• 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
Holy necromancy Batman!

images
 
35 here favor a "flat tax".
Does this mean a million dollar tax on the idiot Donald Trump and a one dollar tax on Bob Cratchet and family?
Donald would not be able to afford passage on a space shuttle; Bob would not be able to have the Christmas goose nor any presents for Tiny Tim..
Is this what you conservatives want?
Right now, its fair and affordable, lets leave it as is..
And the old Bush tax cuts for the wealthy must be repealed.
 
fairness, yes, i'd say that's what i want. all those who use government services pay for them; those who make little, pay little, those who make more, pay more.

frankly, i'd rather see the whole thing replaced with a national sales tax a'la the Fair Tax; that way what you pay is voluntary.

hyperbole about tiny tim irrespective
 
fairness, yes, i'd say that's what i want. all those who use government services pay for them; those who make little, pay little, those who make more, pay more.

frankly, i'd rather see the whole thing replaced with a national sales tax a'la the Fair Tax; that way what you pay is voluntary.

hyperbole about tiny tim irrespective

Why do you hate Christmas? :D

Anyway, Fair Tax is essentially regressive. Poor people spend a large portion of their income just on basic subsitence, it would hit them harder. The "prebate" idea just shifts it towards slightly-less-regressive.
 
fairness, yes, i'd say that's what i want. all those who use government services pay for them; those who make little, pay little, those who make more, pay more.

frankly, i'd rather see the whole thing replaced with a national sales tax a'la the Fair Tax; that way what you pay is voluntary.

hyperbole about tiny tim irrespective

It would only be voluntary if the tax was not applied to essential items, like food, clothing and shelter
 
It would only be voluntary if the tax was not applied to essential items, like food, clothing and shelter

under the FairTax legislation those items are taxed (everything is at the retail level); but each family get's a prebate which negates the tax up to the poverty line.
 
under the FairTax legislation those items are taxed (everything is at the retail level); but each family get's a prebate which negates the tax up to the poverty line.

It is still an involuntary tax as people do need to purchase food, clothing and shelter.
 
I don't want to encourage people to not spend or to spend. I'll let that up to them. ergo, no national sales tax. I do want them to produce and they will produce because they have to in order to live. So let's tax the necessary flow of money - the earning. Flat tax is the answer so long as we get rid of ALL deductions and tax loop holes. Since tax revenue is 18% of GDP, that would mean a rough estimate of 18% flat tax rate across the nation. That doesn't seem unaffordable to me by any means and encourages people to both produce and spend as they would like. It would also be decreased significantly if we stopped entitlement programs and unnecessary military funding... I've read an estimate that it could be down to 13% flat tax.
 
I'm for the national sales tax, exempting food only.

If we have money to buy things, the government makes money. And visa-versa. Our government should rise and fall (money wise) according to the ability of the populous to purchase. i.e: We suffer, they suffer. We prosper, they prosper.
 
I'm for the national sales tax, exempting food only.

If we have money to buy things, the government makes money. And visa-versa. Our government should rise and fall (money wise) according to the ability of the populous to purchase. i.e: We suffer, they suffer. We prosper, they prosper.

an exception for food actually isn't nescesary. The fairtax would give a rebate that would make essential purchased tax free, which would therefore include essentials on food.

No taxes on food would also result in the rich and middle class getting huge amounts of tax free food, which would SEVERLY drive up the tax rate to make the system have as much tax revenue as the current system.
 
A tax on wealth, along the lines of what was once proposed by Donald Trump himself, is badly needed. Trump wanted a tax of 14.25% on all wealth above ten million dollars back in 1999.
 
Last edited:
A tax on wealth, along the lines of what was once proposed by Donald Trump himself, is badly needed. Trump wanted a tax of 14.25% on all wealth above ten million dollars back in 1999.

This has to be the worst idea in a world of bad ideas. So we want to discourage savings and have America be more of a consumer society. Exactly the remedy to fix the economy we used for the last 25 years with such horrible results.

While this would no doubt make accountants rich, this is nuts. Would this tax be annual, so that after 7 years ou would have nothing left or a one shot deal so you have to find a way to shift wealth from one year to another.
 
This has to be the worst idea in a world of bad ideas. So we want to discourage savings and have America be more of a consumer society. Exactly the remedy to fix the economy we used for the last 25 years with such horrible results.

While this would no doubt make accountants rich, this is nuts. Would this tax be annual, so that after 7 years ou would have nothing left or a one shot deal so you have to find a way to shift wealth from one year to another.

Agreed, that would be difficult to enforce, but more then that it would kill the economy. If someone makes money, tax when they recieve it, but it makes no sense to penalize someone for saving instead of blowing their money immedietly.
But if you are concerned with large concentrations of wealth through a family, then a strong inheritance tax could do the trick more effectively then a "wealth tax"
 
A tax on wealth, along the lines of what was once proposed by Donald Trump himself, is badly needed. Trump wanted a tax of 14.25% on all wealth above ten million dollars back in 1999.

that would probably doom his political aspirations or him personally. Its a moronic idea
 
Income tax - Currently the only viable way to get the income we need

Flat tax - Bad Bad Bad idea. This is a regresive tax. The lower your income the higher percent of disposible income that will be spent on basic needs. It almost guarantees lower and middle class will never make to the top.

National Sales tax - Even worse than a flat tax. Thank about it. Your only taxed when you spend so what will people not do. . . SPEND.

No tax - Not an option.

Instead of trying to kill this dead horse we should work on making America better at international traid, reduce spending and enforce the tax laws we currently have.
 
Income tax - Currently the only viable way to get the income we need

Flat tax - Bad Bad Bad idea. This is a regresive tax. The lower your income the higher percent of disposible income that will be spent on basic needs. It almost guarantees lower and middle class will never make to the top.

National Sales tax - Even worse than a flat tax. Thank about it. Your only taxed when you spend so what will people not do. . . SPEND.

No tax - Not an option.

Instead of trying to kill this dead horse we should work on making America better at international traid, reduce spending and enforce the tax laws we currently have.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/90108-truth-can-afford-pay-taxes.html
 
mbig,

Please include a segway. Im not sure what your point is.
I was Pointing to my string/posts of last night, Agreeing with you and elaborating WHY Fairtax/Flattax was a bad idea and why Progressive income tax was a good idea.
Baffled as to your reply not seeing that.
 
Last edited:
Income tax - Currently the only viable way to get the income we need

Flat tax - Bad Bad Bad idea. This is a regresive tax. The lower your income the higher percent of disposible income that will be spent on basic needs. It almost guarantees lower and middle class will never make to the top.

National Sales tax - Even worse than a flat tax. Thank about it. Your only taxed when you spend so what will people not do. . . SPEND.

No tax - Not an option.

Instead of trying to kill this dead horse we should work on making America better at international traid, reduce spending and enforce the tax laws we currently have.

whats so bad about people spending less money? In fact once the economy recovers that will be good. Its a common understanding that one of the long run problems with the US is that our saving rate is too low.
 
whats so bad about people spending less money? In fact once the economy recovers that will be good. Its a common understanding that one of the long run problems with the US is that our saving rate is too low.

There are many economic studies regarding this. For proof though look at what the AVT did to europe.
 
I was Pointing to my string/posts of last night, Agreeing with you and elaborating WHY Fairtax/Flattax was a bad idea and why Progressive income tax was a good idea.
Baffled as to your reply not seeing that.

I think that was my point as well. Please explain what point we disagree on.
 
I think that was my point as well. Please explain what point we disagree on.
Yikes! This is Excruciating.

We DON'T "disagree". I never said or suggested that.
Again, I pointed to my String/posts both agreeing and Elaborating WHY I agree.
Giving fuller explanations than your single sentences above.
 
Back
Top Bottom