• 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
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
If it retains the socialist...er "pro-gressive" nature of the current tax code it isn't very fair, now is it?
Click to expand...

Who says life is fair, where is that written?
 
Io0011 said:
That same vast majority get the bulk of their goods at a large business though. Places that know how to make money are always going to learn better ways of cheating. One way is to pass on the added expense of hiring new workers (to count inventory) would be to rase prices.
Click to expand...


I've got a really huge and really important question to ask you:

So?


Io0011 said:
They would then have to worry about some kind of "loss prevention" (ie: un skilled temporary workers who steal the most valuable, smallest inventory to offset the low wedges they will be paid and long hours they will be working.) That means more skilled workers watching their backs, some kind of system that would prove theft in a court of law, law suits on both sides (ie: excessive force by loss prevention vs innocent worker / or sneaky worker vs honest company.) Those prices get passed down and all of a sudden your paying twenty bucks for a tooth brush.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's clearly a problem they don't have to deal with now.

My tooth brush cost more than sixty dollars.

Io0011 said:
Just to be clear I am in favor of a national sales tax plan. I am only saying that plan is not going to be easy.
Click to expand...

I don't recall saying the word "easy" in relation to applying any form of tax at all.

What is necessary is that we have to get Congress and the federal government as far out of our personal lives as possible.
 
Z3n said:
Who says life is fair, where is that written?
Click to expand...

Amendment 14:

....nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

EQUAL protection means either the same tax, or the same tax rate. A graduated income tax, ie, the socialist taxation scam every would be thief calls "progressive", violates this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
 
Catawba said:
I wouldn't know about that but I do know why our forefathers set up the progressive tax 96 years ago,.
Click to expand...

So do I.

Class envy and incrementalism.

Not good reasons to violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Amendment 14:

....nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

EQUAL protection means either the same tax, or the same tax rate. A graduated income tax, ie, the socialist taxation scam every would be thief calls "progressive", violates this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Click to expand...

And in theory the right to life in the declaration of independence is a stab at insurance companies and economic income disparity further advocated the 14 amendment?
 
Z3n said:
And in theory the right to life in the declaration of independence is a stab at insurance companies and economic income disparity further advocated the 14 amendment?
Click to expand...

Hmmm....are you aware that the Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution?

Just checking.

Oh, and what's wrong with economic disparity? let me guess, you're jealous and want to pretend your feelings are intellectual, not visceral.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Hmmm....are you aware that the Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution?

Just checking.

Oh, and what's wrong with economic disparity? let me guess, you're jealous and want to pretend your feelings are intellectual, not visceral.
Click to expand...

its no secret that visceral feelings are an impairment to human nature and the political psyche...

"The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
 
Z3n said:
its no secret that visceral feelings are an impairment to human nature and the political psyche...

"The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
Click to expand...

Yes, taxing people equally doesn't violate this.

What's your point, that if a socialist had a life he's stop being a whiner?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yes, taxing people equally doesn't violate this.

What's your point, that if a socialist had a life he's stop being a whiner?
Click to expand...


what does that even mean? free your mind from meaningless pejoratives and evaluate the issues at hand instead of indoctrination into status quo mentality the upper eschilon of society wants for you and your heirloom.
 
Z3n said:
what does that even mean?
Click to expand...

If you aren't a socialist you don't have to be told.

Z3n said:
free your mind from meaningless pejoratives and evaluate the issues at hand instead of indoctrination into status quo mentality the upper eschilon of society wants for you and your heirloom.
Click to expand...

The issue at hand is that so-called "progressive" tax scams are an unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So do I.

Class envy and incrementalism.
Click to expand...

So your position is our forefathers were socialists? By that line of thinking, since the wealthy pay drastically less taxes now then they did in the 50's, we are drastically less socialistic today than we were during a time of great prosperity.

Interesting theory!

Not good reasons to violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
Click to expand...

The income tax has not been overturned by the Supreme Court as being in violation of the 14th Amendment. So, by the rule of law, it is legal.
 
AlbqOwl said:
a) The United States of America is not Europe. The Founders intended that it NOT be Europe but be the United States of America based on principles of unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It took the Europeans quite some time before they even considered looking at personal liberty as a right instead of privilege via membership in a particular group.

Those who are enamored with Europe and want the USA to now be like THEM should move there. I prefer a USA that fits the vision the Founders had for it when they gave us our Constitution.

2) I'm not sure what you are getting at here or whether I disagree or agree with you. Can you elaborate or clarify a bit?
Click to expand...

I am saying that the whole idea that progressive income taxes will cause an economy to collapse as people vote for more and more spending that they do not need to pay for is false.

I use Europe as my example, their income tax is even more progressive as ours, but the people do not vote in large enough numbers to support any radical leftism that you are fearing.

Sure, it is more leftist policies then you like, (and my post here has nothing to do with if the US should be more or less like Europe) but you can't say that progressive income taxes will destroy an economy, because Europe is doing fine enough.


obvious Child said:
The study make serious assumptions that aren't necessary true to reality. Right now with increasing fees on credit cards, firms are offering cash customers lower prices. What is preventing them from not booking them properly and reporting them? Now tell me, what will stop firms from expanding this when sales tax flies through the roof?



Read the links I posted. It is disturbing to me that more and more people are unaware of what a link looks like on a post.



Because it is pretty much the only way to ensure a goods based company is reporting its total sales.



Low enough? You do realize over $500 billion is not reported no? And that's a low estimate.



Come again? Most people are unaware that they won't get audited unless they have a few known red flags, such as a home office deduction (never ever take that). Businesses on the other hand know they have a surefire way of hiding sales. Simply don't ring up a cash sale on the register. And no, it doesn't work with income tax.

The Underground*Economy - Brief Analysis #273

And that was in 1998. It's probably well over a trillion by now in unreported income.



Perhaps you should start reading links that are posted?
Click to expand...

Assumptions that aren't true? I am giving you the benefit of the doubt on all of the assumptions. Fair Tax.com claimed that the tax would only be 30%, while a NON PARTISAN watchdog organization said that 39.3% is more accurate.

You can't just claim that there are other assumptions that you can't quantify in any way, and that it means that the report is false.


I looked again and I couldn't find your link. So are you going to show it to me, and prove me completely wrong... or are we just going to be stuck here wasting our time.


Finally, your link just shows that tax evasion is common, I agree with that, and that is why I am fine with debating a 39.3% sales tax, which is TEN PERCENT above what fair tax thinks would work. and anyway, your link is about income taxes and not sales taxes, and I think that a universal sales tax will have even less tax evasion. so i would really like to see your link about sales taxes at a local level....
 
Last edited:
nerv14 said:
I am saying that the whole idea that progressive income taxes will cause an economy to collapse as people vote for more and more spending that they do not need to pay for is false.
Click to expand...

If we are speaking of just progressive income taxes, I would agree. I oppose a progressive income tax system because I believe it to be unconstitutional as the Founders intended the Constitution to be interpreted; and I believe it is counter productive in accomplishing either more money for the government or more in services and/or prosperity for the people. But that is a debate within itself.

What DOES cause an economy to collapse is taking more and more from one sector of society and giving that to another not because they merit it or were denied any benefit from society, but purely because they have less and will keep voting in people who will pay them for being poor.

This is why I support a flat tax that is uniform across the board. Any change that benefits one group benefits all. Any change that hurts one group hurts all. And THAT, coupled with an iron clad law that Congress is prohibited from using tax revenues to dispense charity or benevolence of any sort that benefits some but not all, I believe would solve a very large lion's share of both our economic and social problems in this country.

I use Europe as my example, their income tax is even more progressive as ours, but the people do not vote in large enough numbers to support any radical leftism that you are fearing.
Click to expand...

Again, the USA is not Europe. All European countries are far more like one of our states or even one of our larger cities or counties than they are like the USA. The USA was founded and designed on an entirely different principle than the European model and it has been a success. I do not wish to revert to the European model.

Sure, it is more leftist policies then you like, (and my post here has nothing to do with if the US should be more or less like Europe) but you can't say that progressive income taxes will destroy an economy, because Europe is doing fine enough.
Click to expand...

I have not said that progressive income taxes have ever or will destroy an economy. I think if you think that is what I said or implied, you should look more closely at what I have actually said.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
If it retains the socialist...er "pro-gressive" nature of the current tax code it isn't very fair, now is it?
Click to expand...

Fair? If you think that changing the current tax system can be done because it is "fair" you are not thinking right. If people, who under the current tax codes, can get away with paying no tax based on their earnings, why in the wide World Of Sports would they vote for a new tax system that would require them to pay?
There comes a time when you have to be both practical and pragmatic about what can be done and how to do it.
The benefits of the "Fair Tax" far out weigh the fact that some people under the poverty line may not pay taxes.
-The IRS goes away and with it all the billions we spend for them.
-The actual estimated tax is 22%, not 30, or 39 % like so many non economic media types claim. This figure from a study by economic professors who took into account all embedded taxes, on average, of an end product, good, or service.
-All people will pay into the system as they purchase goods and services. That includes illegal immigrants, the rich, churches, etc. In other words, no cheating on your taxes here.
-Those at or below the poverty line get a pre-bate check to pay for the necessities of life. Do we really want to tax poor people? Really?
-And the best thing about the "fair Tax" is that it takes control away from politicians so they cannot add loopholes that favor their sponsors and other corporations. This is going to be the biggest hurdle in getting a tax system change, the loss of power by government.
-As to fairness, would any body argue that some rich people pay no taxes because we are taxed on income? If a person is wealthy, he lives off his savings. Now, all pay according to what they buy.
-Also, all those political taxes go away, no death or inheritance tax. No property tax. No Home tax. No SS or Medicare tax. All taken care of by the Fair tax system.
-And no Tax return!
-In 2002, it was estimated that individuals, businesses, and nonprofits spent 5.8 billion hours complying with the tax code. Imagine the cost?

These are just a very few of the reasons for a "Fair Tax.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Oh, and what's wrong with economic disparity?
Click to expand...
Only that it was what this country was founded against.
Click to expand...

Oh really? Care to point out some source docs on this one? I don't believe it for a minute.


There can be no freedom without justice.
Click to expand...

This certainly has the ring of a far left jangle. What is it suppose to mean. You can certainly have freedom without justice.
 
reefedjib said:
Oh really? Care to point out some source docs on this one? I don't believe it for a minute.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of the Boston tea party, or would you like me to document it for you?

This certainly has the ring of a far left jangle. What is it suppose to mean. You can certainly have freedom without justice.
Click to expand...

Please explain to me how those without justice have freedom, and why it is exactly you are opposed to justice?
 
Catawba said:
Ever heard of the Boston tea party, or would you like me to document it for you?
Click to expand...

The Boston Tea Party had nothing to do with economic disparity.

Catawba said:
Please explain to me how those without justice have freedom, and why it is exactly you are opposed to justice?
Click to expand...

I never said I was opposed to justice, merely that your phrasing in one the far left uses.
 
reefedjib said:
The Boston Tea Party had nothing to do with economic disparity.
Click to expand...

You mean it wasn't about protesting our requirement to send money to the fat cats in England in the form of taxes rather than keeping it in the Colonies?

I never said I was opposed to justice, merely that your phrasing in one the far left uses.
Click to expand...

You said there could be freedom without justice. Can you explain to me how that works?
Click to expand...
 
Catawba said:
You mean it wasn't about protesting our requirement to send money to the fat cats in England in the form of taxes rather than keeping it in the Colonies?
Click to expand...

That's not economic disparity.

You said there could be freedom without justice. Can you explain to me how that works?
Click to expand...

An injustice is done to someone, let us say they are raped by a politician. Still they have the freedoms guaranteed by our constitution - they speak up about it.
 
reefedjib said:
That's not economic disparity.
Click to expand...

So the wealth division between England and the colonies was equal and just and that is why we protested the taxes being sent to England?
An injustice is done to someone, let us say they are raped by a politician. Still they have the freedoms guaranteed by our constitution - they speak up about it.
Click to expand...

So in you definition of liberty, rape is acceptable?
 
So in you definition of liberty, rape is acceptable?
Click to expand...

Bite me. I'll not continue as you twist my words to your agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom