• 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!

Is it better to have high or low taxes

Is it better to have high or low taxes

  • high

    Votes: 5 13.2%
  • low

    Votes: 33 86.8%

  • Total voters
    38

cope2

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
54
Reaction score
6
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Is it better to have high or low taxes
 
That is a very complicated question. It mostly depends on why we are being taxed, what we get out of it, and if it will do any damage to the economy.
 
Is it better to have high or low taxes

High or low compared to whom? What we currently have in the US? Sweden? Hong Kong?

Also, which taxes are we talking about having high or low taxes? It's a good idea to have a relatively high income tax, but a bad idea to have a relatively high corporate tax or relatively high payroll tax.

And why are we raising or lowering taxes? To service our debt, to improve education, to go to war, or to spend more on unsustainable entitlements?

This is a complicated question that cannot be answered with a simple high/low choice.
 
Well for one thing, it's my money.
 
I prefer low taxes period.Cut the nonessential ****.
 
Is it better to have high or low taxes

It depends...is your goal to create a dependent class of voters, stifle economic growth, encourage investors to leave, etc? Then by all means...high taxes are the way to go.
 
Is it better to have high or low taxes

Each time period or situation should be judged individually.

People, especially on this board, wail and shout about high taxes, which often sounds like plain American arrogance to me.
 
It depends....

I don't claim to know much of anything about how economics work, but.

I think that there is a balance in there somewhere, depending on a multitude of factors.

Taxes can be too high...or too low, depending on the situation. If there is X amount of spending by the government, they should raise taxes to produce revenue equal to X amount.
:ranton:
If they don't then I personally think it's just in an attempt to prevent people from realizing just how much some of the stupid crap they are paying for costs.
:2mad:

On the flip side, if taxes produce revenue to the point that it exceeds spending, then said revenue should be (in the case of the USA) put towards reducing the national debt. In the case of a country which does not have a national debt (is there one?) taxes should be lowered next year, and the extra funds should be returned to the taxpayers.
:rantoff:
 
That is a very complicated question. It mostly depends on why we are being taxed, what we get out of it, and if it will do any damage to the economy.
the reason why I asked it like this is because the politicians normally don't get into the details about what the taxes are being used for. most of the time, american politicians will say tax cuts, and people will automatically vote for them, regardless of what programmes theyre cutting, or increasing. for example, bush will say tax cuts, and he will cut medical, education, welfare programmes, and increase military spending and department of homeland security budgets.
 
High or low compared to whom? What we currently have in the US? Sweden? Hong Kong?

Also, which taxes are we talking about having high or low taxes? It's a good idea to have a relatively high income tax, but a bad idea to have a relatively high corporate tax or relatively high payroll tax.

And why are we raising or lowering taxes? To service our debt, to improve education, to go to war, or to spend more on unsustainable entitlements?

This is a complicated question that cannot be answered with a simple high/low choice.

high taxes would be danmark. low taxes would be united arab emirates.
 
It very much depends on what exactly we're getting for the money we're paying to the government. Obviously, high taxes that go towards a multitude of helpful and useful services would be better than low taxes which are squandered and mismanaged.
 
Well for one thing, it's my money.
Not really, not totally.
There is no free ride.
The reason you and I have money is our strong infrastructure, our good education system, our strong military. the high quality of most of our people..
I believe our taxes could be among the world's lowest....if this has any meaning.
So, the answer is of course, neither, or none of the above.
 
Last edited:
One thing I forgot to say is that the sense of "community" is highly diminished in the U.S. We take our freedom a bit too much out of context and think that individual freedom is superior to that of a society, when in truth they are interdependent in the U.S.

I mean yes, people twist and shout about the gov't "spending our tax money unwisely," but taxes do a lot of good things that benefit us as a whole. I'm not saying increase taxes to a high amount, no one likes that; I'm saying that Americans often want taxes at an unreasonably low level, which is a result of us taking freedom for granted.

The second someone says "community" people in this country think Communism. And Communism, as we all know, is the most evil thing on Earth ...

:roll:
 
If I wanted a partner to share in the responsibility of my business, as well a share in the revenue, then I would want to be the one to choose.

Beyond paying for essential services, that choice would not be a partner that wants a substantial part of the revenue and shares not a whit in the production of it!~
 
Having low taxes is not only a benefit in itself. It is ALSO a limit to keep big government in check.
 
This economy is so screwed up that we need to start addressing the debt as soon as we see it is back on track; that will mean more taxes for every citizen, especially the top 1% that got the major benefits of the bush tax cuts.
 
This economy is so screwed up that we need to start addressing the debt as soon as we see it is back on track; that will mean more taxes for every citizen, especially the top 1% that got the major benefits of the bush tax cuts.

NO!!!! We need to put big government onto the chopping block and CUT both spending and taxes.

We need people who are free to earn their livings without the legalized looting and abusive nannyism that has developed and grown over the past 80 years.
 
NO!!!! We need to put big government onto the chopping block and CUT both spending and taxes.

We need people who are free to earn their livings without the legalized looting and abusive nannyism that has developed and grown over the past 80 years.

If we do that, we will regress into the society we had 80 years ago. As far as I know, there is no modern first world society that has a decent economy and living standards with a minimal government. The closest I can think of is China, but their quality of life isn't near our standards, even though its improving rapidly and with the human rights standards, they have nothing close to what conservatives consider to be that loaded word called "liberty"

So if you want to live a very unsafe life, go ahead, but don't take the rest of us with you. I agree though, right now the government is way too big and needs some streamlining. Unfortunately, we simply cannot afford a lot of the social programs we have at the moment, no matter how much they are needed.

