• 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
You're going to stick with that eventhough the number of people who *qualify* for assistance was slashed significantly in the 60's upon formation of the system?
It remains at that low level, too - eventhough the poverty-line has increased.

*Most* poor are temporarily poor. In 1996 the measures taken to change the system made dependence on it more so temporary.

Without the system those problems in life that lead peopel to be temporarily dependent on support of said nature (divorce, illness, job-loss, etc) would be harder to get over - if one could get passed it at all.

if you don't drop out of HS and you wait until marriage to have children your chance of being impoverished in the US is less than one in 20

taxes aren't the issue
 
When you answer Aunt Spiker's questions, I will answer yours?

that's rather childish but I already did. make failure more painful for those who clearly are slackers or shirkers
 
if you don't drop out of HS and you wait until marriage to have children your chance of being impoverished in the US is less than one in 20

taxes aren't the issue

indeed. who were the researchers who demonstrated that if you graduated high school, didn't have kids until you were married, and worked full-time, that you were statistically guaranteed not to live in poverty?
 
indeed. who were the researchers who demonstrated that if you graduated high school, didn't have kids until you were married, and worked full-time, that you were statistically guaranteed not to live in poverty?

Well - people better not get sick, get seriously injured, or get divorced - or become a Hispanic female because those seem to be associated with high levels of poverty as well.
 
indeed. who were the researchers who demonstrated that if you graduated high school, didn't have kids until you were married, and worked full-time, that you were statistically guaranteed not to live in poverty?

No-one, because that's not what he said.
 
You know - the average person is only a bad situation and a few paychecks away from poverty. . . which is a disturbing thought.
 
Ok - so you two think it's not as bad as I see it.

perhaps it's because you tend to focus on the negative (or we on the positive), perhaps it's because we simply have a lower "floor". :D we just finished finding a house here in Oki to rent while we're here. My wife and I discovered we had quite different expectations about housing:
cpwill's wife said:
Look, all I'm saying is, it only has one bathroom
cpwill said:
yeah, but look! it has running water!
:lol:

But we all agree that we do have those who are homeless and so on. Some through their own decisions - others through the act of others. . . the reasons are quite varied.

which is one of the many reasons why government one-size-fits-all solutions are rarely optimal, or even necessarily net beneficial.

So what to do about it?

oh, there are lots of good ideas out there. but it's not something that government does well. the best thing that government can generally do is provide the open field that would allow people to move themselves out of poverty, refuse to reward them for not doing so... and then get out of their way.

School Choice, and other educational reforms would probably be an excellent example of government plans with the ability to aid the poor.

Ending agricultural subsidies - which benefit agribusiness, but raises the price of food - would also benefit those in our society who spend a higher percentage of their income feeding themselves. In a time of food-price-inflation (which we are in), it would be especially welcome.

Getting rid of rent-control would open up a larger amount of low-income housing.

the FairTax would get rid of the highest tax that most working poor pay (the payroll tax), while making their economic life up to the poverty line tax-free.

Getting rid of minimum wage laws would allow the poorest and least-skilled amongst us access to the job market; which would keep them from being forced either onto the dole or into illegal employment.

Finding some way to (carefully) get micro-lending institutions FDIC membership, or perhaps allowing them some kind of narrow exception to the Volcker rule might be beneficial, but you would need better study on that than cpwill-throwing-out-ideas.

Reform of the tax code (and any other government distribution of funds) to encourage marriage, and the striking down of no-fault-divorce would keep more of them in more financially stable family structures.

Encouraging HSA's would give them tangible assets which would grow over time, while reducing their health-care costs.

I've suggested a reform to the Social Security system here: which I demonstrated would make someone who never earned more than $32,000 a year a millionaire, at no added cost to them.

there are plenty of good ideas out there. but at the end of the day, the ultimate responsibility is the individuals.

Ending any of our attempts to help said individuals will only make the issue worse.

really? welfare reform in the 90's did precisely that; and had the effect of moving many Americans off of the welfare rolls and into employment.
 
Last edited:
You know - the average person is only a bad situation and a few paychecks away from poverty. . . which is a disturbing thought.

true; but again, that is the individuals' responsibility. when we were poor, i kept 5-6 months of living expenses in a savings account at all times in case of 'bad situations'.
 
the great injustice is not the issue-its the mindset a progressive tax creates

the mindset comes from the vast majority of voters thinking that a bloated government is not a problem and a deficit is not a problem because their leaders tell them the rich can be taxed at higher and higher rates to solve those problems and give the masses all the government they want

as long as the majority that uses the majority of government spending don't have to suffer any increased taxes they have no incentive whatsoever to stop the unsustainable expansion of government

a flat tax means that when some guy making 25K a year supports more government and taxes have to rise, he's gonna feel it and maybe next time he won't be so keen for more government expansion

I also tire of the power congress grabbed with the PIT-it allows the dems to pander to those who want more goodies and others to pay for it while the GOP turns around and gets support by opposing wealth confiscation

a flat tax means there would be a more honest discussion in Congress

I'm much more interested in outcomes than in ideology, and I'm not convinced a flat tax will improve the rhetoric or stop government expansion. After all, what you call pandering is really representation, isn't it? Every American gets a vote, and it's reasonable to expect people to vote in their own self interest, so as long there are differences of opinion, there will be clashes in government, and as long as over-the-top rhetoric is effective, it will be employed. I trust our constitutional republic to seek out an equilibrium among the competing forces, meaning that Democratic politicians can continue to pander to the poor -- as somebody has to -- and the opposition party will keep their power to "confiscate wealth" in check.

Acutally, I don't think "wealth confiscation" is an accurate term. Income in a one-year period is not reflective of wealth, just income. So even a 90% income tax (which I think is way too high, by the way) wouldn't confiscate existing wealth, though it could severely hamper one's ability to amass wealth in the first place, creating a more rigid social structure at the very top.

Which brings up another point that others have touched on. Very few people stay in one tax bracket their whole lives. Their cirumstances change, their ability to pay changes, and their tax burden changes with them. Anyone who has only payed the top rate must enjoy a comfortable lifestyle, no?
 
how did the wars benefit the most of those in the top 2 percent of tax payers?

can you prove the idiotic claim that high massive tax rates caused prosperity

good luck if you can and what was the effective rate then versus now?

I would imagine the owners and stockholders of companies with fat defense contracts like Halliburton prove the point perfectly that these wars have benefitted many of those at the top.

Every time the top tax rates are discussed, proof is provided of them and folks with your opinion jump up and retort that the actual EFFECTIVE RATES were different. Okay. Here is your chance. Our side has provided the data on the rates in effect, your side on this effective rate claim has never presented any hard data.

So lets see the hard data on just where these EFFECTIVE RATES were during the Fifties. No "common knowledge". No vague pronouncements. Provide us hard data just like the side talking about the real rates have provided.

From GhostlyJoe

I'm much more interested in outcomes than in ideology,

You could take that wisdom to half the threads on this board. Well said.
 
Last edited:
You know - the average person is only a bad situation and a few paychecks away from poverty. . . which is a disturbing thought.

personal responsibility is something everyone has control over. again, engaging in personal responsibility leads one to a 96% chance of not being in poverty.
 
I'm much more interested in outcomes than in ideology, and I'm not convinced a flat tax will improve the rhetoric or stop government expansion. After all, what you call pandering is really representation, isn't it? Every American gets a vote, and it's reasonable to expect people to vote in their own self interest, so as long there are differences of opinion, there will be clashes in government, and as long as over-the-top rhetoric is effective, it will be employed. I trust our constitutional republic to seek out an equilibrium among the competing forces, meaning that Democratic politicians can continue to pander to the poor -- as somebody has to -- and the opposition party will keep their power to "confiscate wealth" in check.

Acutally, I don't think "wealth confiscation" is an accurate term. Income in a one-year period is not reflective of wealth, just income. So even a 90% income tax (which I think is way too high, by the way) wouldn't confiscate existing wealth, though it could severely hamper one's ability to amass wealth in the first place, creating a more rigid social structure at the very top.

Which brings up another point that others have touched on. Very few people stay in one tax bracket their whole lives. Their cirumstances change, their ability to pay changes, and their tax burden changes with them. Anyone who has only payed the top rate must enjoy a comfortable lifestyle, no?
anyone who pays the top rate has most likely paid the tax burden for many others
 
I would imagine the owners and stockholders of companies with fat defense contracts like Halliburton prove the point perfectly that these wars have benefitted many of those at the top.

Every time the top tax rates are discussed, proof is provided of them and folks with your opinion jump up and retort that the actual EFFECTIVE RATES were different. Okay. Here is your chance. Our side has provided the data on the rates in effect, your side on this effective rate claim has never presented any hard data.

So lets see the hard data on just where these EFFECTIVE RATES were during the Fifties. No "common knowledge". No vague pronouncements. Provide us hard data just like the side talking about the real rates have provided.

From GhostlyJoe



You could take that wisdom to half the threads on this board. Well said.

how many people were benefited? I'd like some proof for your claims

everyone should pay the same rate-everyone gets the same citizenship benefits
 
anyone who pays the top rate has most likely paid the tax burden for many others

That is absurd and nonsensical. There is no such thing as a TAX BURDEN for others. Every person has a different tax burden and that is the way it is suppose to be.
 
how many people were benefited? I'd like some proof for your claims

everyone should pay the same rate-everyone gets the same citizenship benefits

You want proof that Halliburton benefitted from war? Do you also want me to prove that the sun rose in the east today while we are at it?

but here you go

Halliburton Watch

and more including a Sixty minute video

Halliburton Watch

and more
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6008

There is no price for citizenship benefits. We have something called the Constitution which sees to that and makes sure folks like you do not prevail in that sort of scheme. You might want to read it sometime.
 
Last edited:
That is absurd and nonsensical. There is no such thing as a TAX BURDEN for others. Every person has a different tax burden and that is the way it is suppose to be.

why-because you said so-because politicians want to treat people differently to gain power

If I buy a cheeseburger I pay the same as you do no matter if I make 400,000 more a year

my dentist charges me the same as he does a guy making cubicle bunny wages.

the cars at the dealership where I shop don't have different prices based on income

so why should government be different? it wasn't for more than half our history

your assertions have no merit
 
You want proof that Halliburton benefitted from war? Do you also want me to prove that the sun rose in the east today while we are at it?

but here you go

Halliburton Watch

There is no price for citizenship benefits. We have something called the Constitution which sees to that and makes sure folks like you do not prevail in that sort of scheme. You might want to read it sometime.

I want a list of all the people who benefited from the war

some lefty claimed that the rich benefit more because the war benefits them more than the poor-I need to see proof of that-I didn't benefit from the invasion of Iran anymore than you did-or the guy selling me HOHOs at the local stop & rob.

lots of blue collar types work for Halliburton-or in the "military industrial complex"

they benefited too
 
from turtle

If I buy a cheeseburger I pay the same as you do no matter if I make 400,000 more a year

my dentist charges me the same as he does a guy making cubicle bunny wages.

the cars at the dealership where I shop don't have different prices based on income


CONTINUAL COSTCO CONFUSION

part 634.

You do not know the difference between the relationship between a government and a citizen in a representative democracy and that of a customer in a commercial business.

Ivy League indeed!
 
Last edited:
how many people were benefited? I'd like some proof for your claims

everyone should pay the same rate-everyone gets the same citizenship benefits

You want proof that Halliburton benefitted from war? Do you also want me to prove that the sun rose in the east today while we are at it?

but here you go

Halliburton Watch

and more including a Sixty minute video

Halliburton Watch

and more
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6008

There is no price for citizenship benefits. We have something called the Constitution which sees to that and makes sure folks like you do not prevail in that sort of scheme. You might want to read it sometime.
Or not.
 
Last edited:
anyone who pays the top rate has most likely paid the tax burden for many others

No doubt. But I don't find that improper or unjust as long as its through the legitimate action of government.
 
CONTINUAL COSTCO CONFUSION

part 634.

You do not know the difference between the relationship between a government and a citizen in a representative democracy and that of a customer in a commercial business.

Ivy League indeed!

sorry to rain on your rant but I do know what is and I advocate what should be


you constantly babble that what is is always right

that is just plain stupid
 
No doubt. But I don't find that improper or unjust as long as its through the legitimate action of government.

some of us don't worship government to the extent you do or give government so much a benefit of the doubt

that the masses can vote up the taxes of the most industrious is a fact

that this is proper I disagree with and would ban it if I could

and in the long run its gonna ruin this nation
 
ALternet? LOL
 
why-because you said so-because politicians want to treat people differently to gain power

If I buy a cheeseburger I pay the same as you do no matter if I make 400,000 more a year

my dentist charges me the same as he does a guy making cubicle bunny wages.

the cars at the dealership where I shop don't have different prices based on income

so why should government be different? it wasn't for more than half our history

your assertions have no merit

I find your examples flawed.

The owner of the cheeseburger shop is free to charge different customers different amounts. When I worked at a McDonald's, I got an employee discount. That's a common practice. The owner sometimes gave away food to his friends.

Your dentist does not charge the cubicle bunny the same as you, most likely. Does the cubicle bunny have insurance? Is the particular dentist in network? The insurance company will almost always pay a different rate than an out-of-pocket customer. And, of course, someone who isn't able to pay is likely to receive some amount of charity care.

And consider a Certificate of Deposit or an interest rate on a bank loan. The higher your income, the less you'll pay in interest. The more you invest, the better return you'll get. The wealthy get better interest rates and face fewer penalties and fees in practice.

In all of the above examples, the price you pay depends on whether or not you are a member of a particular group or class.
 
Back
Top Bottom