• 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!

Should ALL citizens pay income taxes?

Should ALL citizens have to pay income taxes?

  • No, only those who make over the "living wage"

    Votes: 24 35.3%

  • No, only those in the top 10%

    Votes: 3 4.4%

  • Yes, every working person should have to pay.

    Votes: 22 32.4%

  • Other (specify)

    Votes: 19 27.9%
  • Total voters
    68
TurtleDude said:
I just heard on the local news that the top 1% of taxpayers (around 375K a year or so) pay as much in income taxes as the bottom 95%

they don't make as much income as the bottom 95%

and they certainly don't use anywhere near as much government services as the top 1%


Atlas needs to shrug suddenly and soon
Click to expand...

And this has something to do with my statement on earned vs. unearned income income? How?
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
And this has something to do with my statement on earned vs. unearned income income? How?
Click to expand...

I was just adding to the conversation. I shouldn't have quoted you

my bad but with the clinton tax hikes reimposed on dividend income the top 1% will be paying as much as the bottom 97% probably
 
TurtleDude said:
I was just adding to the conversation. I shouldn't have quoted you

my bad but with the clinton tax hikes reimposed on dividend income the top 1% will be paying as much as the bottom 97% probably
Click to expand...

Ahhh OK, I got ya. I did not think it applied, so I was confused! :cool:
 
Goshin said:
Did you pause to think a moment before hitting post? Doesn't look like it.

You are aware that there's this thing called divorce, right? That someone can suddenly find themselves with a couple of kids, no spouse and one income? And that it may not have been their idea?

BTW, $20k isn't exactly bonanza time even if you're only supporting yourself.


Engage brain before hitting "post" please.

:roll:
Click to expand...

I must disagree with you.

If we have an income tax I believe everyone making and income should pay a flat percentage (I prefer a flat sales tax).

While it is true a single parent making 20k a year will not have alot it is possible (even after paying taxes). It all amounts to what a person is willing to live with. There isnt a single healthy american who cannot support themselves (and family unless its an uncommon family) in the US if they put forth the effort. We as americans have simply come to expect to much imo.

My father and I live on about $13k a year and we have everything we need. We have learned to live without so many of the things your average american has come to expect. While this may be poor in american standards, it is a far cry from starving to death as someone here mentioned (btw when was the last time and american starved to death you know first hand?).

By allowing people to be exempt from contributing to society based on income we are only harming society as a whole as well as failing to push persons to better themselves. Some people simply will never achieve anything better unless forced to do so.

My father as a child was forced to sleep outside 8-9 months of the year. The house my family lived in was approx 12x15 for 6 people. They were so poor the children had to forrage the countryside for food. They never had a full stomach. All this because my grandparents were to lazy to work (before the government had so many handout programs). This caused my father and aunts and uncles to strive to achieve so much more as adults (2 are millionairs now). I can tell you now that every single one of them hate entitlement programs and consider the "typical poor american" on government aid as whiney spoiled people. They (most) could get by by doing there fair share if they wernt spoiled and learned to live withen there means. If they are not happy with what they have they should strive for better not sit back and expect slack to be cut for them.

I agree that truely disabled persons should have special considerations but most "poor" people do not fit this. Most people are poor (long term) becuase of poor choices they have made or simple lack of ambition. Why make those that have made better decisions and work to better themselves foot the bill?

Im personally sick and tired of people boo hooing about the poor. Most of the time its there own doing and most can better there situation if they so wish. Its simply easier to sit around and complain about how little they have and how fate had tossed them a lemon then to get off there asses and do something about it.
 
I believe the first thing we should do is look up the definition of the word "tax". It doesn't say anything about dividing up the cost of government equally, or even something everyone must pay. I says "placing a burdon on someone." And there is no one in the country that doesn't pay taxes. If you fill up your old car with gas to drive to a minimum wage job, you already are probably already paying a larger percentage in federal taxes most wall street brokers. Most low wage earners spent their whole pay check on food and housing for their family. In my state with all sales taxes, almost 10% goes for taxes. That means he buys 10% less for his family. Until a wealthy man has to eat 10% less because of the taxes he pays, he is not "taxed" as much as the worker is. Taxes have never been more unfair in this country as they are now, but look who's trying to make it even more unfair. If we let them, fat cats will keep pushing until they pay no taxes at all, and they would still gripe. I say put it back the way it was, some will always gripe and think it's unfair, no matter how little they're "taxed".
 
Coronado said:
It means things like stock dividends, interest, rent received from a rental property, etc.

Not sure why it merits different treatment, other than for class warfare purposes ...
Click to expand...

Class warfare against whom, the middle class?

Capital gains tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Coronado said:
Yeah, "unearned" makes it sound like a person was just sitting around watching TV and the money just fell in their lap. I think it is a crappy term, too.
Click to expand...

I suppose they may have done research into their investment, but maybe not and they just got lucky in terms of buying and selling at the right times. It seems more unearned than earned. It's like giving somebody money for being smart or lucky, though it is certainly a good thing that people invest as those companies create jobs. So it is "unearned," but that's not necessarily the same as undeserved. I suppose inheritance income is neither earned nor deserved, though.

digsbe said:
Because they work hard and shouldn't have to pay a higher percentage than others. We punish success by forcing the rich to unfairly pay more percentage wise than the average person. Why should the government be allowed to confiscate their money at a higher rate than others?
Click to expand...

Are you certain they always work harder than lower-wage workers? Why progressive taxation? Because it does the least harm per dollar. Richer people get increasingly marginal utility for higher income, and so we give them diminishing returns with progressive taxation. In reality, they are taxed at the same rates for their first $20k of the year.

digsbe said:
Why should the money be evenly dispersed in the first place though? Everyone's wealth isn't the property of the government to spread and make it all "equal."
Click to expand...

This isn't what's actually going on even if some redistribution takes place. Our society has wealth highly concentrated in the top percent of earners.

The majority of rich people are rich because they went to college, earned a masters/PhD/MD and work very hard.
Click to expand...

And the majority of them had unearned advantages that gave them a competitive advantage, and are the beneficiaries of the wider society.
 
I think everyone who has an income should pay an income tax. It is really basic solidarity; everyone gives as much as he can afford. For lower incomes the tax should be a few symbolic percent with increases in tax rates for higher incomes to generate enough revenue and to level economic inequalities.
 
Mellie said:
Welfare, food stamps and other such programs have been around for decades. Has the poverty rate gone down?
Click to expand...

Sanitas said:
Actually, it has. From roughly 23% in 1960 to 13.2% in 2008.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf
Click to expand...

One should also point out the difference in what poverty means in most cases

Absolute poverty which is seen in third world countries and relative poverty which is more often what occurs in the US

Absolute poverty has certainly been reducedd in the US, drastically so.

Relative poverty will never be eliminated due to the way it is calculated

So has the social welfare programs in the US been helpfull in reducing poverty most definately on the absolute scale, and less so on the relative scale.

So it would be wise to ask ones self if you as an individual would want to see absolute poverty as seen in Mexico or Brazil as the basis for poverty in the US( shanty towns, malnutrion due to lack of food, not fast food).
 
lizzie said:
Income itself should not be taxed. Now, if the government wants to place a tax per individual, then that tax should be equal across the board. Not the same percentage- the same amount per person. My reasoning for this is that no one citizen should benefit more or less than any other citizen. Taxes collected by the feds should be used for purposes equally valuable to all citizens. This would have a couple of good side effects imo. It would encourage people in the lower income brackets to improve their job skill levels in order to decrease the percentage of their income they are handing over to government, and it would discourage having more kids than one is willing to be taxed for.
Click to expand...

Or it would encourage them just to quite working period.

If 90% of their earned income (not just income over $200 000 but 80% of the $20 000 they were earning from working was going to pay for taxes, that would be a strong incentive to stop working, as it was not getting you anywhere
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
One should also point out the difference in what poverty means in most cases

Absolute poverty which is seen in third world countries and relative poverty which is more often what occurs in the US

Absolute poverty has certainly been reducedd in the US, drastically so.

Relative poverty will never be eliminated due to the way it is calculated

So has the social welfare programs in the US been helpfull in reducing poverty most definately on the absolute scale, and less so on the relative scale.

So it would be wise to ask ones self if you as an individual would want to see absolute poverty as seen in Mexico or Brazil as the basis for poverty in the US( shanty towns, malnutrion due to lack of food, not fast food).
Click to expand...

Relative poverty doesn't exist in a fully socialist country, but the standard of living may approach absolute poverty anyway. :doh
 
Everyone should pay some level of tax.
 
Blackdog said:
If it is not an earned income, as I said I have no problem with it being taxed. If the money is being invested to gain interest, it is disposable whether in actuality it is or it is not.
Click to expand...

The risk involved with investment is earned. If I invest and lose, there is no recovery. I just lose the money. If I invest and gain, I should be able to reap those rewards without penalty. I worked for it. I may not have gone out and dug ditches, but in America are we really going to sit back and judge just how hard someone worked for gain? Really?
 
I like Goshin's take on this.

I do think EVERYONE should have to pay income taxes. I am okay with a graduated income tax structure where the lower income gainers get taxed less but the higher income gainers are not taxed so much its punative.

Perhaps a system where for every $10,000 you earn you earn a 1% tax, up to a maximum of 20%. (or maybe 25%)

So someone making $20,000 a year would be paying 2% of that, or $400.

Someone making $80,000 a year would be paying $6400

Someone making $250,000 a year would be paying 25% of that, or $50,000

This way no one skirts out of income taxes, EVERYONE has to feel that burden in some way. Lock in a system where any increase on any portion requires an increase across the board. So if you "raise the rich" 10% from 20 to 30 then you have to raise everyone down the board. This would keep people from simply going "tax the rich" to the answer for each and every "how do we fund it" problem we have.

The Poor would still pay an income tax, know what it feels like to pay for it, contribute some of their hard work to the country just as everyone else is forced to do. However it'd be at a very low rate to where it should be more of a choice concerning giving up something that's more of a luxury then giving up say health care or food in general for a month. The "rich" are still paying more, both in total and in percentage, than their poorer counter parts but it is never more than 1/5th (or 1/4th) of their total income.

Just a random thought.
 
jacksbrat said:
I believe the first thing we should do is look up the definition of the word "tax". It doesn't say anything about dividing up the cost of government equally, or even something everyone must pay. I says "placing a burdon on someone." And there is no one in the country that doesn't pay taxes. If you fill up your old car with gas to drive to a minimum wage job, you already are probably already paying a larger percentage in federal taxes most wall street brokers. Most low wage earners spent their whole pay check on food and housing for their family. In my state with all sales taxes, almost 10% goes for taxes. That means he buys 10% less for his family. Until a wealthy man has to eat 10% less because of the taxes he pays, he is not "taxed" as much as the worker is. Taxes have never been more unfair in this country as they are now, but look who's trying to make it even more unfair. If we let them, fat cats will keep pushing until they pay no taxes at all, and they would still gripe. I say put it back the way it was, some will always gripe and think it's unfair, no matter how little they're "taxed".
Click to expand...


unfair is paying more than you use

you see we can play around with the definition but mine at least has some objective basis
 
Flat tax of no more than 15%.

Poor (must be defined) pay 3-5% no matter what. They are also targeted by Local, State and Federal improvement programs that already exist for training/skill building to get a better job. The purpose of these programs would be to raise the poor into the "rest of the population" category.

The rest of the population pays 10% flat. No exceptions.

Company's, LLC's, S/C Corporations pay, 15% - no exceptions and regarless of size, market, etc.


Very simple. Tax revenue's would rise, and we'd slow the "nickle & dime" us to death taxes on every product / service / function.
 
Ockham said:
Flat tax of no more than 15%.

Poor (must be defined) pay 3-5% no matter what. They are also targeted by Local, State and Federal improvement programs that already exist for training/skill building to get a better job. The purpose of these programs would be to raise the poor into the "rest of the population" category.

The rest of the population pays 10% flat. No exceptions.

Company's, LLC's, S/C Corporations pay, 15% - no exceptions and regarless of size, market, etc.


Very simple. Tax revenue's would rise, and we'd slow the "nickle & dime" us to death taxes on every product / service / function.
Click to expand...
this would castrate congress and that is why they oppose it

buying the votes of the net tax consumers with our tax dollars is a main way libs get votes. Pretending to stop the rape of the industrious is how the right gets votes.

BTW when the income tax was proposed one senator noted a NST would be more efficient--one of the tax's supporters noted that a NST would not give the government near as much power over the people
 
Blackdog said:
I swear you just don't get it. It's about people taking responsibility for their actions. You **** someone, a pregnancy may result. If you can't feed em, don't breed em. Has nothing to do with not caring. It has everything to do with personal responsibility.
Click to expand...
i strongly believe in personal responsiblity. however, it's not always black and white. having an abortion can be considered taking responsibility as well.
 
Baralis said:
I must disagree with you.

If we have an income tax I believe everyone making and income should pay a flat percentage (I prefer a flat sales tax).

While it is true a single parent making 20k a year will not have alot it is possible (even after paying taxes). It all amounts to what a person is willing to live with. There isnt a single healthy american who cannot support themselves (and family unless its an uncommon family) in the US if they put forth the effort. We as americans have simply come to expect to much imo.

My father and I live on about $13k a year and we have everything we need. We have learned to live without so many of the things your average american has come to expect. While this may be poor in american standards, it is a far cry from starving to death as someone here mentioned (btw when was the last time and american starved to death you know first hand?).

By allowing people to be exempt from contributing to society based on income we are only harming society as a whole as well as failing to push persons to better themselves. Some people simply will never achieve anything better unless forced to do so.

My father as a child was forced to sleep outside 8-9 months of the year. The house my family lived in was approx 12x15 for 6 people. They were so poor the children had to forrage the countryside for food. They never had a full stomach. All this because my grandparents were to lazy to work (before the government had so many handout programs). This caused my father and aunts and uncles to strive to achieve so much more as adults (2 are millionairs now). I can tell you now that every single one of them hate entitlement programs and consider the "typical poor american" on government aid as whiney spoiled people. They (most) could get by by doing there fair share if they wernt spoiled and learned to live withen there means. If they are not happy with what they have they should strive for better not sit back and expect slack to be cut for them.

I agree that truely disabled persons should have special considerations but most "poor" people do not fit this. Most people are poor (long term) becuase of poor choices they have made or simple lack of ambition. Why make those that have made better decisions and work to better themselves foot the bill?

Im personally sick and tired of people boo hooing about the poor. Most of the time its there own doing and most can better there situation if they so wish. Its simply easier to sit around and complain about how little they have and how fate had tossed them a lemon then to get off there asses and do something about it.
Click to expand...
your father has brothers and sisters who are millionaires and you and he live on 13k a year? what kind of jobs do you have? are you in school?
 
TurtleDude said:
this would castrate congress and that is why they oppose it

buying the votes of the net tax consumers with our tax dollars is a main way libs get votes. Pretending to stop the rape of the industrious is how the right gets votes.

BTW when the income tax was proposed one senator noted a NST would be more efficient--one of the tax's supporters noted that a NST would not give the government near as much power over the people
Click to expand...

Exactly... however, if we actually had one of the political party's back this and follow it through, they'd win political power while still giving back power from their manipulation of the tax code, back to the people. Yet the double edge here is that by relinquishing this power the government will get a bump in tax revenue's to pay down the national debt. IF the President then cut spending by say just 10% across the board - the national debt projections would be surprising such that we no longer have Bernanke out there claiming we're slipping down an unsustainable black hole.

All of this comes down to political power over the people - neither party wants to relinquish it and we'll be in hock for the next 10 generations unless someone with backbone can convince these idiots otherwise. The solutions are there - no one wants to do them because it requires the political classes to give up power.
 
I think everyone should pay, and I don't think we should have exemptions. Like child credits, marriage benefits, etc. should all be thrown out. There's no reason to pay less taxes just because you've had children. Everyone pays, X percent of their income and we're done.
 
Sanitas said:
I'll play the devil's advocate and say that it's a classic case of Robin Hood, but on a larger scale. Take from the rich, give to the needy. Tax the rich high, give the poor a break. It helps keep the money evenly dispersed.
Click to expand...
Yes -- from each accrding to his means to each according to his needs.
Thanks, Karl.

The money the government taxes will most likely go to improving the lives of the most poor,
Click to expand...
Its not MY responsibility to improve anyone's life, except mine, and only then if I choose to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom