• 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!

Here's a good reason why we need a wealth tax

gbg3 said:
Dang, I really get your point and your thinking, but this feels too strong and too harsh. In some cases it could be much better for the child but, if the child isn't in an abusive situation and there is a lot of love present, it seems harsh to separate a child from their loving (albeit loser/lazy/unproductive) parent.
Click to expand...

gbg3:

Two points, children could not be supported on a subsistence income for just one person or just two people, so it would be negligent to leave the children in the custody of the subsisting parent(s). Second, the children could be fostered for several years before becoming irreversibly adopted. During that fostering period the removal of the children could be reversed if and only if the parent(s) changed their aversion to working and used the workfare to become employable persons and reliable material providers for their children. I guess I glossed over those details in my very long replay to you. As is the Canadian way, I say, "Sorry" for not making my thoughts clear.

Frankly, I was expecting to be excoriated here for suggesting forced, indentured labour for work averse dead-enders, given the history of indentured labour and chattle slavery in America. I'm bracing myself for a good, hard thrashing by some posters here. Your "dang" reply and gentle rebuke was a walk in the park. I should explain that the indentured labour would end as soon as the dead-ender opted to cooperate with the requirements of the workfare programme, so they would always be indirectly in control of their own fates.

Cheers, be well and season's greetings.
Evilroddy.
 
911Sparky said:
No, having more customers is the driver of business growth. Profit is what helps you expand to meet that growth.
Click to expand...
Customers create profits, otherwise they’re just browsers.
 
NatMorton said:
Want a fair system of taxation? One rate, regardless of source of income, to be paid on money earned over a predefined subsistence level of income. No deductions. No credits. No loopholes. No tax code favors for Washington insiders to sell.

Nothing could be fairer. Little would do more to take big money out of our political system.
Click to expand...
The rich love a flat tax. They pay much less in taxes that way
 
NatMorton said:
Want a fair system of taxation? One rate, regardless of source of income, to be paid on money earned over a predefined subsistence level of income. No deductions. No credits. No loopholes. No tax code favors for Washington insiders to sell.

Nothing could be fairer. Little would do more to take big money out of our political system.
Click to expand...
Why should those that spend all they earn in the economy pay the same rates as those that sock away millions a year? It makes no sense. We want people to spend or our economy falters. Progressive taxes charge higher rates on those that make too much to spend what they earn. It helps us grow.
 
SimpleTom said:
I feel like I may be talking over people's heads or that maybe they are not reading my entire post, or the posts that it is in response to. I apologize for that, I will go back and pick and try to reexplain my point.

The flat rate tax gets a lot of support because of its supposed fairness, but it is not a fair system at all. It is absolutely no more fair than a progressive tax. It is a system based on equity, that people who make more can afford to pay more. We should note, that a progressive tax system is based on that same equity, that people who make more can afford to pay more. The only real difference between a flat rate tax system and a progressive tax system is that certain incomes should be exempted. That is it.

We can actually convert a flat rate tax system to a progressive system with a tax rebate, which is one of the more popular flat rate tax plan ideas. People who advocate for a flat rate tax with a tax rebate or tax credit are just advocating for a flatter progressive tax. I can work with that, so long as we can get rate high enough and the rebate high enough we can make a nice progressive tax with a single rate. We don't actually need different tiers to have a progressive tax. For ease of implementation I prefer a two tier system, but I could build a single tiered progressive system also using credit limits.
Click to expand...
This requires a lot more discussion, but one of the major faults of the proposal is the cliff aspect of it. I am a proponent of UBI, and credits - especially refundable credits. But that is playing at the margins. "Flatter" taxes are actually less progressive and even more arbitrary. The idea and functionality of graduated increases in tax brackets is less arbitrary and more efficient, from an economic standpoint. Your proposal would actually hammer the middle class and benefit the investor class inordinately. That's the greatest fraud of flat tax proposals. My view is not that far from yours in some aspects, but the premise of a flat/ter tax is a Trojan horse.
 
The Mark said:
Until minimum wage is the same as a living wage, people with minimum wage jobs will need support
Click to expand...
Many, many minimum wage jobs are held by teens and they do have support in addition to their wages. Would you propose, if the minimum wage was lifted to a living wage amount, that teens would be excluded? If yes, wouldn't that be age discrimination?
Frankly, I think wages should be market driven and minimum wage should not be lifted to a living wage. I think it would be a shame to watch many a business model fold because they are suddenly required to pay 16 year old workers a living wage, yet their burger of burrito can only sell for a few dollars.
 
vegas giants said:
Factually incorrect. They would pay much less than they do now. This just shifts the tax burden to the poor
Click to expand...
Sorry, no. 10% of $100,000,000 will alway be more than 10% of $10,000.
 
gbg3 said:
Many, many minimum wage jobs are held by teens and they do have support in addition to their wages. Would you propose, if the minimum wage was lifted to a living wage amount, that teens would be excluded? If yes, wouldn't that be age discrimination?
Frankly, I think wages should be market driven and minimum wage should not be lifted to a living wage. I think it would be a shame to watch many a business model fold because they are suddenly required to pay 16 year old workers a living wage, yet their burger of burrito can only sell for a few dollars.
Click to expand...
I think minimum wage should be a living wage even for new employees with no experience, and improve from there. The same minimum wage should additionally apply for all restaurant workers. I also think we don't need the tipping system we have if we do that.

But TBF, I've never worked in a restaurant.
 
Evilroddy said:
Frankly, I was expecting to be excoriated here for suggesting forced, indentured labour for work averse dead-enders, given the history of indentured labour and chattle slavery in America. I'm bracing myself for a good, hard thrashing by some posters here. Your "dang" reply and gentle rebuke was a walk in the park. I should explain that the indentured labour would end as soon as the dead-ender opted to cooperate with the requirements of the workfare programme, so they would always be indirectly in control of their own fates.
Click to expand...
Lol, I really like the "forced" labor in exchange for welfare argument. Of course, an exception would be the disabled where the work would have to be carefully tailored to the ability of the handicapped or disabled!
I almost like your argument about children too, but that one did bring my "dang" reaction when thinking of the love and attachment between parent and child. Separating a child from that type of parent almost makes sense to me in that the child might end up doing far better in another environment - but that child might also crumble in despair if removed from a loving, but loser parent.
The excoriation won't come from me. I'm not a fan of the subset of society who feels they will be "taken care of" but don't have to do anything in exchange.
 
gbg3 said:
Lol, I really like the "forced" labor in exchange for welfare argument. Of course, an exception would be the disabled where the work would have to be carefully tailored to the ability of the handicapped or disabled!
I almost like your argument about children too, but that one did bring my "dang" reaction when thinking of the love and attachment between parent and child. Separating a child from that type of parent almost makes sense to me in that the child might end up doing far better in another environment - but that child might also crumble in despair if removed from a loving, but loser parent.
The excoriation won't come from me. I'm not a fan of the subset of society who feels they will be "taken care of" but don't have to do anything in exchange.
Click to expand...
People dont realize that workfare costs more than welfare which is why most states dont do it
 
The Mark said:
It's never one big thing.
And I didn't say it was all luck.

The luck comes in when someone who has the right information, skills, and will takes advantage of an opportunity.
If that opportunity hadn't shown up, they might not now be where they are.
If they hadn't had the information, will, and/or skills to take advantage of it, they also might not.

Without luck they would not be in that position, but that doesn't reduce the necessity of the skills, information, and will.
Click to expand...


You did say it was perhaps entirely luck.


What opportunities where available to bezos that was not available to the vast majority of Americans. Please be very specific

And FYI a person trying hard and learning in school and having a strong work ethic are not luck.
 
braindrain said:
You did say it was perhaps entirely luck.


What opportunities where available to bezos that was not available to the vast majority of Americans. Please be very specific

And FYI a person trying hard and learning in school and having a strong work ethic are not luck.
Click to expand...
Having the money and time to learn is partially luck. Not everyone does.

There is no possible way I could know all the various opportunities that were available to Bezos which led to his current position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom