• 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!

Which tax system is most 'fair'

Which tax system is most 'fair'?

  • Progressive Tax

    Votes: 28 46.7%
  • Regressive Tax

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Flat Percentage Tax Rate

    Votes: 14 23.3%
  • Flat Dollar Tax

    Votes: 4 6.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 14 23.3%

  • Total voters
    60
hmm. okay.

given that wealth is generated via mutually beneficial trade in which resources are moved to higher uses and in which both sides prefer that which they are left with after the trade; someone who is generating a higher income is by definition already donating more in terms of helping his fellow citizens. why would you wish to deliberately design a tax system built around punishing and disincentiving that, especially when such a model is guaranteed to reduce social cohesion and increase conflict via class struggle between the payers and the moochers?

Well in terms of social cohesion.. lets look at the top 10 countries people report to be the most happy. If you look closely you will see countries with much higher degree of progressive taxation.. you will note currently the US is much lower on the chart placing 17th with very few social programs for the people.

Top 10 happiest countries in the world | Financial Jesus

Your theories on economic policy go to far. Less taxation of the wealthy via flat taxation causes overt stress on the working poor.. who have much less disposable income then the wealthy. Basically a flat tax would be regressive creating a weaker consumer base that is already more deprived as a result of the explosion of low quality low paying service industry jobs. A flat tax would disproportionately punish low income brackets. A progressive Tax is more appropriate from a consumer economy perspective.

The class struggle is already on.. and what your suggesting is a tad like the pot calling the kettle black.
 
Last edited:
:roll: okay, you were asked nicely. now you are simply trying to avoid the question.

Not at all. You could have simply asked me, "Why do you believe in the progressive tax" instead of making all those automatic judgments against the system.

I will say this. Conservatives argue that the progressive tax steals from the wealthier despite not getting more benefits from the progressive tax. That the wealthiest pay more money while the poorer get more services from the government.

But that's not necessarily the case.

For example, what about tax cuts to large businesses to incentivize them to build their businesses in a location? That disincentivizes small businesses, after all, and it favors large businesses over small businesses despite small businesses hiring half of the employees in the U.S. So why should large-scale businesses get tax cuts as incentives to build their operations in a certain locale? That's not fair.

Also, the wealthiest have more pull in politics. Politicians listen to lobbyists who pay them the most campaign contributions, which comes from the largest businesses. Small businesses, however, can't affect politicians in an equal way because they can't afford contributions on an equal level. Therefore, politicians are affected more from lobbying efforts of large businesses over small businesses.

This then goes into the innate inequality of no-bid contracts that local, state, and the federal government dole out as corporate welfare to those large businesses who donate the most contributions to the most politicians. No-bid contracts stifle competition and it increases tax money spent to government contractors since there's no impetus to induce competitive prices to contractors.

So because of this process of the wealthiest using their wealth to influence policy to garner government contracts without competitive bids, the wealthiest aren't really being taxed at all. They give cutbacks to the politicians for the government bids and make their money back and profit by increasing the price for that contract.

So the ones who really get squeezed aren't the wealthy, who make their money back in government influence, nor from the poor, who are too poor to pay taxes, but the middle class who give all their money to taxes for government bids that pay off the wealthy.

So until conservatives start demanding abolition of no-bid contracts and campaign financing reform, which innately favors the wealthy to influence policy over the poor, don't talk about fairness in taxes.

Also, an argument could be said that the wealthy DO get more benefit from government services than the poor do. Businesses benefit more from a public school system from which to recruit employees from. Businesses benefit more from a universal health care system because it keeps their employees healthy. Businesses benefit more from roads and infrastructure because it allows more of their goods to be transported to markets. Businesses benefit more from defense spending because it allows them to indulge in global trade without fear of piracy.

So while the wealthy receive less direct benefits from the progressive tax system, they receive many more indirect benefits.
 
I prefer no tax, or a tax for localities and their projects.

I think the rich should pay more taxes because they are the ones who designed the current failing economic system. I am tired of our governments socializing the risk while industry gets to privatize the profits and saddle in cahoots with the banking system on top of it.

They made this mess now they can bail us out.
 
hmm. okay.

given that wealth is generated via mutually beneficial trade in which resources are moved to higher uses and in which both sides prefer that which they are left with after the trade; someone who is generating a higher income is by definition already donating more in terms of helping his fellow citizens. why would you wish to deliberately design a tax system built around punishing and disincentiving that, especially when such a model is guaranteed to reduce social cohesion and increase conflict via class struggle between the payers and the moochers?

because the votes of non producers count as much as a superstar who makes lots of money and dems realize that buying the votes of the non producers with that man's money is a good way to become rich themselves without producing anything of value.

Just look at many of the posters on this board who ooze envy and hatred of the wealthy.
 
Well in terms of social cohesion.. lets look at the top 10 countries people report to be the most happy. If you look closely you will see countries with much higher degree of progressive taxation.. you will note currently the US is much lower on the chart placing 17th with very few social programs for the people.

Top 10 happiest countries in the world | Financial Jesus

Your theories on economic policy go to far. Less taxation of the wealthy via flat taxation causes overt stress on the working poor.. who have much less disposable income then the wealthy. Basically a flat tax would be regressive creating a weaker consumer base that is already more deprived as a result of the explosion of low quality low paying service industry jobs. A flat tax would disproportionately punish low income brackets. A progressive Tax is more appropriate from a consumer economy perspective.

The class struggle is already on.. and what your suggesting is a tad like the pot calling the kettle black.

you believe that nonsense? ten happiest countries-what a great reason to Scew up america's freedom
 
I prefer no tax, or a tax for localities and their projects.

I think the rich should pay more taxes because they are the ones who designed the current failing economic system. I am tired of our governments socializing the risk while industry gets to privatize the profits and saddle in cahoots with the banking system on top of it.

They made this mess now they can bail us out.

for example see the above about the envy and hate. There are two kinds of rich (at least) those who are rich because of the government and those who are rich despite or with no help of the government. Its the former who screws things up not the latter.
 
you believe that nonsense? ten happiest countries-what a great reason to Scew up america's freedom

./ignore

Turtle man is on permanent ignore.. err well until I see something relatively worth while responding to drool out of his mouth.
 
Last edited:
Not at all. You could have simply asked me, "Why do you believe in the progressive tax" instead of making all those automatic judgments against the system.

I will say this. Conservatives argue that the progressive tax steals from the wealthier despite not getting more benefits from the progressive tax. That the wealthiest pay more money while the poorer get more services from the government.

But that's not necessarily the case.

For example, what about tax cuts to large businesses to incentivize them to build their businesses in a location? That disincentivizes small businesses, after all, and it favors large businesses over small businesses despite small businesses hiring half of the employees in the U.S. So why should large-scale businesses get tax cuts as incentives to build their operations in a certain locale? That's not fair.

Also, the wealthiest have more pull in politics. Politicians listen to lobbyists who pay them the most campaign contributions, which comes from the largest businesses. Small businesses, however, can't affect politicians in an equal way because they can't afford contributions on an equal level. Therefore, politicians are affected more from lobbying efforts of large businesses over small businesses.

This then goes into the innate inequality of no-bid contracts that local, state, and the federal government dole out as corporate welfare to those large businesses who donate the most contributions to the most politicians. No-bid contracts stifle competition and it increases tax money spent to government contractors since there's no impetus to induce competitive prices to contractors.

So because of this process of the wealthiest using their wealth to influence policy to garner government contracts without competitive bids, the wealthiest aren't really being taxed at all. They give cutbacks to the politicians for the government bids and make their money back and profit by increasing the price for that contract.

So the ones who really get squeezed aren't the wealthy, who make their money back in government influence, nor from the poor, who are too poor to pay taxes, but the middle class who give all their money to taxes for government bids that pay off the wealthy.

So until conservatives start demanding abolition of no-bid contracts and campaign financing reform, which innately favors the wealthy to influence policy over the poor, don't talk about fairness in taxes.

Also, an argument could be said that the wealthy DO get more benefit from government services than the poor do. Businesses benefit more from a public school system from which to recruit employees from. Businesses benefit more from a universal health care system because it keeps their employees healthy. Businesses benefit more from roads and infrastructure because it allows more of their goods to be transported to markets. Businesses benefit more from defense spending because it allows them to indulge in global trade without fear of piracy.

So while the wealthy receive less direct benefits from the progressive tax system, they receive many more indirect benefits.


the rich get more> no they don't but even if your false claim is correct, they certainly pay far more t han they get. 47% of america pays nothing for what actually pays for the federal government-income taxes. Yet that 47% gets at least 47% of the benefits and if you count prison as a "benefit" of those in it (it certainly is an expenditure upon those in prison-to the tune of up to 65K a year) that they don't pay for via the FIT.

So the rich are clearly paying far far more than they use to make up for all those who don't pay near as much as they use.

and a flat tax or a consumption tax would still cause the wealthy to pay more than they use--it would just prevent politicians from pandering to those who hate the rich from voting up their taxes over and over and over.

until everyone suffers from increased government spending, there is no incentive to reign in government spending by those who don't have to pay for it
 
./ignore

Turtle man is on permanent ignore.. err well until I see something relatively worth while responding to drool out of his mouth.

Moderator's Warning:
If you want to ignore a poster, do so. Announcing it is baiting. Please stop.
 
Just sayin. : /

Moderator's Warning:
Commenting on moderation publicly is a 6A violation, which carries with it pretty stiff penalites. Do NOT do this again. Any issues with moderation should be submitted via PM.
 
The flat dollar is the most fair, but since that will never happen, a consumption tax is my next choice. Everyone needs to be paying into the kitty, because when people don't have a personal stake in what's happening, it gets out of control and class warfare keeps growing.
 
Last edited:
The flat dollar as the most fair, but since that will never happen, a consumption tax is my next choice. Everyone needs to be paying into the kitty, because when people don't have a personal stake in what's happening, it gets out of control and class warfare keeps growing.

those who pander to those who don't have any skin in the game get way too much power from a progressive income tax

when you see people support the progressive income tax you can generally figure they are

1) someone who pays far less than their real fair share
2) panders to the above

I bet the vast majority of those who are in that 47% group that doesn't pay any income tax federally are supportive of a progressive tax
 
One of the following three


A flat income tax on all income over a specified amount. Income being any and all things including dividends, interest income, rental income wages, gifts etc. No deductions except for childern

A sales tax on most goods and services. Exclusions for basic foodstuffs, and primary residences (either rent or when purchased

A flat asset tax. For example a 1% tax on all assets from homes to, stocks bonds, valuable art, or collectables

I support this. ;)
 
I don't view property rights as absolute, but rather I view limited property rights as a mechanism to create incentives for a nation's people to become productive. In other words, property rights exist not to protect the rights of the individual, but rather to serve society. The mistake many people make is to view them as serving the individual, and then start to mistakenly believe that they are somehow absolute. No rights are absolute. They all only exist as long as they serve the purpose of increasing the good in a free society.

Since I don't view taxation as theft, I am free to recommend that tax system which best serves a nation. I don't really care about fairness, since there are so many ways to look at such a notion. The only thing that really matters is that tax system which maximizes both prosperity and spread of the nation's wealth. Sometimes these are in conflict and it is up to society to determine the correct balance. However, just the maximization of prosperity itself is best served by a progressive tax system.

Any time society attempts a system of property rights and combines it with any tax system that gives rise to a pronounced concentration of a nation's wealth in the hands of a relatively few, this leads to economic malaise, corruption and poverty for the vast majority of the population. I like my society set up with a set of fairly strong and extensive property rights to foster a free market system, combined with wise regulation of those markets, and finally combined with a progressive tax system to offset the tendency of wealth to accumulate at the top.

This kind of system is a whole package, and it is "Fair" because it works. If a flat tax was what "worked", I would be for that (in emerging economies, there is evidence that a flat tax is best). Whatever works.
 
I don't view property rights as absolute, but rather I view limited property rights as a mechanism to create incentives for a nation's people to become productive. In other words, property rights exist not to protect the rights of the individual, but rather to serve society. The mistake many people make is to view them as serving the individual, and then start to mistakenly believe that they are somehow absolute. No rights are absolute. They all only exist as long as they serve the purpose of increasing the good in a free society.

Since I don't view taxation as theft, I am free to recommend that tax system which best serves a nation. I don't really care about fairness, since there are so many ways to look at such a notion. The only thing that really matters is that tax system which maximizes both prosperity and spread of the nation's wealth. Sometimes these are in conflict and it is up to society to determine the correct balance. However, just the maximization of prosperity itself is best served by a progressive tax system.

Any time society attempts a system of property rights and combines it with any tax system that gives rise to a pronounced concentration of a nation's wealth in the hands of a relatively few, this leads to economic malaise, corruption and poverty for the vast majority of the population. I like my society set up with a set of fairly strong and extensive property rights to foster a free market system, combined with wise regulation of those markets, and finally combined with a progressive tax system to offset the tendency of wealth to accumulate at the top.

This kind of system is a whole package, and it is "Fair" because it works. If a flat tax was what "worked", I would be for that (in emerging economies, there is evidence that a flat tax is best). Whatever works.

We've had a progressive tax system for near on 100 years.
In the minds of many, prosperity hasn't been spread and the wealth has continued to accumulate at the top.

Is that a failing at the implementation of the progressive tax?
 
The flat dollar is the most fair, but since that will never happen, a consumption tax is my next choice. Everyone needs to be paying into the kitty, because when people don't have a personal stake in what's happening, it gets out of control and class warfare keeps growing.

We could implement a minimum income tax rather than using a consumption tax in order to get everyone to pay into the system.
 
We've had a progressive tax system for near on 100 years.
In the minds of many, prosperity hasn't been spread and the wealth has continued to accumulate at the top.

Is that a failing at the implementation of the progressive tax?

No, it just means that the lack of prosperity would be worse and the accumulation of wealth at the top would be greater if we didn't have a progressive tax system.

Don't get me wrong - I, by no means, am claiming that the current tax system is perfect because it is progressive. Rather, I'm for a reformed progressive tax system. I think many people who favor progressive taxes are.
 
Last edited:
We've had a progressive tax system for near on 100 years.
In the minds of many, prosperity hasn't been spread and the wealth has continued to accumulate at the top.

Is that a failing at the implementation of the progressive tax?

Ray Powell, late Professor of Economics at Yale, one of the most respected and well liked Professors at the school and hardly a conservative noted that if all wealth was gathered up and equally divided among the citizens of the USA (this was in 1977) by 2050 the income disparities would be about the same as they were in 1977

one has to merely look at dozens of mega lottery winners, game show champions or former boxing title holders who are bankrupt or destitute within a mere few years after their fortune was made.

Winners win while losers lose

look at tennis and golf. THe top 5-6 competitiors win more titles than the rest of the entire profession combined. That is what is called top heavy accumulation of wealth yet no one thinks we ought to whack Rafa Nadal in the knee or hamstring Serena Williams

those who want to give a government the power to make things fair give a government the power to rape everyone.
 
No, it just means that the lack of prosperity would be worse and the accumulation of wealth at the top would be greater.

Don't get me wrong - I, by no means, am claiming that the current tax system is perfect because it is progressive. Rather, I'm for a reformed progressive tax system. I think many people who favor progressive taxes are.

have you ever considered the fact that a tax system that allows people to survive somewhat comfortably without paying taxes or providing any real benefit to society causes a lack of effort on their part and keeps them mired in what some call poverty?
 
No, it just means that the lack of prosperity would be worse and the accumulation of wealth at the top would be greater if we didn't have a progressive tax system.

Don't get me wrong - I, by no means, am claiming that the current tax system is perfect because it is progressive. Rather, I'm for a reformed progressive tax system. I think many people who favor progressive taxes are.

I'm not saying that is my view on things but I think it begs the question because many people state that, the middle class is getting hit hard and the poor are getting poorer.

If that is true, why hasn't the progressive tax system ended that?
I think the answer lies in changing the behavior of those that are middle class and poor.
Twisting and turning numbers only does so much.
 
We could implement a minimum income tax rather than using a consumption tax in order to get everyone to pay into the system.

We need people to be conscious of their consumption and where tax money is going. Consumption taxes would do just that. If you want to live a life of frivolity and excess, then do so. What we currently have is 50% of the working population not caring how tax dollars are being spent, because they have no personal stake in it.
 
I think it is so funny how people think a transaction tax is somehow voluntary.

So, what if, instead of taxing income they taxed transactions only. All transactions. Including those that go on between and employer and employees. Like the transaction that occurs when an employee gets paid for work services rendered.

Would that make ya'll feel better about the income tax? If it was a tax levied on employers for the voluntary transaction they engage in when they pay employees?
 
We need people to be conscious of their consumption and where tax money is going. Consumption taxes would do just that. If you want to live a life of frivolity and excess, then do so. What we currently have is 50% of the working population not caring how tax dollars are being spent, because they have no personal stake in it.

a consumption tax was proposed when the income tax was being debated many many decades ago. The senator from Indiana (I recall) noted a consumption tax would be more efficient etc. Another senator noted that a consumption tax would not give the government near the power an income tax does

a consumption tax has dozens of benefits for us who dont like an intrusive government

1) for taxpayers it means far less wasted time-no figuring your taxes-no hiring CPAs or attorneys etc

2) for those who have illegal income-dope dealers especially, you will be taxed as much as LeBron James or Harrison Ford

3) the elimination of most of the IRS-that alone would save billions

4) Congress loses much of its improper power-the power to pander to net tax consumers using the money of net tax payers

5) no more voting by those who have no skin in the game

6) class warfare as an excuse or a political ploy would be severely limited
 
Back
Top Bottom