But overall, someone's right to life is more important than someone else's right to low taxes.
 
Last edited:
This economy is so screwed up that we need to start addressing the debt as soon as we see it is back on track; that will mean more taxes for every citizen, especially the top 1% that got the major benefits of the bush tax cuts.

Yes, we need to start addressing the debt.

That means cutting all unconstitutional spending and paying that debt down as quickly as possible, then cutting taxes to the barest minimum needed to provide those services the Constitution requires.

Good bye, socialist programs.

That's what must be done. To think we have any other option that doesn't lead to the poorhouse it to not think at all.
 
Prevailing Liberal wisdom is that it is alright to use the government to feather everyones nest (at someone elses expense). Then when times get tough, essential government services be damned.

I guess the Liberals never read DeToqueville? Or studied human nature, for that matter!
 
Yes, we need to start addressing the debt.

That means cutting all unconstitutional spending and paying that debt down as quickly as possible, then cutting taxes to the barest minimum needed to provide those services the Constitution requires.

Good bye, socialist programs.

That's what must be done. To think we have any other option that doesn't lead to the poorhouse it to not think at all.


Don’t see a whole lot in the above that I don't agree with; more than likely would take exception to what you consider “socialist programs”. Social Security? Hardly socialist, if you have to pay into it your whole life.

Medicare? Same thing. Single Payer healthcare (which I hope I will see before they start throwing dirt in my face)? Again, its hardly socialist, if it keeps taxpayers alive and well, so they can pay taxes for the rest of their lives.

Where we getting the dough you ask? A good start, in addition to grabbing it from the money grubbin top 1% that has enjoyed the majority of the tax breaks of 01, and 03.Then it would be the closing of the unnecessary military bases in Europe and elsewhere. A few trillion here and there pretty soon your starting to talk about some real dough.

Of course we have to get our s*** together before all of this takes effect.
 
Last edited:
Is this a serious question?
 
Don’t see a whole lot in the above that I don't agree with; more than likely would take exception to what you consider “socialist programs”. Social Security? Hardly socialist, if you have to pay into it your whole life.


I said "socialist security", didn't I?

Does the man of twenty today have the option of keeping that 15.4% of his pay currently siphoned off by FDR's Ponzi Scheme? No.

Did the recipients of that money earn it? No.

The two signature elements of socialism are demonstrated: Theft from the producer and re-distribution to those who haven't earned it.

Socialism is the end of freedom, and slavery lasts forever.

Medicare? Same thing.

Yes, same thing.

Re-distribution of wealth from the creators to the undeserving consumers.

Single Payer healthcare (which I hope I will see before they start throwing dirt in my face)? Again, its hardly socialist, if it keeps taxpayers alive and well, so they can pay taxes for the rest of their lives.

100% socialist. That's why it was originally called "socialized medicine" when it was first imposed on Britain.

Don't play games with words. Many of us know what they mean.

Where we getting the dough you ask? A good start, in addition to grabbing it from the money grubbin top 1% that has enjoyed the majority of the tax breaks of 01, and 03.

You mean stealing it from the people who paid the most taxes already.

Why not start taxing the people getting the unearned benefits?

Calculate their benefits and tax them 100% of those, in addition to their other income.

Then it would be the closing of the unnecessary military bases in Europe and elsewhere.

According to the Left, the is no such thing as a necessary military base.

Since the defense budget comprises less than 1/3 of the total federal outlays, and since 2/3 of the total federal outlays are unconstitutional, how effective do you think it's going to be to shave off those military bases while leaving the unconstitutional programs alone?

Of course we have to get our s*** together before all of this takes effect.

First step: Begin teaching the children about the evils of socialism. Tell them of the moral crimaes, the economic failures, and the mass murders that litter socialism's past and present.

Stop lying to the children.

Cut off the Left's supply of useful idiots.
 
I think the problem with liberals is that they were allowed to live in a fantasy land by their parents and, more importantly, their parents never slapped their grubby little hands when they tried to take something that did not belong to them.

When liberals spout their 'fairness' bulls**t, they always conveniently leave out that the top 1% of wage earners already pay a Socialistic 40% of all income taxes paid and the top 5% pay nearly 61%.

All they can do is to cry that the biggest earners got the most $$$$'s relief with Bush's tax reduction.

Why h*ll, I'll bet that other than social security and medicare taxes, most of the whiners pay no, or next to no, income taxes at all. And that, by any other name, is just pure greed and class envy. (as of course encouraged by liberals)
 
I think the problem with liberals is that they were allowed to live in a fantasy land by their parents and, more importantly, their parents never slapped their grubby little hands when they tried to take something that did not belong to them.

When liberals spout their 'fairness' bulls**t, they always conveniently leave out that the top 1% of wage earners already pay a Socialistic 40% of all income taxes paid and the top 5% pay nearly 61%.

All they can do is to cry that the biggest earners got the most $$$$'s relief with Bush's tax reduction.

Why h*ll, I'll bet that other than social security and medicare taxes, most of the whiners pay no, or next to no, income taxes at all. And that, by any other name, is just pure greed and class envy. (as of course encouraged by liberals)

Attacks that make no sense ... work every time! Good job. :thumbs:

EDIT: Does that mean you enjoy being slapped?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom