(local, state, federal) is approximately 38% of national income. If the U.S. had one income tax with no deductions that taxed the first $80,000 of income at a 10% rate, and any additional income above that at a 50% rate(a person making a $100,000 would pay 18,000 in taxes), then it would just cover total government spending. Approximately 80% of taxpayers would have a 10% rate. And there would be no sales taxes, tariffs, property taxes, etc.(Warning: figures were done quickly by meathead.)

I favor a very progressive tax. I think that a flat tax is oppressive. I also believe that if you are living below a certain percentage you shouldn't have to pay an income tax at all ( the percentage is debatable). the reason being is that in a civilized society we should do everything we can to fight for the poorer members of society and benefit them in any way we can. They shouldn't pay taxes. We should be attempting to improve all society. Part of that must be helping the poor and if one of the ways to do that is to not have an income tax upon them, then so be it.
 
What do you consider a "fair" rate of taxation.
Flat Tax or Consumption Tax.
Same rate for all.

No graduated taxation in this poll.

I would support a 30% National Sales Tax so long as the 16th Amendment was overturned, the IRS eliminated, and the income tax done away with. I also do not think that food, transportation, or energy should be taxed at all.
 
Why was 0% not an option?!

If government is a social contract, then when did I sign it? The moment I came out of my mom? Do I have a right to terminate my status in the social contract? Am I a slave by birth?
Sure, you can opt out. You can't use the roads or rely on the police or fire departments or any government agency. You can't drink water from a public utility nor use it's currency to purchase things. Move to Alaska, go out into the wilderness and build a cabin to live in. Of course you can't get there by using a car since you'd have to use money to buy a car and you can't use the roads so you'l have to walk. Of course you can't buy shoes or an axe to chop down the trees to build the cabin but you could make a sharp rock and whittle a bow and arrow to catch some food, use the hide to cover your feet...
 
I favor a very progressive tax. I think that a flat tax is oppressive. I also believe that if you are living below a certain percentage you shouldn't have to pay an income tax at all ( the percentage is debatable). the reason being is that in a civilized society we should do everything we can to fight for the poorer members of society and benefit them in any way we can. They shouldn't pay taxes. We should be attempting to improve all society. Part of that must be helping the poor and if one of the ways to do that is to not have an income tax upon them, then so be it.

Don't you know that those people are poor because they are just lazy? Why shouldn't we just let lazy people drop dead in the street? Sure, they might turn to crime before they starved to death but then that just shows that the poor are all criminals. [/con rant]
 
Because person X made more money from the labor of everyone else than person Y.
Not necessarily. If I write software or run my own accounting practice I can make millions off just my own hard work.

Sure, there are businesses that higher people and they pay those people at least a minimum wage. They are COMPENSATED for their work. If the wage is too small then they can refuse to work.

For example, if someone tried to higher me to write software for minimum wage I wouldn't do it. In fact, when I graduated from college I turned down a few offers out of college because they didn't want to pay less than the going rate.

Person X cannot make his money without person Y, so in order to make sure that person Y keeps making it possible for person X to make his money, person X pays more.
That doesn't make sense. I didn't say the government won't collect taxes. Person X can make money whether or not he pays more money to the government or not. The government shouldn't collect more taxes from people above the poverty line just because they are wealthy. Its unjust discrimination against those who have done well for themselves. There are plenty of ways the government can achieve citizen happiness and fair play without such egregious discrimination.

You can't get your trucking fleet out of your warehouse without a road and you'd never be profitable making the roads yourself.
The roads were probably there before person X even started his company. Person Y has the same ability to make a company and use the roads the person X does with his company. The government doesn't build the roads exclusively for person X. Moreover, person Y couldn't be paid unless person X used those roads to turn a profit. It doesn't make sense that you charge person X more simply because person X takes advantage of the fact the the roads exist when person Y has equal opportunity to do the same.
 
Not necessarily. If I write software or run my own accounting practice I can make millions off just my own hard work.
Do I really have to reverse engineer your electricity or internet connection the way we got Mr. Opt out to a cabin in Alaska?

Sure, there are businesses that higher people and they pay those people at least a minimum wage. They are COMPENSATED for their work. If the wage is too small then they can refuse to work.
Unfortunately it just doesn't work that way. Well, unions sorta made it work but the rich have made the idea of unions, not just the word, a bad thing.

For example, if someone tried to higher me to write software for minimum wage I wouldn't do it. In fact, when I graduated from college I turned down a few offers out of college because they didn't want to pay less than the going rate.
If you were out of work long enough I bet you'd do it.

T
hat doesn't make sense. I didn't say the government won't collect taxes. Person X can make money whether or not he pays more money to the government or not. The government shouldn't collect more taxes from people above the poverty line just because they are wealthy. Its unjust discrimination against those who have done well for themselves. There are plenty of ways the government can achieve citizen happiness and fair play without such egregious discrimination.
Really, how? Unions? :rofl
It's not unjust discrimination, it's saying, - hey, you've done really well in figuring out how to take advantage of the efforts of the rest of the population and you should be grateful you live in a country that gave you the opportunity to do so well. Now we'd like you to give back a little more then the people who can't or didn't do so well. It won't hurt you much but it will help them a LOT. Thanks - does that help you any?

The roads were probably there before person X even started his company. Person Y has the same ability to make a company and use the roads the person X does with his company. The government doesn't build the roads exclusively for person X. Moreover, person Y couldn't be paid unless person X used those roads to turn a profit. It doesn't make sense that you charge person X more simply because person X takes advantage of the fact the the roads exist when person Y has equal opportunity to do the same.
The roads have to be maintained.
 
What do you consider a "fair" rate of taxation.
Flat Tax or Consumption Tax.
Same rate for all.

No graduated taxation in this poll.

0%

I mean it...0%....the governement can go get a ****ing job.
 
Sure, you can opt out. You can't use the roads or rely on the police or fire departments or any government agency. You can't drink water from a public utility nor use it's currency to purchase things. Move to Alaska, go out into the wilderness and build a cabin to live in. Of course you can't get there by using a car since you'd have to use money to buy a car and you can't use the roads so you'l have to walk. Of course you can't buy shoes or an axe to chop down the trees to build the cabin but you could make a sharp rock and whittle a bow and arrow to catch some food, use the hide to cover your feet...

Everything you mentioned can be privatized, so I do not understand your point.
 
Do I really have to reverse engineer your electricity or internet connection the way we got Mr. Opt out to a cabin in Alaska?
So you are saying that the government provides electricity and internet connection? Because private businesses do that. Some companies even make roads, highways, and bridges :shock:

The government does REGULATE some businesses to ensure fair prices and just practices but it does not control them.

Sure, there are businesses that higher people and they pay those people at least a minimum wage. They are COMPENSATED for their work. If the wage is too small then they can refuse to work.
Unfortunately it just doesn't work that way.
And why should I believe that? Because you say so? :no:

You seem to have forgotten that you either need to show why my answer is wrong or why your answer is better.

If you were out of work long enough I bet you'd do it.
And if China invades or a super virus causes mass death, or any other of the infinite "what-if" scenarios happen I'm sure I'd do something different too. But currently and in the foreseeable future, if someone tried to higher me to write software for minimum wage I wouldn't do it and neither would any of my colleagues.

Really, how?
Minimum wage, grants, constructing public use infrastructure, forcing companies to pay long term disability, 401k matching, social security taxes. I'm sure there is more.

It's not unjust discrimination, it's saying, - hey, you've done really well in figuring out how to take advantage of the efforts of the rest of the population and you should be grateful you live in a country that gave you the opportunity to do so well. Now we'd like you to give back a little more then the people who can't or didn't do so well. It won't hurt you much but it will help them a LOT.
:no: The government is the LAST entity who should "give back to the people." The government (I.E., politicians) is incompetent, inefficient, and driven more by special interests and pandering to the nearsighted demands of constituent's than the general public need--at least in most cases. You seem to think that if I pay X more dollars per year the government will magically put that into the wallets of those "who can't or didn't do so well". That is a pipe dream and you damn well know it.

I'm not saying that the government doesn't have some diamonds in the rough, its just that shoving more money into the governments coffers is likely to get you bird sanctuaries and anti-marijuana ads then its going to help the pwoor wittle people.:mrgreen:

Your intentions are virtuous and great in theory but impractical. If anything that extra tax payer money will go to something like Pelosi's mouse sanctuary. Stimulus has $30M to save Pelosi's harvest mouse - Washington Times

Here some more of that extra money that gets put toward those ""who can't or didn't do so well" :dohWhat GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill - CNN.com

The roads have to be maintained.
Roads can be easily maintained and expanded without tax discrimination based on income or wealth.
 
Last edited:
Everything you mentioned can be privatized, so I do not understand your point.
Really? You don't understand it or you're being obtuse? Maybe this will help.

What Could be a Day in the Life of a Conservative

Joe Conservative wakes up in the morning and goes to the bathroom. He flushes his toilet and brushes his teeth, mindful that, each flush & brush costs him about 43 cents to his privatized water provider. His wacky, liberal neighbor keeps badgering the company to disclose how clean and safe their water is, but no one ever finds out. Just to be safe, Joe Conservative boils his drinking water, using more of the limited energy that he pays for.

Joe steps outside and coughs--the pollution is especially bad today, but the smokiest cars are the cheapest ones, and since they got rid of the bloated government beaurocracy formerly called the EPA, no one knows how polluted the air actually is. Since there is no truth in advertising laws, everyone buys the cheap chinese cars which seem to produce the most pollution, but who knows? And really, who cares because they are cheap. Joe Conservative checks to make sure he has enough toll money for the 3 different private roads he must drive to work. There is no public transportation, so traffic is backed up and his 10 mile commute takes an hour. Joe and his daughter don their respirators for the hour (look an industry has been created by the free market!).

On the way, he drops his 12 year old daughter off at the clothing factory she works at. Since there are no regulations against child labor Joe appreciates the extra income. Paying for kids to go to private school until they're 18 is a luxury, and Joe can’t afford to get the latest cool thing to impress his buddies without that extra income. Times are hard and there're no social safety nets so you gotta buy everything you can before you can’t work anymore.

He gets to work 5 minutes late and misses the call for Christian prayer, and is immediately docked by his employer. He is not feeling well today, but has no health insurance, since neither his employer nor his government provide it, and paying for it himself is really expensive, since he has a precondition. He just hopes for the best.

Joe's workday is 12 hours long, because there is no regulation on working hours, and Joe will lose his job if he complains or god forbid, tries to unionize. Today is an especially bad day because Joe's manager demands that he work until midnight, a 16 hour day. Joe does so, knowing that he'll lose his job if he does not. The good news is that he can call his daughter and tell her to work late too, since he can’t afford child care. He’ll just pick her up on his way home. Too bad neither employer has to pay over-time.

Finally, after midnight, Joe gets to pick up his daughter and go home. His daughter shows him the deep cut she got on the industrial sewing machine today. Joe is outraged and asks why she doesn't have metal mesh gloves or other protection. She says the company will not provide it and she'll have to pay for it out of her own pocket. Joe looks at the wound and decides they'll use an over the counter disinfectant and bandages until it heals. She'll have a scar, but getting stitches at the emergency room is expensive.

His daughter also complains that the manager made suggestive overtures towards her. Joe counsels her to be a "good girl" and not rock the boat, or she'll get fired and they'll be out the income.

His daughter says she can't wait until she's 18 so she can vote for change or go to the Iraq War. Unfortunately, Joe reminds his daughter that women can’t vote anymore because Joe’s Church, which is now the 4th branch of government, says that Jesus thinks adult women should stay home and take care of the household and stay out of politics which is for men.

They get home and there's a message from his elderly father who can't afford to pay his medical or heating bills. Joe can hear him coughing and shivering. But Joe understands that his father must suffer for not saving enough to live on after he couldn’t work anymore, at 83. Sure, he had some stock and a retirement package but the company filed for bankruptcy a few years back to get out from under it’s debt after the former CEO ran off with hundreds of millions and the current CEO is getting fired for poor performance. He still gets 300 million in severance pay, however.

Joe turns on the radio and the top story is a proposal in Congress to raise the voting age to 25. A rare liberal pundant states that it's an attempt to keep power out of the hands of working class Americans. The conservative host immediately quashes him, calling him "a utopian idealist," and agreeing that people aren't mature enough to make good choices until they're at least 25 and as long as they are white male property owners. Later that evening the cable news reports that the liberal pundant was arrested for having subversive materials on his home PC, which was immediately searched even before he had left the radio station.

Joe chuckles at the wine-swilling, cheese eating liberal egghead and thinks, "Thank God I live in America where I have freedom!"
 
The problem is that a country NEEDS some socialism or else you end up with a plutocracy. Our nation is wealthy and progressive because of the socialism in our system.

Can you name another country with the kind of system you repubs want? One without socialism?

Progressive taxation does not constitute "socialism." Socialism necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production. Progressive taxation actually serves to uphold capitalism, considering that the diminishing rate of marginal utility ensures that the physical efficiency of the workforce can be maintained through welfare programs without depriving the upper class of anything of comparable significance.
 
Don't you know that those people are poor because they are just lazy? Why shouldn't we just let lazy people drop dead in the street?

Works for me. Much better than robbing productive people of their hard earned money to feed parasites.

You got a pet tapeworm you care so much about? Fine, you feed him, okay?
 
Works for me. Much better than robbing productive people of their hard earned money to feed parasites.

You got a pet tapeworm you care so much about? Fine, you feed him, okay?

Come now! The rational analysis will identify the financial class as the true "parasites." I've already discussed "the role of intergenerational transfers in aggregate capital accumulation" elsewhere, which well identifies the lack of legitimate effort or just gains in the vast majority of that aggregate capital accumulation by the financial class. Considering their ultimate idleness, they serve little purpose other than provision of capital, which would be more efficiently accomplished through their dispossession and collectivization of the means of production. And as I always say, a picture speaks a thousand words!

ed4a754f.png
 
Come now! The rational analysis will identify the financial class as the true "parasites." I've already discussed "the role of intergenerational transfers in aggregate capital accumulation" elsewhere, which well identifies the lack of legitimate effort or just gains in the vast majority of that aggregate capital accumulation by the financial class. Considering their ultimate idleness, they serve little purpose other than provision of capital, which would be more efficiently accomplished through their dispossession and collectivization of the means of production. And as I always say, a picture speaks a thousand words!

ed4a754f.png

??? why do you want to hurt most people in the world???

They need capitalism here to create the capital that can be invested in their economies. If you collectivize capital, then there is no efficent incentive to create more of it. We can't be greedy with our developed economies that don't really REQUIRE more wealth to satisfy us.

How does the financial class function as "parasites" when they create more wealth for everyone else! wealth is not stagnant.
 
I voted 15% the paying of the tax should hurt some, enough that it gets the public's attention to what the goverment is spending on.
 
??? why do you want to hurt most people in the world???

They need capitalism here to create the capital that can be invested in their economies. If you collectivize capital, then there is no efficent incentive to create more of it. We can't be greedy with our developed economies that don't really REQUIRE more wealth to satisfy us.

That's far from being accurate. Establishing workers' ownership and management of firms will ensure a strong motivation to work, due to the equitable distribution of profits.

How does the financial class function as "parasites" when they create more wealth for everyone else! wealth is not stagnant.

Considering the oft-mentioned role of intergenerational transfers in aggregate capital accumulation, their role is typically that of "possessing" wealth rather than independently creating it.
 
Back
Top Bottom