• 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
imagep said:
Yes, you do-no. I agree totally. In an earlier post I suggested $400,000 as the point where taxes should become quite steep. The average attorney only makes about $90k, the average family MD only makes about $120,000. A lot of people think that is rich, but that is not rich at all. The average specialist MD makes about $360,000 and that is the highest average salary for any common job. Now certainly someone who is particularly sucessful in is career should be able to make a little more than "average", so $400,000K seems to be a natural cutoff point for a large tax bracket hike. If you exclude the top 1% of income earners, the average worker only makes about $40k, so that $400,000 cutoff is ten times average earnings. Also, the top 1% of income starts at, get this - about $400,000. $400,000 seems to be a quite natural taxation point.
Click to expand...

What gives you or the government the right to say that someone has earned too much money? Does the President of the United States earn too much money since it's now $569,000* a year tax free? Is the President rich?

* This includes the discretionary spending, yearly salary, travel allowance, and entertainment.
 
Last edited:
fredmertz said:
I make little money now - just starting in my career. I find some money to give when a cause comes around that I care for. But if the total taxes I pay which currently exceed 54% of my income (including sales tax, property taxes, income tax, state tax, social security, medicare and local taxes) were reduced, I believe I would have more money to donate to charities. To help a lot of those same people that the government is taxing me to help anyway. The only difference is that I would get to choose who my money helps more directly. As of now, I have no choice - the government chooses and qualifies the people who are 'entitled' to my money and charities get barely anything.
Click to expand...


Wow, you admit that you are one of those lazy people like turtledude rants against, just starting a career and making little money. Yet you pay 54% of your income on taxes. Hows can that be? You are supposed to be in the group of people who suck off of the elite class like turtledude.

Could it be possible that ones income does not reflect what they contribute to society?
 
TurtleDude said:
i totally oppose progressive income taxes because it allows people like you to push for more and more government spending while not suffering any harm so you have no incentive to stop wasteful spending.
Click to expand...
Wrong Again. (!)
Even on your Deflection/still not being able to answer my points about "Fair" as opposed to reality.
Tough when faced with real numbers eh?

As to your new fallacy.....
How much we collect is a DIFFERENT issue than who we collect it from.

One can have big or small govt, but this string is about WHO pays the 'x' amount of dollars that we decide we need to spend.

Many oppose the 'FairYtax' (and of course ANY Tax) for that reason too.. it's easy to raise. Just add a percent or two if you need it. And of course they claim revenue neutral. It's not a bigger or smaller govt advocated.
Bigger or smaller govt, a separate issue.
 
Last edited:
imagep said:
Wow, you admit that you are one of those lazy people like turtledude rants against, just starting a career and making little money. Yet you pay 54% of your income on taxes. Hows can that be? You are supposed to be in the group of people who suck off of the elite class like turtledude.

Could it be possible that ones income does not reflect what they contribute to society?
Click to expand...

Nah, he's a winner because he realizes what he has to do to be responsible for his own upkeep rather than the slugs who sit back and whine that they cannot make it because the rich took all the wealth
 
mbig said:
Wrong Again. (!)
Even on your Deflection/still not being able to answer my points.

As to your new fallacy.....
How much we collect is a DIFFERENT issue than who we collect it from.

One can have big or small govt, but this string is about WHO pays the 'x' amount of dollars that we decide we need to spend.

Many oppose the 'FairYtax' (and of course ANY Tax) for that reason too.. it's easy to raise. And of course they claim revenue neutral.

Bigger or smaller govt, a separate issue.
Click to expand...

how can I be wrong about an opinion
you are humping my leg over a thread you merely "me too'd" on and it has nothing to do with reality
 
The_Patriot said:
What gives you or the government the right to say that someone has earned too much money? Does the President of the United States earn too much money since it's now $569,000* a year tax free? Is the President rich?

* This includes the discretionary spending, yearly salary, travel allowance, and entertainment.
Click to expand...

I have already explained my logic. If you can detail a better definition of unusually high income, then go for it. Just don't pretend like I did not give a perfectly logical explaination.

Now lets take your example, the President making $569,000, now I would certainly expect that the most powerful person in the world would earn a high income. There should be no shock or suprise in that.

How much do you suppose he has to pay in income taxes with todays current tax code? Probably something approaching $175,000. Now if we had the $400,000 tax exemption like I have proposed, even if we raised the tax rate to 50%, he would only pay about $84,000 in taxes. Now which tax code sounds like a better deal for the prez? Our current tax code, or the one I propose?
 
mbig said:
Wrong Again. (!)
Even on your Deflection/still not being able to answer my points.
Tough when faced with real numbers eh?

As to your new fallacy.....
How much we collect is a DIFFERENT issue than who we collect it from.

One can have big or small govt, but this string is about WHO pays the 'x' amount of dollars that we decide we need to spend.

Many oppose the 'FairYtax' (and of course ANY Tax) for that reason too.. it's easy to raise. And of course they claim revenue neutral.

Bigger or smaller govt, a separate issue.
Click to expand...

Taxes isn't what constrained spending. It was the fact we had a gold standard and there was physically only so much money available. The move to fiat currency removed the physical limitation and the implementation of the fractional reserve system combined with Keynesian economics is what has caused the spending to escalate. Taxes have nothing to do with deficit spending since deficits according to Keynes are good.
 
imagep said:
I have already explained my logic. If you can detail a better definition of unusually high income, then go for it. Just don't pretend like I did not give a perfectly logical explaination.

Now lets take your example, the President making $569,000, now I would certainly expect that the most powerful person in the world would earn a high income. There should be no shock or suprise in that.

How much do you suppose he has to pay in income taxes with todays current tax code? Probably something approaching $175,000. Now if we had the $400,000 tax exemption like I have proposed, even if we raised the tax rate to 50%, he would only pay about $84,000 in taxes. Now which tax code sounds like a better deal for the prez? Our current tax code, or the one I propose?
Click to expand...

I didn't ask for your logic. I asked what gives you the right to say someone makes too much money and to demand the confiscation of their property without due course of law?
 
The_Patriot said:
Taxes isn't what constrained spending. It was the fact we had a gold standard and there was physically only so much money available. The move to fiat currency removed the physical limitation and the implementation of the fractional reserve system combined with Keynesian economics is what has caused the spending to escalate. Taxes have nothing to do with deficit spending since deficits according to Keynes are good.
Click to expand...
Again.. this is a separate issue.
this string is about "fair" and WHO pays how much.
NOT the total.
We don't/shouldn't need a logician here .. but do need some common sense.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
Again.. this is a separate issue.
this string is about "fair" and WHO pays.
NOT the total.
We don't/shouldn't need a full logician here .. but do need some common sense.
Click to expand...

I already gave my answer on what is fair. Here it is for reference.

The only fair tax that is directly laid on the people is one of apportionment. All others are unfair since it presupposes that you do not have the right to enjoy the gains of your own industry and the right to own and dispose of your property as you see fit.
 
TurtleDude said:
Nah, he's a winner because he realizes what he has to do to be responsible for his own upkeep rather than the slugs who sit back and whine that they cannot make it because the rich took all the wealth
Click to expand...

I am not sure I follow your logic. He is a winner because he isn't whining, yet someone else who makes the same as him is a loser because they are whining? Sounds like you just want people who are sounding out against your elitest attitiude to shut the f#k up so that you don't loose your special status.
 
The_Patriot said:
I already gave my answer on what is fair. Here it is for reference.

The only fair tax that is directly laid on the people is one of apportionment. All others are unfair since it presupposes that you do not have the right to enjoy the gains of your own industry and the right to own and dispose of your property as you see fit.
Click to expand...
Good, you're back on topic from your fallacious response to .. who knows what.

Of course "apportionment" is utterly vague unless you say how much RELATIVE apportionment.
If you MEAN (probably) equal apportionment/same tax rate .. AGAIN.. that's very difficult.
The example two pages ago of what ie, 25% means to someone with 20k-25k Income vs what it means to someone with $4 Mil income.
Untenable.. is a word that comes to mind.
And in a democracy with the bulk of people in the bottom 2/3, unlikely lest they Dupe poor conservatives. Which they have had some success with with things like 'FairYtax'.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
Good you're back on topic from your fallacious response to .. who knows what.

Of course "apportionment" is utterly vague unless you say how much RELATIVE apportionment.
If you MEAN (probably) equal apportionment/same tax rate .. AGAIN.. that's very difficult.
The example two pages ago of what ie, 25% means to someone with 20k-25k Income vs what it means to someone with $4 Mil income.
Untenable.. is a word that comes to mind.
And in a democracy with the bulk of people in the bottom 2/3, unlikely lest they Dupe poor conservatives. Which they have had some success with with things like 'FairYtax'.
Click to expand...

First, the original Constitution specifies that direct taxes must be equal by the number of people regardless of how much money they make. The only reason it was written that way is that any direct tax is an unfair one. The other reason is that you either have the absolute right to enjoy the gains of your own industry and the right to own and dispose of your property as you see fit. It also has the reason of that you own your own body and can do what you will with it. Show me where at in the Constitution the word democracy appears.
 
Last edited:
imagep said:
I am not sure I follow your logic. He is a winner because he isn't whining, yet someone else who makes the same as him is a loser because they are whining? Sounds like you just want people who are sounding out against your elitest attitiude to shut the f#k up so that you don't loose your special status.
Click to expand...

loose your special status? I want to be left alone and not have my wealth continually confiscated by parasites
 
mbig said:
Good, you're back on topic from your fallacious response to .. who knows what.

Of course "apportionment" is utterly vague unless you say how much RELATIVE apportionment.
If you MEAN (probably) equal apportionment/same tax rate .. AGAIN.. that's very difficult.
The example two pages ago of what ie, 25% means to someone with 20k-25k Income vs what it means to someone with $4 Mil income.
Untenable.. is a word that comes to mind.
And in a democracy with the bulk of people in the bottom 2/3, unlikely lest they Dupe poor conservatives. Which they have had some success with with things like 'FairYtax'.
Click to expand...

why does patriot have a duty to pay for your existence? Your life is not his fault
 
The_Patriot said:
First, the original Constitution specifies that direct taxes must be equal by the number of people regardless of how much money they make. The only reason it was written that way is that any direct tax is an unfair one. Show me where at in the Constitution the word democracy appears.
Click to expand...

Can you point to that? there was an amendment to the constitution that indicates otherwise. Amendments are just as much a part of the constitution as the "origional" part. If we are just talking about "fair", what does the constitution have to do with "fair" anyhow?
 
The_Patriot said:
First, the original Constitution specifies that direct taxes must be equal by the number of people regardless of how much money they make. The only reason it was written that way is that any direct tax is an unfair one. Show me where at in the Constitution the word democracy appears.
Click to expand...
You're off on a tangent again.
This string is about "fair" (and what I'm pointing out...'doable'.. a part of 'fair') not what one's Opinion of Constitutional Law is.
If you feel, as many do, Income taxes (or some feel any taxes) are illegal.. I'm sure there's already several strings on THAT issue. And probably some people in Jail for acting on the same belief you have.
 
Last edited:
imagep said:
Can you point to that? there was an amendment to the constitution that indicates otherwise. Amendments are just as much a part of the constitution as the "origional" part. If we are just talking about "fair", what does the constitution have to do with "fair" anyhow?
Click to expand...

true-that is all correct.
 
TurtleDude said:
why does patriot have a duty to pay for your existence? Your life is not his fault
Click to expand...
I cant seem to find the post where mbig asked patriot to pay for his existance. Can you tell my what post # that was?
 
imagep said:
Can you point to that? there was an amendment to the constitution that indicates otherwise. Amendments are just as much a part of the constitution as the "origional" part. If we are just talking about "fair", what does the constitution have to do with "fair" anyhow?
Click to expand...

I used the word original to indicate what the founding fathers thought not a bunch of progressive socialists born a 100 years later thought. This goes back to the foundation of this country. You either can own your own body, have the right to the gains of your own industry, have the right to own and dispose of your property as you see fit, or you don't.
 
Last edited:
imagep said:
I cant seem to find the post where mbig asked patriot to pay for his existance. Can you tell my what post # that was?
Click to expand...

are you his designated spokesperson now? if you constantly scream for progressive income taxes you are demanding some pay for the existence of others
 
mbig said:
You're off on a tangent again.
This string is about "fair" (and what I'm pointing out...'doable'.. a part of 'fair') not what one's Opinion of Constitutional Law is.
If you feel, as many do, Income taxes (or some feel any taxes) are illegal.. I'm sure there's already several strings on THAT issue. And probably some people in Jail for acting on the same belief you have.
Click to expand...

I gave you my answer on what I thought was fair. You failed to produce where this is a democracy by showing where the word appears in the Constitution.
 
TurtleDude said:
are you his designated spokesperson now? if you constantly scream for progressive income taxes you are demanding some pay for the existence of others
Click to expand...

I only scream for people to pay for the portion of our goverment in proportion to how they benefit.

As far as paying for the existence other others, aside from the extremely handicapped, I would hear of no such thing. Please note that the types of changes to our tax system that I have recommended are actually TAX CUTS for the vast majority of Americans, including the modestly rich. If I were ruler of the world, I would at the same time eleminate all entitlements. There is absolutely no justification of me or you paying for my next door neighbor to recieve disability (he is perfectly capable of working), or for my mother to continue to recieve her lifelong government retirement check, or for us to have to pay anothers rent or food bill.

In ideology, I very much agree with your views. But we also have to look at practicality.
 
Last edited:
imagep said:
Most people in a low tax bracket work hard. Do you really think that the guy who has to pick up your trash has an easy job? Would you be willing to trade jobs with him?

If you want to bitch about the lazy, I am with you. But don't accuse people who don't make as much as you of being lazy.
Click to expand...

I support the claim that you are arguing against: "id be ashamed if i was in a low tack bracket and mooching off those who worked hard"

Though I also agree with you. To explain: Yes, many low income earners work very hard. But I would still be ashamed if I were them asking for progressive taxes from others who work hard.

Not calling them lazy. Just calling them moochers if they are asking for from people who make more. Which is what they are doing by asking for entitlements from the government which are paid for moreso by higher wage-earners. They should be ashamed for asking for handouts - even if they are partially paying for it themselves. If they are taking more than giving, there is a problem with their philosophy.

And I am positive there are people who work as hard as I do (as many hours, etc) and get paid more because they simply know more and have more experience. Society values their work more and it is represented in the money they earn. I, as a lower income earner than them, would not expect them to feel obligated to pay more for government services than I do. It just doesn't make sense. And even worse would be a gov't that forces them to against their will.
 
fredmertz said:
I support the claim that you are arguing against: "id be ashamed if i was in a low tack bracket and mooching off those who worked hard"

Though I also agree with you. To explain: Yes, many low income earners work very hard. But I would still be ashamed if I were them asking for progressive taxes from others who work hard.

Not calling them lazy. Just calling them moochers if they are asking for from people who make more. Which is what they are doing by asking for entitlements from the government which are paid for moreso by higher wage-earners. They should be ashamed for asking for handouts - even if they are partially paying for it themselves. If they are taking more than giving, there is a problem with their philosophy.

And I am positive there are people who work as hard as I do (as many hours, etc) and get paid more because they simply know more and have more experience. Society values their work more and it is represented in the money they earn. I, as a lower income earner than them, would not expect them to feel obligated to pay more for government services than I do. It just doesn't make sense. And even worse would be a gov't that forces them to against their will.
Click to expand...

What if they weren't (directly) getting anything other than basic fire, road, and military services from the government. No welfare, no "refundable tax credits", no social security, no free healthcare AND what if they contributed to our society by working normal (40+/- hrs a week) cleaning your toilets or cooking your food, paid no direct income taxes, but paid taxes on things like gasoline and alcohol. Would they still be moochers?

Is the extremely rich heiress who married some rich dude, and never worked a day in her life, but has millions in passive investments that she did nothing to earn (other than to marry well) and who pays someone else to manage her investements, and gets to pay a discount tax rate (capital gains tax) which is lower than people who have jobs have to, not a moocher?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom