• 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!

a new U.S. wealth tax - only on the ultra-wealthy?

TurtleDude said:
that doesn't prove anything. I would note before we have an income tax, we had an army, a navy, a marine corp, a postal system colleges, roads, railways and didn't lose any wars
Click to expand...

We also weren't a world power. And didn't have to worry about a global economy.. or world wars.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Yeah, no, top marginal rates had a positive correlation to gdp gains.
Click to expand...

So? At the same time.. higher tax rates on poor and middle class also positively correlate to GDP gains. During that time. the tax system was less progressive. So a being less progressive is also positively correlated to GDP gains.

So when do we start taxing the poor and middle class MORE gimmee.. and make the system LESS progressive.. like it was back then?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Oh, yeah...it does, but then this is a rhetorical exercise.

We had no standing military to speak of, no infrastructure to speak of, state colleges were state affairs...and abysmal per capita gdp with much greater levels of inequality and poverty.

Yeah, great times.
Click to expand...

we didn't have a permanent class of dependent teat sucklers who are pawns of wealthy elite politicians. Are you saying there were no public colleges in 1912?
 
jaeger19 said:
So? At the same time.. higher tax rates on poor and middle class also positively correlate to GDP gains. During that time. the tax system was less progressive. So a being less progressive is also positively correlated to GDP gains.

So when do we start taxing the poor and middle class MORE gimmee.. and make the system LESS progressive.. like it was back then?
Click to expand...

The poor and middle class do not receive sufficient feedback as to the costs of government, so they continue to want more and more of it. If they were taxed at higher rates, I suspect their craving for more government might be abated
 
jaeger19 said:
We also weren't a world power. And didn't have to worry about a global economy.. or world wars.
Click to expand...

we weren't a world power in 1912? would the Boxers agree with that?
 
Vadinho said:
Anyone who legally used tax avoidance schemes to hide massive wealth is in my opinion a tax cheat. Why? Because those tax schemes are only available to them and were made legal by the lawyers and officials these same creeps paid to do their dirty work. Now that only covers legal tax avoidance schemes. Most of the real dough is hidden in tax shelters, trillions upon trillions. Tax the hell out of them too and lock them up. Sorry, but whether you do it legally or illegally, you are avoiding taxes and sheltering wealth. I am for destroying that wealth upon the death of the creator of that wealth. Taxation is an easy and painless way to do it. Revolution is the more common way of doing it. Pick your poison.
Click to expand...

Again.. strawman. That's not what we were talking about.. the fact is and you keep avoiding it.. is that our system has become MORE PROGRESSIVE.. and yet inequality has increased.
 
TurtleDude said:
we didn't have a permanent class of dependent teat sucklers
Click to expand...
yer right, there was near zero economic mobility prior to welfare.

who are pawns of wealthy elite politicians.
Click to expand...
Ah, the olde "plantation" meme.....sigh.

Are you saying there were no public colleges in 1912?
Click to expand...
are you saying there were "federal" public colleges in 1912? I'm just grateful you finally picked SOME date between 1787 and 1912.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
yer right, there was near zero economic mobility prior to welfare.

Ah, the olde "plantation" meme.....sigh.

are you saying there were "federal" public colleges in 1912? I'm just grateful you finally picked SOME date between 1787 and 1912.
Click to expand...

yeah, USMA at West Point for example. What are NEW FEDERAL (lol) universities due to the income tax? But there were many many public universities prior 1913

U Va
OSU
U of Michigan
Georgia Tech
UNC-Chapel Hill
College of William and Mary
and many many more
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah, USMA at West Point for example.
Click to expand...
oh wow, yer gunna include military colleges as "public colleges". Good grief.


What are NEW FEDERAL (lol) universities due to the income tax?
Click to expand...
whut?

But there were many many public universities prior 1913
Click to expand...
yes, state colleges. The CONTEXT was fully federally funded institutions.
 
jaeger19 said:
Again.. strawman. That's not what we were talking about.. the fact is and you keep avoiding it.. is that our system has become MORE PROGRESSIVE.. and yet inequality has increased.
Click to expand...

Actually, the tax code has become less progressive over the last 40 years. I am unsure why you insist on making this claim. The reason why inequality has increased is due to the funneling of profits and productivity gains to a select few in terms of income and wealth distribution and the fact that tax policy and enforcement policies have allowed them to capture more wealth and retain it. Until such time as this is turned around, we have to tax and enforce policies that aim to redistribute the gains made by a capitalist system so that all can share in a higher quality of life. A very important factor is also the purchasing of government by the few to benefit themselves. This story has happened so many times in history that it is silly to even recount them to anyone who understands the history of empires, nations and economies. As I said, without a legal means of redistribution, wealth will accumulate to the point where violence becomes the only answer. Hate to break it to you but this story has only one of two possible endings. One is peaceful, the other is war.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
oh wow, yer gunna include military colleges as "public colleges". Good grief.


whut?

yes, state colleges. The CONTEXT was fully federally funded institutions.
Click to expand...

what are fully federally funded institutions today? many of the universities that get the most federal funding are private.
 
TurtleDude said:
what are fully federally funded institutions today? many of the universities that get the most federal funding are private.
Click to expand...
it is not my responsibility to keep up with your zigs and zags.


"I would note before we have (sic) an income tax, we had an army, a navy, a marine corp, a postal system colleges"

Since you could not specify a time for when you were speaking (this was before the "1912" blurt), I focused on "colleges". I made the distinction that "colleges" were by and large STATE institutions....and West Point is a service academy, not a "public college", so I have no idea why it gets included in a debate about federal income tax....in fact I'm still trying to understand what frigging point you are making with this rabbit hole.
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
it is not my responsibility to keep up with you zigs and zags.


"I would note before we have (sic) an income tax, we had an army, a navy, a marine corp, a postal system colleges"

Since you could not specify a time for when you were speaking (this was before the "1912" blurt), I focused on "colleges". I made the distinction that "colleges" were by and large STATE institutions....and West Point is a service academy, not a "public college", so I have no idea why it gets included in a debate about federal income tax....in fact I'm still trying to understand what frigging point you are making with this rabbit hole.
Click to expand...

I cannot help it if you were wrong and pretended public universities were made possible with the income tax.
 
TurtleDude said:
I cannot help it if you were wrong and pretended public universities were made possible with the income tax.
Click to expand...
I didn't, I emphasized they were STATE institutions.

The rest of your examples ARE federal govt funded institutions.

whut is yer point? are you arguing for the US to retrograde back to pre-1912 conditions?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I didn't, I emphasized they were STATE institutions.

The rest of your examples ARE federal govt funded institutions.

whut is yer point? are you arguing for the US to retrograde back to pre-1912 conditions?
Click to expand...

what I am saying is that we really didn't need the power grab of income taxes to keep the country running
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You keep notifying me of your pointless, moronic crap, I keep pointing out how crappy, moronic and pointless they are.
Click to expand...

No, you are just avoiding the fact that this country was doing fine without progressive income taxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom