• 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
I expect you're right, but I'm not sure we need to be calling that UNearned.

Somebody originally earned the money to buy the stock, the rental properties, etc... and putting your money back into capital is better for everyone than hiding it in the mattress.
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.
 
We should abolish the I.R.S.

We need to solve the problem, not destroy it and make more problems.

We need to reform the IRS, and no that doesn't mean pump money into via Obama's methods.
 
It is part of your 1040 form that's due every year, so it is actually a part of that.

I know, but that does not make it income directly from a working wage. Taxing investments etc, I see no problem with as it is for the most part disposable income or a better term would be investment etc type savings.
 
Why the hell can we not tax everyone 10% of their income? Just a percentage which stays the same, across the board.

Because it would not even remotely fund the responsibilities we have placed in the public sector. You can't invent some fantasy tax rate that sounds fair to you and it magically generate enough money.
 
I know, but that does not make it income directly from a working wage. Taxing investments etc, I see no problem with as it is for the most part disposable income or a better term would be investment etc type savings.
The money we make from our sources of unearned income sure isn't disposable.

It isn't only the filthy rich that have sources of unearned income.
 
Nobody wants to give their money away, especially if they worked to earn it. If we tax income, we are basically discouraging people from earning money.

I'm not sure how practical it is, however, to not tax income under this system. Where would schools, roads, etc., etc. receive their funding? We would need a big revamping of our current system to eliminate income tax.

Through a Macroeconomics class, I deduced that a system that taxes highly is a very rigid in movement and does not allow for long-term growth unless the tax money is reinvested in favor of the taxpayers. AKA - taxes going to war efforts do not allow for maximum economic growth.

I'm not arguing the merits or demerits of a war. I can imagine someone will say that war is an investment. The truth is, it isn't an investment in the traditional sense.

Back to the question, though. If somebody lived in a town which received no federal funding, they should not need to pay income tax. However, they were most likely educated in a public school that did...

...I guess I'm not sure. Long-winded post for such a basic answer, huh? :cool:
 
Every citizen should have to pay income taxes. I believe in lower taxes for the poor and struggling, but everyone still should have to pay. Personally, I don't think the top earners should have to pay a higher percentage, it's not right.
 
Income should never even be taxed!
 
Why is it not right?

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?
 
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?

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. The money the government taxes will most likely go to improving the lives of the most poor, in today's system (food stamps, newly passed health care reform, funding for public schools, unemployment benefits).
 
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. The money the government taxes will most likely go to improving the lives of the most poor, in today's system (food stamps, newly passed health care reform, funding for public schools, unemployment benefits).

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." The majority of rich people are rich because they went to college, earned a masters/PhD/MD and work very hard. Why should the government take from them and give it to those who have less? I am all for helping the needy, but I am also for helping them rise out of being needy and enter into a life of prosperity through education and hard work. I personally believe in having a fair flat tax. We should be able to earn and succeed and pay a set percent amount that everyone must pay.
 
Last edited:
Welfare, food stamps and other such programs have been around for decades. Has the poverty rate gone down?
 
Actually, it has. From roughly 23% in 1960 to 13.2% in 2008.

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

That's not really saying the full story though. The poverty rates fluctuated through those years. As it looks right now the poverty rate is rising.
saupload_us_poverty_rate_2007.JPG
 
That's not really saying the full story though. The poverty rates fluctuated through those years. As it looks right now the poverty rate is rising.
saupload_us_poverty_rate_2007.JPG

Generally speaking, the poverty rate has been higher in a recession, and the poverty rate was a foreboding variable meaning it began to rise before the recession had developed. They do not have the most recent data for a recession, but I'm sure it rose higher.

Otherwise, it has been steadily decreasing.
 
Generally speaking, the poverty rate has been higher in a recession, and the poverty rate was a foreboding variable meaning it began to rise before the recession had developed. They do not have the most recent data for a recession, but I'm sure it rose higher.

Otherwise, it has been steadily decreasing.

There has been a net dicrease sense the 60's. Looking at the graph though the rate in 2007 was similar to what is was in 1975. I think it hasn't drastically gone up or gone down, but it has decreased and stayed within a margin sense the 1660s.
 
There has been a net dicrease sense the 60's. Looking at the graph though the rate in 2007 was similar to what is was in 1975. I think it hasn't drastically gone up or gone down, but it has decreased and stayed within a margin sense the 1660s.

You are looking at the wrong line. The top line is the amount of people in poverty. It is the same amount as in 1960. That's actually good all things considered, since we had nearly 125 million more people in 2008.

You should instead focus on the bottom line, the percentage of people in the USA in poverty.
 
You are looking at the wrong line. The top line is the amount of people in poverty. It is the same amount as in 1960. That's actually good all things considered, since we had nearly 125 million more people in 2008.

You should instead focus on the bottom line, the percentage of people in the USA in poverty.
I was looking at the bottom line. My reference to 1975 and 2007 was regarding the bottom line.
 
I was looking at the bottom line. My reference to 1975 and 2007 was regarding the bottom line.

Oh, I see. I apologize.

Well, food stamps was introduced in the 1960s, I believe. This was around the time of the Great Society legislation aimed at curtailing poverty, improving social welfare among other things. Other pushes in that decade were the Social Security act, Medicade, etc.

You can easily see the reduction in that decade. Since then it hasn't necessarily fluctuated too much in terms of ups and downs, but what other poverty reducing programs have we enacted besides actually lowering the income tax (under several presidencies)?
 
Because it would not even remotely fund the responsibilities we have placed in the public sector. You can't invent some fantasy tax rate that sounds fair to you and it magically generate enough money.

translation

the net taxpayers have an unlimited duty to keep paying more and more as long as democrat politicians continue to buy the votes of democrat minions by promising them more and more goodies that "others" will have to fund
 
The money we make from our sources of unearned income sure isn't disposable.

It isn't only the filthy rich that have sources of unearned income.

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.
 
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.

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
 
Back
Top Bottom