• 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:
A national sales tax encourages thrift and savings.

That's always a good thing.
Click to expand...

Not in an inflation driven economy like ours. In that case, debt is the way to go. Borrow money and pay it back with dollars worth less than the ones you borrowed originally.
 
Ikari said:
Not in an inflation driven economy like ours. In that case, debt is the way to go. Borrow money and pay it back with dollars worth less than the ones you borrowed originally.
Click to expand...

Yeah, use your credit card to pay your credit card.

That's not really a good idea, you know.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yeah, use your credit card to pay your credit card.

That's not really a good idea, you know.
Click to expand...

Well you can always take it to ridiculous measures. But basically in any big inflationary type economy, which is what we get with the fed, savings are actually punished as the value of that currency is decreasing in time.
 
My opinion on this one has varied a bit. A few months ago I would have said that any progressive tax was an unfair tax on success.

The fact is though, a flat tax capable of generating enough revenue to run even half of what the government currently does would be devastating to the poor and the modest-income working class.

Okay, so you exempt those below the poverty line. I got news: the last time I read what the so-called "poverty line" was, buddy it isn't high enough! You can't support a small family in America, in what we consider decent conditions, on 25k a year in most areas.

Okay, so we kick the bar up again...your first 30k is exempt. Now...you know what we've actually got here? We have a progressive tax.

If you make 25k, you pay no income tax.
If you make 35k, you pay taxes only on the last 5k.
If you make 100k, you pay taxes on 70k of it.
If you make 500k, you pay taxes on 470k of it.

Hello, progressive tax. :2wave:

A sales tax adequate to support current governmental spending would have to be huge... like 20-30 cents on the dollar...nor would I be willing to bet that sales tax would definately end income tax for all time; politicians are untrustworthy $@%$#@es.

No, I think a progressive income tax is inevitable, as much as I hate it. I think the "curve" should be moderate and there should be a top end no higher than 30%... and everybody with an income should have to pay something, say put a bottom rate of 0.5% so that everyone has a stake in gov't and spending.
 
I believe an honestly applied flat tax that everybody from the poorest to the richest has to pay would be the least regressive and the most advantageous to the nation's prosperity.
 
America seems withdrawn from from taxing the very rich.I dont know why At least in something like the estate tax is perfect.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I believe an honestly applied flat tax that everybody from the poorest to the richest has to pay would be the least regressive and the most advantageous to the nation's prosperity.
Click to expand...

You'd have to peg that tax at no more than 1 or 2%, if you expect the "poorest" to be able to pay it and not starve.
 
I screwed up my vote (damn red pointer thing!!). As much as I like a flat tax, it's inpractical. I'm in favor of a moderate progressive tax. However, our current tax system is a total mess. When there's an industry devoted to helping people understand a code longer than the Lord of the Rings, there's an issue. It's the government trying to micromanage the economy, which doesn't work.
 
mikhail said:
America seems withdrawn from from taxing the very rich.I dont know why At least in something like the estate tax is perfect.
Click to expand...


Far from perfect. There are people who own family farms: large acreage and expensive machinery, yet have little cash and a modest income. They are "land rich and cash poor".

Sometimes they get hit with the estate tax, because of the theoretical value of the land, house, combine, etc. When they do, Junior loses the farm because he can't pay half a million dollars... Daddy had ten grand in the bank when he died and fifty-k in debts.

I could never support a tax that did things like that.
 
Goshin said:
Far from perfect. There are people who own family farms: large acreage and expensive machinery, yet have little cash and a modest income. They are "land rich and cash poor".

Sometimes they get hit with the estate tax, because of the theoretical value of the land, house, combine, etc. When they do, Junior loses the farm because he can't pay half a million dollars... Daddy had ten grand in the bank when he died and fifty-k in debts.

I could never support a tax that did things like that.
Click to expand...

So what the farm is obvously unprofitable through a result of farm subsides
 
Kandahar said:
There needs to be an option for "income tax, with modifications." I support an income tax that, generally speaking, is higher and more progressive than what we currently have. I would eliminate most deductions, leaving only education, health, and charity deductions. I would tax a person's ENTIRE compensation (including medical benefits) as regular income.

And while we're at it, we should get rid of all corporate taxes and tariffs, tax capital gains as normal income, eliminate most general sales taxes, and increase the gasoline tax.
Click to expand...

Basically this, though I would rather have a lower income tax rate coupled with increased use taxes on more things than just gasoline. If the thing you're purchasing results in society having to pay more in the long run, then you should pay for that, whether it's gas, cigarettes, or soda.
 
Warspite said:
I favor a progressive income tax - although with more tax brackets than we have now and the upper brackets paying more than they do currently.
Click to expand...

How much higher?
 
Goshin said:
You'd have to peg that tax at no more than 1 or 2%, if you expect the "poorest" to be able to pay it and not starve.
Click to expand...

The percentage wouldn't matter. If it was 10% the guy making a hundred dollars pays $10. He wouldn't like giving up the $10 but he would have $90 left and it would not be extremely painful to give up the $10. But he would have a stake in the system and he would care whether his elected representatives raised taxes because now they would affect him too. Right now we have almost 50% of working Americans who pay little or no federal income taxes at all. No government will be a good government when that situation exists.

But while the guy making $100 pays $10, the guy making a $1,000 pays $100 and the guy making a million pays $100,000. Nobody is punished for being industrious and prosperous and nobody is able to benefit from a tax policy arranged to insure that politicians stay in Congress for perpetuity. And without ability to raise our taxes without angering all their contituency, that would be powerful incentive for politicians to use fiscal restraint and spend money on only that they have to spend money on.

A sales tax is regressive however unless the poorest are exempt from paying it, and to determine who is poor and who isn't or what products would be exempt and what isn't would not simplify the system in the least nor the bureaucracy necessary to administer it or ability of Congress to tinker with the system so that they could continue to use our money to buy our votes.
 
I am bordering on a combination of a flat tax and national sales tax. As long as everyone is paying the same percentage of sales taxes on the stuff they then it would be a flat a tax. I think doing taxes this way would be a sure way to make sure that no one is discriminated against based on income earned.
 
RightinNYC said:
Basically this, though I would rather have a lower income tax rate coupled with increased use taxes on more things than just gasoline. If the thing you're purchasing results in society having to pay more in the long run, then you should pay for that, whether it's gas, cigarettes, or soda.
Click to expand...

I agree with that last part. Soda is another thing I would tax (I didn't mention it above because I'm skeptical if it would really generate a significant amount of revenue for the government). I think cigarettes are already taxed enough to compensate for the costs to society, so I probably wouldn't change those too much.

Another thing with societal costs which we should consider taxing is day-trading. A so-called "Tobin Tax" on excessive speculation might be a good idea, to prevent sudden price swings in currencies/commodities/stocks/whatever with no obvious cause. Gordon Brown floated the idea at the G20 summit a couple months ago, but the US delegation shot it down.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The percentage wouldn't matter. If it was 10% the guy making a hundred dollars pays $10. He wouldn't like giving up the $10 but he would have $90 left and it would not be extremely painful to give up the $10.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't it be extremely painful? People who are earning very little money spend almost ALL of their money on the necessities of life, whereas people who are earning more spend a lower percentage on necessities. Therefore it's more painful for a poor person to give up X% of his income than for a rich person to give up X% of his income.

AlbqOwl said:
But he would have a stake in the system and he would care whether his elected representatives raised taxes because now they would affect him too. Right now we have almost 50% of working Americans who pay little or no federal income taxes at all. No government will be a good government when that situation exists.
Click to expand...

Some of the best-governed countries in the world have taxes that are much more progressive than ours.

AlbqOwl said:
But while the guy making $100 pays $10, the guy making a $1,000 pays $100 and the guy making a million pays $100,000. Nobody is punished for being industrious and prosperous and nobody is able to benefit from a tax policy arranged to insure that politicians stay in Congress for perpetuity. And without ability to raise our taxes without angering all their contituency, that would be powerful incentive for politicians to use fiscal restraint and spend money on only that they have to spend money on.
Click to expand...

Or more likely: It's a powerful incentive for politicians to use extreme levels of deficit spending forever, and eventually bankrupt the nation.
 
Until a better alternative is devised I'm for sticking with the Income tax.
 
Kandahar said:
I agree with that last part. Soda is another thing I would tax (I didn't mention it above because I'm skeptical if it would really generate a significant amount of revenue for the government). I think cigarettes are already taxed enough to compensate for the costs to society, so I probably wouldn't change those too much.

Another thing with societal costs which we should consider taxing is day-trading. A so-called "Tobin Tax" on excessive speculation might be a good idea, to prevent sudden price swings in currencies/commodities/stocks/whatever with no obvious cause. Gordon Brown floated the idea at the G20 summit a couple months ago, but the US delegation shot it down.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I see the direct harm resulting from things like day-trading though. With overeating/smoking, the direct result is trillions in additional healthcare spending. If Goldman, JPM, and a few hedge funds want to try to **** each other out of a .001% profit on some currency trades, I don't really see the harm.
 
Kandahar said:
There needs to be an option for "income tax, with modifications." I support an income tax that, generally speaking, is higher and more progressive than what we currently have. I would eliminate most deductions, leaving only education, health, and charity deductions. I would tax a person's ENTIRE compensation (including medical benefits) as regular income.

And while we're at it, we should get rid of all corporate taxes and tariffs, tax capital gains as normal income, eliminate most general sales taxes, and increase the gasoline tax.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, I mostly agree with you here. The only part I disagree with is that "higher and more progressive" doesn't really capture the changes I think we need. On the one hand, people making $500k or a million per year shouln't pay as high a tax as those making $50 million a year; on the other hand, there shouldn't be nearly as high a number of people who don't have to pay any taxes. There should be some kind of universal formula rather than brackets. I also don't see what a higher gas tax would accomplish.
 
I'm not sure I see the direct harm resulting from things like day-trading though. With overeating/smoking, the direct result is trillions in additional healthcare spending. If Goldman, JPM, and a few hedge funds want to try to **** each other out of a .001% profit on some currency trades, I don't really see the harm.
Click to expand...

The argument is that speculation increases volatility in the market, and the Tobin tax could help lower that. In the international world, speculators in currency and oil have managed to cause enough harm that I would certainly support de-incentivizing such behavior. However, the Tobin tax is untested and thus it would be something of a gamble. Also, you would need quite a bit of cooperation on the international scene to avoid tax dodging for it work.
 
In my system, the lower class might see some tax increase, but most would pay less, as in Drunkentopia government spending would plummet
 
Dav said:
Believe it or not, I mostly agree with you here. The only part I disagree with is that "higher and more progressive" doesn't really capture the changes I think we need. On the one hand, people making $500k or a million per year shouln't pay as high a tax as those making $50 million a year; on the other hand, there shouldn't be nearly as high a number of people who don't have to pay any taxes. There should be some kind of universal formula rather than brackets. I also don't see what a higher gas tax would accomplish.
Click to expand...

Universal Tax Formula:

Gross Income x 10% = Tax Owed


No adjustments, deductions, loopholes.

Other Universal Tax Formulae:

Inheritance Tax = 0.00000%
Capital Gains Tax = 0.00000%
Corporate Income Tax = 0.00000%
Property Tax = 0.00000%
 
I'd support a flat tax with the caveat that people below a certain income level would be exempt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom