• 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!

Flat tax or progressive tax? Which do you prefer?

Would you support a flat tax system instead of our current progressive one?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 37.5%
  • No

    Votes: 18 56.3%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 2 6.3%

  • Total voters
    32
If you think that you have some fundamental right to every dollar you own, that's at least a philosophical difference. (You're wrong, but at least I can understand where you're coming from.)
If I do not have a fundemental right to every dollar I own, then who does? You?
 
If I do not have a fundemental right to every dollar I own, then who does? You?

Nobody, its all at least partially shared since it was a joint effort in making it.
 
I just posted the statistics showing that tax revenue did indeed decrease following the Bush tax cuts (and to a lesser extent, following the Reagan tax cuts). Try to keep up.



Cool. I find your Gordon Gekko mentality to be disgusting. (However, I'm not so partisan that I would attribute your despicable worldview to ALL conservatives.)

if the parasite label fits wear it. your existence alone is not a just claim on the wealth of others and I suspect I give more to charity than you do and it is well known that rich liberals give far less than rich conservatives. libs tend to believe that voting for socialism fulfills their charitable duties.
 
I just posted the statistics showing that tax revenue did indeed decrease following the Bush tax cuts (and to a lesser extent, following the Reagan tax cuts). Try to keep up.



Cool. I find your Gordon Gekko mentality to be disgusting. (However, I'm not so partisan that I would attribute your despicable worldview to ALL conservatives.)

Again, here are the U.S. Treasury Data which unfortunately do not confirm your claim. The Bush tax rate cuts went into effect in July 2003

******
******Current*receipts
2001 3,132.40
2002 3,118.20
2003 2,967.90
2004 3,043.40
2005 3,265.70
2006 3,659.30
2007 3,995.20
2008 4,197.00
2009 4,074.00
2010 3,726.90

Current*personal income tax*receipts

2001 2,202.80
2002 2,163.70
2003 2,002.10
2004 2,047.90
2005 2,213.20
2006 2,546.80
2007 2,807.40
2008 2,951.20
2009 2,780.30
2010 2,409.30

Now I am still waiting for you to explain how tax revenue increased AFTER the Bush tax cuts and stop posting what you think they should have been. That flies in the face of logic and common sense because you cannot prove predictions.
 
What I posted were actual dollars at the time and tax revenue to the U.S. Govt. almost doubled after the Reagan 10-10-5% tax cuts. How can that happen? I understand that the govt. has to be funded but today that means 3.8 trillion dollars and is outside the role of our govt. established by the Founders.

Why in the world would you post in the actual dollars at the time, without controlling for inflation? Just because the government takes in more dollars from one year to the next doesn't mean that they actually took in more revenue. Jesus Christ, take a freshman economics class and learn what inflation is.

Conservative said:
There is nothing dishonest about my claim that the tax rate cuts led to more taxpayers and thus higher tax revenue to the govt. It isn't crap as it is substantiated by the U.S. Treasury and the IRS. Your evidence is typical liberal spin and is nothing more than an attempt to convince people that the govt. needs the revenue more than the American people and that tax cuts are an expense to the govt.

I see. Controlling for inflation in statistical comparisons of revenue over time = Liberal spin. Got it. :roll:

Conservative said:
I would worry more about your credibility than mine as mine is backed by actual data that matters, U.S. Treasury and the IRS.

Actually it's not. I posted the correct data, controlled for inflation. You posted some random **** including "Taxes on production and imports" that was completely unrelated to income tax cuts...and you didn't even control for inflation.

Yeah, you're a statistical genius. Rock on.
 
if the parasite label fits wear it. your existence alone is not a just claim on the wealth of others and I suspect I give more to charity than you do and it is well known that rich liberals give far less than rich conservatives. libs tend to believe that voting for socialism fulfills their charitable duties.

TurtleDude Standard Post #3: "Everyone pay attention to me! Look at how rich I am!"

Get some new material.
 
You did not help me make it. Why should you get any of it?

I am a part of an advanced society and I help to maintain that society. The existence of this advanced society created the situation that allowed you to make that dollar. Therefore I am at least partially responsible for you earning it.
 
TurtleDude Standard Post #3: "Everyone pay attention to me! Look at how rich I am!"

Get some new material.

actually.....i think it's "look how rich my mommy and daddy are"......
 
I am a part of an advanced society and I help to maintain that society. The existence of this advanced society created the situation that allowed you to make that dollar. Therefore I am at least partially responsible for you earning it.

actually, given that the rich are also the more productive, they have helped to maintain that society far more than someone who (all else being equal) makes far less. if anything, this logic is reason to have a regressive tax system.
 
TurtleDude Standard Post #3: "Everyone pay attention to me! Look at how rich I am!"

Get some new material.

jealous much? I mentioned nothing about my wealth just that I suspect I give more than you do. try again
 
Again, here are the U.S. Treasury Data which unfortunately do not confirm your claim. The Bush tax rate cuts went into effect in July 2003

First of all, you're wrong. They started in 2001 and continued to drop until 2003. And second of all, you still didn't ****ing control for inflation. I'm just going to ignore anything that you post in CURRENT dollars instead of CONSTANT dollars from now on, because it's obvious that you don't understand even the most basic principles of economics.

Conservative said:
Now I am still waiting for you to explain how tax revenue increased AFTER the Bush tax cuts and stop posting what you think they should have been. That flies in the face of logic and common sense because you cannot prove predictions.

After the Bush tax cuts? How long after are you talking about? Adjusting for inflation, we didn't reach the 2000 level of tax revenue again until 2006/2007. And we haven't reached that level of revenue again since then.
 
Last edited:
actually, given that the rich are also the more productive, they have helped to maintain that society far more than someone who (all else being equal) makes far less. if anything, this logic is reason to have a regressive tax system.

plus if those who supply most of the votes for irresponsible spendthrift politicians were soaked more they might be more circumspect in their voting choices in the future
 
jealous much?

Nah. Just because people find those who CONSTANTLY brag about their wealth to be annoying doesn't mean that they're jealous. Get over yourself.

TurtleDude said:
I mentioned nothing about my wealth just that I suspect I give more than you do. try again

You literally can't make it through a week without mentioning on this board how rich you are.
 
actually, given that the rich are also the more productive, they have helped to maintain that society far more than someone who (all else being equal) makes far less. if anything, this logic is reason to have a regressive tax system.

You are going to have to provide evidence that the rich are more productive and its is not a result of the money or power that they control.
 
Not true, the govenment protects the wealthy far more that they protect the poor.

shall we compare the percent of their income and benefits to see whether or not that is correct?
 
You are going to have to provide evidence that the rich are more productive and its is not a result of the money they control.

1. if they are utiilizing their wealth to increase the productivity and strength of society, then that is them being more productive. they are free, if they so wished, to withdraw all that money from the bank and merely stuff it into mattresses. the attempt to split labour income and capital income creates a false dichotomy; both represent an individual utilizing his resources.

2. how the heck do you think they got that money in the first place?
 
Kandahar;1059054638]Why in the world would you post in the actual dollars at the time, without controlling for inflation? Just because the government takes in more dollars from one year to the next doesn't mean that they actually took in more revenue. Jesus Christ, take a freshman economics class and learn what inflation is.

Because there was NO INFLATION then, I lived it, worked it and paid taxes during that period of time. Why 2005 dollars? People living and working during that period of time got to keep more of what they earned and weren't looking at it as inflated dollars nor did they care. What you refuse to explain is how do you cut taxes 25% over three years and almost double tax revenue?

I see. Controlling for inflation in statistical comparisons of revenue over time = Liberal spin. Got it. :roll:

Ignoring whose money it is in the first place is liberal spin and what you and others seem to love to do. Tax cuts are NOT expenses to the Federal Govt.

Actually it's not. I posted the correct data, controlled for inflation. You posted some random **** including "Taxes on production and imports" that was completely unrelated to income tax cuts...and you didn't even control for inflation.

Personal income went up, govt. revenue went up, GDP Doubled, and almost 20 million jobs were created during the Reagan term. Reagan won one of the largest landslides in U.S. History in 1984 which says a lot about his economic policies. It was about putting people back to work and Reagan did it with his tax cuts. Bush did the same thing.


Yeah, you're a statistical genius. Rock on

Thank you, sorry that actual facts get in the way of what you have been told. Waiting for you to explain how tax revenue went up AFTER the Reagan and Bush tax rate cuts? With record low interest rates please tell me you don't believe the inflation argument?
 
1. if they are utiilizing their wealth to increase the productivity and strength of society, then that is them being more productive. they are free, if they so wished, to withdraw all that money from the bank and merely stuff it into mattresses. the attempt to split labour income and capital income creates a false dichotomy; both represent an individual utilizing his resources.

2. how the heck do you think they got that money in the first place?

1. Your argument hinges on wealth instead of productivity.

2. There are multiple reasons why a person can be rich. It is not always productivity nor is there evidence that it is productivity even half the time.
 
You are going to have to provide evidence that the rich are more productive and its is not a result of the money they control.

1. if they are utiilizing their wealth to increase the productivity and strength of society, then that is them being more productive. they are free, if they so wished, to withdraw all that money from the bank and merely stuff it into mattresses. the attempt to split labour income and capital income creates a false dichotomy; both represent an individual utilizing his resources.

2. how do you think they got that money in the first place? using the new "above $250,000" metric that the Administration seems to have come up with; those people are generally small business owners.

80% of America's Millionaires are First-Generation... most of them are self-made businessmen and women...
 
1. if they are utiilizing their wealth to increase the productivity and strength of society, then that is them being more productive. they are free, if they so wished, to withdraw all that money from the bank and merely stuff it into mattresses. the attempt to split labour income and capital income creates a false dichotomy; both represent an individual utilizing his resources.

It is evidence of their money being productive. Theres a huge difference here.

2. how do you think they got that money in the first place? using the new "above $250,000" metric that the Administration seems to have come up with; those people are generally small business owners.

80% of America's Millionaires are First-Generation... most of them are self-made businessmen and women...

This still doesn't show that they have an increased contribution to society, only that they made more money. :shrug:

There is more to society than its economics.
 
sorry, tried to edit and accidentally reposted.

to answer your #1: no, it doesn't. if you are generating capital gains, then by definition you are being productive.

and i think my modified post answers your #2.
 
It is evidence of their money being productive. Theres a huge difference here.

no, there's not. with them, increased productivity happens. without them, it doesn't.

This still doesn't show that they have an increased contribution to society, only that they made more money. :shrug:

do i really have to do this?

Mega, how does one make money. ? specifically, how does one generate profit?
 
Back
Top Bottom