• 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 also believe this should apply to all inheritance also. That's where most wealthy people get their money tax free. I know the old argument that it a "death tax", but it's still income to the receiver. Can I tell the guy that just painted my house that he doesn't have to pay taxes on the money I just gave him because I've already paid it? What's the difference?

It should apply to inheritance. Inheritance is income. Personally I believe there should be a maximum of inheritance allowed in the society. Say perhaps 50x(for future years) GDP per person.
 
It should apply to inheritance. Inheritance is income. Personally I believe there should be a maximum of inheritance allowed in the society. Say perhaps 50x(for future years) GDP per person.

Morally, I think this is a great position, however my practical concern is that there needs to be at least some obscenely rich people in this country for investment purposes.
 
How about just taxing UNEARNED income at 50%? Taxing the idle rich rather than the hard-working seems much fairer to me.


How is it unearned? Someone earned it and put it into the stock market or capital reinvestment in the first place.

It does EVERYONE more good to have that money invested in capital, that is in building more "means of production" to produce more jobs, than having it stored in a vault or hidden under a mattress.

Lots of people who are NOT the "idle rich", people who work for a living, have a retirement fund that is earning intrest or capital gains in the market. They are depending on that fund to live on after retirement. In many cases taxing them 50% would mean causing them to have an impoverished and dependent retirement, instead of a prosperous retirement.
 
Morally, I think this is a great position, however my practical concern is that there needs to be at least some obscenely rich people in this country for investment purposes.

Excellent point. Perhaps such a role could be filled by investment corporations where inheritance over 50x per capita GDP goes partly towards such a fund.
 
Lots of people who are NOT the "idle rich", people who work for a living, have a retirement fund that is earning intrest or capital gains in the market. They are depending on that fund to live on after retirement. In many cases taxing them 50% would mean causing them to have an impoverished and dependent retirement, instead of a prosperous retirement.

You are right. It should be unearned income that provides for over 200k per year (and indexed to inflation for future years)
 
Excellent point. Perhaps such a role could be filled by investment corporations where inheritance over 50x per capita GDP goes partly towards such a fund.

I don't think that would work. I think a higher tax rate after some reasonable limit would probably work.
 
How is it unearned? Someone earned it and put it into the stock market or capital reinvestment in the first place.

It does EVERYONE more good to have that money invested in capital, that is in building more "means of production" to produce more jobs, than having it stored in a vault or hidden under a mattress.

Lots of people who are NOT the "idle rich", people who work for a living, have a retirement fund that is earning intrest or capital gains in the market. They are depending on that fund to live on after retirement. In many cases taxing them 50% would mean causing them to have an impoverished and dependent retirement, instead of a prosperous retirement.

I plan on retiring early and living solely on "unearned" income.
I'm shooting for $30k to $50k a year in dividends and interest.

That would just suck to have to pay a 50% tax rate on it.
 
I don't think that would work. I think a higher tax rate after some reasonable limit would probably work.

I have to point to China in this case where state investment cooperations work excellently. This is also more and more visible in Russia.
 
It should apply to inheritance. Inheritance is income. Personally I believe there should be a maximum of inheritance allowed in the society. Say perhaps 50x(for future years) GDP per person.

Jealous much? where does the federal government properly get the power to do such idiotic socialist engineering.

you want a spendthrift society?
 
...

No, you are confused. It would be like saying Tiger Woods gets (or got) 'help' from his sponsors. You can't compare the people in the middle of PGA rankings to middle income households.

That is idiotic. That someone wins under a given set of rules does not win because of the rules. They win because they compete better. LIbs think that the rich are rich because the government favors them. The rich are rich because they tend to be smarter, harder working and more driven than average people
 
If you'd like to pay me over 200k a year to see if I'll pay taxes with no complaint, you're more than welcome to do so.



I don't make anything near 200k a year.

IF I did, I'd probably beyotch about having to pay 45% or more of my income to Federal, State and local taxes, too.

I could live with a flat tax as long as some universal deductions (say 20k a household) were allowed to keep the poor from being pushed underwater.

I can live with progressive taxation, but the progression needs to be modest and the top end of all taxes combined should never exceed 30% for anyone. Anytime you start getting close to taking half of someone's income, you're penalizing success and discouraging enterpreneureal activity.
 
LIbs think that the rich are rich because the government favors them.

*sigh* everytime you generalize, you epically fail. This is a good example.

As a liberal, I do not think that, ergo you are wrong.
 
*sigh* everytime you generalize, you epically fail. This is a good example.

As a liberal, I do not think that, ergo you are wrong.

The amusing thing is that Turtle is correct in that at least some of the rich are rich because the government favors them.

The majority of tax credits, rebates and deductions plainly favor the rich. And the rich can afford high priced accountants (like me) to structure investments to take maximum advantage of them to reduce taxation to extremely low levels. Much of the tax code relating to business exists largely because at one time or another, some accountant or lawyer pushed the law to the limit to legally structure a transaction in an extremely abusive way. As the saying goes, the only thing scummier then a lawyer is an accountant!

Mortgage is deductible. Rent is not. Who does that favor? Generally the rich.
Who has the cash to hire accountants and lawyer to setup complex trusts? The rich.
Who has the cash to hire accountants and lawyer to setup specialized limited partnerships to transfer wealth from parents to kids to completely eliminate estate tax? The rich.
The whole notion of itemization favors the rich. One return I did this year had itemization deductions over $200k for a couple.
Do the poor have section 1250 activity losses that pass as ordinary losses? No.
 
*sigh* everytime you generalize, you epically fail. This is a good example.

As a liberal, I do not think that, ergo you are wrong.

I would agree that as a liberal you probably do not think but rather feel:mrgreen:
 
The amusing thing is that Turtle is correct in that at least some of the rich are rich because the government favors them.

The majority of tax credits, rebates and deductions plainly favor the rich. And the rich can afford high priced accountants (like me) to structure investments to take maximum advantage of them to reduce taxation to extremely low levels. Much of the tax code relating to business exists largely because at one time or another, some accountant or lawyer pushed the law to the limit to legally structure a transaction in an extremely abusive way. As the saying goes, the only thing scummier then a lawyer is an accountant!

Mortgage is deductible. Rent is not. Who does that favor? Generally the rich.
Who has the cash to hire accountants and lawyer to setup complex trusts? The rich.
Who has the cash to hire accountants and lawyer to setup specialized limited partnerships to transfer wealth from parents to kids to completely eliminate estate tax? The rich.
The whole notion of itemization favors the rich. One return I did this year had itemization deductions over $200k for a couple.
Do the poor have section 1250 activity losses that pass as ordinary losses? No.

yet despite all of that the top 1% pay as much income tax as the bottom 95% and if you throw in the death confiscation tax, more. And the rich only make 22% of the income yet pay almost 40% of the income tax.

So even with all those "advantages" the rich still pay far more of the income tax bill then their share of the income and they pay far more than what they get in return
 
yet despite all of that the top 1% pay as much income tax as the bottom 95% and if you throw in the death confiscation tax, more. And the rich only make 22% of the income yet pay almost 40% of the income tax.

What is with people and their notion that income tax is the only tax that exists?

Heard of a concept called payroll taxes?

On a wealth base, only one group really is taking others for a ride. The group between the top 10% and top 5% is paying less on a proportional basis of wealth then everyone else.

So even with all those "advantages" the rich still pay far more of the income tax bill then their share of the income and they pay far more than what they get in return

I wasn't aware that the only tax people pay to Washington is income tax. I wonder what this "payroll" tax I see deducted on my paycheck is since only income tax exists. :2wave:
 
I don't make anything near 200k a year.

IF I did, I'd probably beyotch about having to pay 45% or more of my income to Federal, State and local taxes, too.

I could live with a flat tax as long as some universal deductions (say 20k a household) were allowed to keep the poor from being pushed underwater.

I can live with progressive taxation, but the progression needs to be modest and the top end of all taxes combined should never exceed 30% for anyone. Anytime you start getting close to taking half of someone's income, you're penalizing success and discouraging enterpreneureal activity.

I think progressive taxation would be fine if 30% were the total top rate.
It's hard to get others to agree to moderation with taxes.
 
I think progressive taxation would be fine if 30% were the total top rate.
It's hard to get others to agree to moderation with taxes.

Hell, if we could fix Medicare and get out of various wars, we could easily drop highest marginal tax rates to 20%. Between Social Security, Medicare and the military, that's the Lion's share of spending. Bitching about pork is rather futile when a 5% increase in medicare spending blows those away.
 
Hell, if we could fix Medicare and get out of various wars, we could easily drop highest marginal tax rates to 20%. Between Social Security, Medicare and the military, that's the Lion's share of spending. Bitching about pork is rather futile when a 5% increase in medicare spending blows those away.

I don't disagree at all.

The only real way to fix Medicare is to cut spending on it, I'm not holding my breath on that happening.
We can afford to close some bases and cut some contractors as well.
 
What is with people and their notion that income tax is the only tax that exists?

Heard of a concept called payroll taxes?

On a wealth base, only one group really is taking others for a ride. The group between the top 10% and top 5% is paying less on a proportional basis of wealth then everyone else.



I wasn't aware that the only tax people pay to Washington is income tax. I wonder what this "payroll" tax I see deducted on my paycheck is since only income tax exists. :2wave:

It is the income tax that congress uses to pit groups of Americans against each other. It is the income tax that gets discussed in presidential elections.
and I don't recall paying Payroll taxes-the employer does. If your contract says you make 90K a year what is taken from you in payroll taxes
 
It is the income tax that congress uses to pit groups of Americans against each other.

So? You act like it's the only tax people pay. In terms of total federal liabilities, all but the named group are paying their proportional share compared to wealth.
 
The claim that those who make more money had more help from "society" is complete and utter BS.

That is like saying Tiger Woods or Roger Federer had more "help" from the PGA or ATP than did the guys in the middle of the PGA or ATP rankings.

BTW Nothing psses me off more than people who don't make as much saying that those who do make say a million ought to pay 40% or more of their income because they can "afford it" and their lifestyle is still better than the parasites who want to jack up their taxes.


That's more of that malignant "from each according to their ability" crap that is ruining this country.

If you want the rich to have to pay far far more of the load than you, the rich should be given government sponsored privileges. My solution has always been more votes since someone who pays a million in taxes ought to have more say than someone living off of the public dole.
Ok, either go back and actually read what I wrote and refute it with actual logic, or quit wasting my time because all you're doing now is ranting
 
Why the hell can we not tax everyone 10% of their income? Just a percentage which stays the same, across the board.

Because to run even a small government it would have to be more than 10%.
 
Back
Top Bottom