• 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!

Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

Which do you prefer:


  • Total voters
    133
Having more wealth does not mean you incur a greater debt to government.


Yes it absolutely does. Even after a progressive tax you still hold disproportionate wealth to your tax bracket if you are an upper class individual. If everyone paid a flat tax, most of the wealth held by society would be in the pocketbook of the elite and not the general public. Even after a 20% tax on a 200,000 income you still have more than enough wealth to live a very comfortable lifestyle. After say, that same 20% tax on a poor person, he or she might not have the means to live a healthy life or continue paying for her house.
 
It's crazy to suggest that poor people can't do that when the barriers to entry are basically nonexistent.

To say that you did, does not prove the case for everyone. If everyone came from the same socioeconomic background that would be true, but that is simply not the case.

Ever hear of the expression you can squeeze blood out of a turnip. To think that we can just tax the poor and middle class more to provide for even greater tax breaks for the upper class is ludicrous!

Where does the public support for that come from???
 
Yes it absolutely does. Even after a progressive tax you still hold disproportionate wealth to your tax bracket if you are an upper class individual. If everyone paid a flat tax, most of the wealth held by society would be in the pocketbook of the elite and not the general public. Even after a 20% tax on a 200,000 income you still have more than enough wealth to live a very comfortable lifestyle. After say, that same 20% tax on a poor person, he or she might not have the means to live a healthy life or continue paying for her house.

Then don't tax anyone at that insanely high rate.

You create perverse incentives when you don't charge the person who uses the services, they demand more and more and expect to pay none.
 
To say that you did, does not prove the case for everyone. If everyone came from the same socioeconomic background that would be true, but that is simply not the case.

Ever hear of the expression you can squeeze blood out of a turnip. To think that we can just tax the poor and middle class more to provide for even greater tax breaks for the upper class is ludicrous!

Where does the public support for that come from???

That doesn't mean they can't though.
If one poor person can do it, then all poor people have the potential to do it.

I went from broke as hell to living quite nice precisely because I learned to manage my money wisely.

The other poor persons I work and live around do not have those kinds of financial management skills, which is exactly why they will stay poor.

It has nothing to do with exploitation or being unaffordable, it has everything to do with life choices.
 
Yes it absolutely does. Even after a progressive tax you still hold disproportionate wealth to your tax bracket if you are an upper class individual.

So?

Is there some law limiting how much money a person can own?

If so, what on earth for?

Why artificially limit someone's potential? Is his life your concern?

If everyone paid a flat tax, most of the wealth held by society would be in the pocketbook of the elite and not the general public.

So?

What concern is it of yours? Or ours? You envious of your betters?

Even after a 20% tax on a 200,000 income you still have more than enough wealth to live a very comfortable lifestyle.

Since it isn't your life, it isn't your call to make.

After say, that same 20% tax on a poor person, he or she might not have the means to live a healthy life or continue paying for her house.

Life's a bitch. Maybe she should get married and have her husband share the burdens?

Again, if I cared, I donate her some money. If you cared, you donate some of your own money. In either case, no one has the right to steal someone else's money simply because they're envious of the wealthy.

Do you believe that changing your name but not your arguments it going to accomplish anything?

To sum up what you said, you're argument is basically that if you have more money than the government thinks you should have, the government should have the power to take it.

That's not a good argument.
 
Last edited:
To say that you did, does not prove the case for everyone. If everyone came from the same socioeconomic background that would be true, but that is simply not the case.

Ever hear of the expression you can squeeze blood out of a turnip. To think that we can just tax the poor and middle class more to provide for even greater tax breaks for the upper class is ludicrous!

Where does the public support for that come from???

Then again, no one's ever heard the expression "you can squeeze blood out of a turnip" because the expression is "you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip".

Outside of that, it's irrelevant.

The goal isn't to make tax breaks for the wealthy, the goal is to an egalitarian society in which all pay their share. Punishing the rich for being successful is an insane way of building a nation, but an amazing way of destroying one. A way that would make sense...if it was being implemented by a conquering enemy.

Which is what socialists are, in America.
 
What did I admit was illegal?

Oh.

Never mind.

I thought I was responding to someone with a fourth grader's grasp of English, someone who knew what he was saying when he posted:

"None of that is allowed by Article I, Section 8."

You posted that, but you don't know what it meant.

My bad.

Now that I know I'm dealing with a first grader I'll treat you differently.
 
Last edited:
So?

Is there some law limiting how much money a person can own?

If so, what on earth for?

Why artificially limit someone's potential? Is his life your concern?



So?

What concern is it of yours? Or ours? You envious of your betters?





Since it isn't your life, it isn't your call to make.



Life's a bitch. Maybe she should get married and have her husband share the burdens?

Again, if I cared, I donate her some money. If you cared, you donate some of your own money. In either case, no one has the right to steal someone else's money simply because they're envious of the wealthy.

Do you believe that changing your name but not your arguments it going to accomplish anything?

To sum up what you said, you're argument is basically that if you have more money than the government thinks you should have, the government should have the power to take it.

That's not a good argument.

my only argument is that when some people, namely the private sector, hold disproportionate wealth, then they are in fact, a matter of concern to the working class.

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/WealthIncome07.gif

Im not really interested in economics anyway, it just seems quaint that people want to keep the rich richer and poor poorer
 
Last edited:
my only argument is that when some people, namely the private sector, hold disproportionate wealth, then they are in fact, a matter of concern to the working class.

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/WealthIncome07.gif

Im not really interested in economics anyway, it just seems quaint that people want to keep the rich richer and poor poorer

That's not at all what people want.

Poverty is relative, no one wants to keep the poor like that, they do that well enough themselves.

I do expect everyone to pay their fair share, they don't do that and demand more at no expense to themselves.
 
That's not at all what people want.

Poverty is relative, no one wants to keep the poor like that, they do that well enough themselves.

I do expect everyone to pay their fair share, they don't do that and demand more at no expense to themselves.

I feel that more liberal economics would give people democratic control over political as well as economic matters, rather than the system we have now(not dissing capitalism, but the current implication of it) that concentrates the control of these areas into the hands of a small group of people at the top of the socio-economic ladder(CEO bonuses? sure you can be a fan of the market, but seriously?). It means giving you control over your workplace rather than in the hands of some board of trustees, the stock holders, or the bosses who are only interested in profit and not your livelihood. People need the right to a job with a living wage, decent housing, health care, education, etc. And I'd rather do that through that absence of the state than through "nationalization". I'm a weird breed I really am, I feel like I'm so socially left and internationalist, but when it comes to economics im just all over the place, and neither side can completely convince me.
 
I feel that more liberal economics would give people democratic control over political as well as economic matters, rather than the system we have now(not dissing capitalism, but the current implication of it) that concentrates the control of these areas into the hands of a small group of people at the top of the socio-economic ladder(CEO bonuses? sure you can be a fan of the market, but seriously?). It means giving you control over your workplace rather than in the hands of some board of trustees, the stock holders, or the bosses who are only interested in profit and not your livelihood. People need the right to a job with a living wage, decent housing, health care, education, etc. And I'd rather do that through that absence of the state than through "nationalization". I'm a weird breed I really am, I feel like I'm so socially left and internationalist, but when it comes to economics im just all over the place, and neither side can completely convince me.

I consider myself, generally, better educated than my peers in real life.
(co-workers, neighbors etc.)

I see them spend money that they earn on useless or wasteful things like lottery tickets and beer, at the same time many of them purposefully avoid marriage to get food stamps, free medical care for their kids.

There are a lot of disincentives associated with liberal tax policy and social welfare.
Just my observation of course.

This may appeal to your social-political interests, [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism]Distributism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
I consider myself, generally, better educated than my peers in real life.
(co-workers, neighbors etc.)

I see them spend money that they earn on useless or wasteful things like lottery tickets and beer, at the same time many of them purposefully avoid marriage to get food stamps, free medical care for their kids.

There are a lot of disincentives associated with liberal tax policy and social welfare.
Just my observation of course.

This may appeal to your social-political interests, Distributism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting. I mainly go here for international discussion and social issues, like I said, economics is not my forte. :D
 
The other poor persons I work and live around do not have those kinds of financial management skills, which is exactly why they will stay poor.

Those are examples of the socioeconomic background differences of which I spoke.
 
no one's ever heard the expression "you can squeeze blood out of a turnip"

That was my point, no one has ever heard of such a bogus tax scheme as the "Fair tax", that will shift more of the tax burden from the wealthy to the lower and middle classes.

The goal isn't to make tax breaks for the wealthy, the goal is to an egalitarian society in which all pay their share.

Before Bush's tax cuts, the wealthy used to pay more than the middle and lower classes. They now pay less of their income than do the middle class.

The reason the progressive taxes were instituted, and have been maintained through 96 years of both parties in power, is because the public understands the fairness of a system that taxes those who own most of the wealth at a greater rate than someone with less wealth.

Since most of the voters fall into the category of the middle and lower classes, I don't see where the support for a consumption tax will come from.

Any ideas?
 
That was my point, no one has ever heard of such a bogus tax scheme as the "Fair tax", that will shift more of the tax burden from the wealthy to the lower and middle classes.

Before socialism, no one ever heard of anything as stupid as punishing success, either.

What's your point again?


Before Bush's tax cuts, the wealthy used to pay more than the middle and lower classes.

That's manifestly untrue.

Ever since socialism infested this nation, the wealthy have been the targets of punitive taxation, Bush altered the rates, but the wealthy individual still paid more money to the friggin' thieving government than anyone else.

Since the Fourteenth Amendment insists on equal protection before the law, the individual citizen should either pay equal dollar amounts of tax, ie, everyone chips in ten bucks to the kitty, or everyone pays the same freakin' rate.

Anything else, ie this so-called "Progressive", which means "socialist class envy" bull**** is both unamerican and unconstitutional, and justifiable only on emotional class envious grounds.

I don't suffer from class envy, hence the arguments in favor of this socialist bull**** don't work on me.

They don't work on anyone capable of rational thought.

Any ideas?

Yes, you should move to a country that doesn't want successful citizens if you're not happy here.
 
That was my point, no one has ever heard of such a bogus tax scheme as the "Fair tax", that will shift more of the tax burden from the wealthy to the lower and middle classes.



Before Bush's tax cuts, the wealthy used to pay more than the middle and lower classes. They now pay less of their income than do the middle class.

The reason the progressive taxes were instituted, and have been maintained through 96 years of both parties in power, is because the public understands the fairness of a system that taxes those who own most of the wealth at a greater rate than someone with less wealth.

Since most of the voters fall into the category of the middle and lower classes, I don't see where the support for a consumption tax will come from.

Any ideas?

The support from a consumption tax is either because people are emotional, and they don't like the gov taking their work... or because they realize how good a sales tax is for the economy.

I support a sales tax for the economic benefits, not for any principle.

A sales tax means that someone's income will only be taxed when they consume something, which provides an incentive for that person to invest their money instead of consuming. So in the long run, it is much better for this country, and therefore everyone in it, if we had more of a sales tax. A consumption tax would help us from getting into this debt mess again...

Also, a sales tax scheme would include a pre-bate which would give everyone a check each month. That check would function so someone's sale taxes would be repaid if someone only consumes at the poverty level, so even the poor could do better with a sales tax.


I do agree with the problem about how regressive a sales tax is though. So ideally, a consumption tax should also include a low level tax on the upper middle class and above, along with a strong inheritance tax to help the middle class have less of a tax burden. I really think a sales tax to reduce the income tax a fair amount is probably the best compromise.



(actually, I even oppose a flat tax more then either our current system of a sales tax, because it doesn't have the investment promotion in a sales tax and it isn't progressive)
 
That was my point, no one has ever heard of such a bogus tax scheme as the "Fair tax", that will shift more of the tax burden from the wealthy to the lower and middle classes.





Any ideas?

A flat tax can be shaped sp that it is not regressive. For example raising the cut-in on taxes. So for the first 30k, no tax. Also if you roll in payroll taxes which are the most regressive parts of our taxes that would actually make a flat tax more progressive.
 
A sales tax means that someone's income will only be taxed when they consume something, which provides an incentive for that person to invest their money instead of consuming. So in the long run, it is much better for this country, and therefore everyone in it, if we had more of a sales tax. A consumption tax would help us from getting into this debt mess again...
)

Seeing as our economy is based on consumerism, if everyone saved their money and didn't buy anything the economy would come to a standstill. Remember when Bush told us to get out there and spend money?

I do support a national sales tax but still expect people to buy things since their income will be higher.
 
Ever since socialism infested this nation, the wealthy have been the targets of punitive taxation, Bush altered the rates, but the wealthy individual still paid more money to the friggin' thieving government than anyone else.

"Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent."
Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online
 
"Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent."
Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online

Yes, I've seen that quote. I don't believe him. I don't believe Warren Buffett, one of the most financially-savvy people on the planet, did not have anyone working on minimizing his tax burden. I call it a lie.
 
"Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent."
Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online

So it looks like this is due to Warren Buffett making all of his "income" from investment, such that he is paying the capital gains tax rate of 15% on his "income", versus his receptionist paying income tax of 30%.

It is an argument of wealth creation versus income. Wealth creation helps the economy grow and provide jobs and so it is taxed at a lower rate so as not to suppress this growth. This is it's advantage. As a result, the super wealthy don't pay as high a percent in taxes. This is the disadvantage. Like all things, it has its pluses and minuses. So what is the cost benefit analysis?
 
Last edited:
A flat tax can be shaped sp that it is not regressive. For example raising the cut-in on taxes. So for the first 30k, no tax. Also if you roll in payroll taxes which are the most regressive parts of our taxes that would actually make a flat tax more progressive.

Not sure what you mean by roll in payroll taxes? Not enough detail here to tell if your idea could generate the same revenue as our current system without shifting more of the burden from the wealthy to the middle class.
 
So it looks like this is due to Warren Buffett making all of his "income" from investment, such that he is paying the capital gains tax rate of 15% on his "income", versus his receptionist paying income tax of 30%.

It is an argument of wealth creation versus income.

Exactly!
That is why the fairtax has not been embraced by the middle class.
Wealth creation helps the economy grow and provide jobs and so it is taxed at a lower rate so as not to suppress this growth.

Bush's tax cuts did not provide jobs, He ended his term with job rates plummeting, and our economy heading for a depression.
 
Bush's tax cuts did not provide jobs, He ended his term with job rates plummeting, and our economy heading for a depression.

His tax cuts did provide jobs, as the economy grew strongly for 7 of his 8 years. His tax cuts, and the corresponding wealth creation did not prevent the boom-bust cycle from rearing it's ugly head. This does not disqualify the fact that lower taxes on investment creates wealth and jobs.
 
His tax cuts did provide jobs, as the economy grew strongly for 7 of his 8 years. His tax cuts, and the corresponding wealth creation did not prevent the boom-bust cycle from rearing it's ugly head. This does not disqualify the fact that lower taxes on investment creates wealth and jobs.

I've not seen it in my lifetime. The trickle did not make it down to the middle class my friend.

Regardless, if you think you can convince the middle class they need to shoulder more of the tax burden to provide additional cuts for the wealthy, have at it?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom