• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

How much do you care about taxing income

What fits you best

  • Conservative - Decrease the Low/Middle class, Increase "Rich"

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • Conservative - Leave all the same

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • Liberal - Decrease all across the board

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • Liberal - Leave all the same

    Votes: 4 40.0%

  • Total voters
    10

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is something that hit me while reading kandahar's interesting "how much do you care about the budget" post.

Conservatives...if faced with the choice of lowering lower and middle class taxes but raising the rich's taxes, or keeping everyone at the place they're at now, which would you pick?

Liberals...if faced with the choice of lowering everyones taxes, or keeping eveyrone at the place they're at now, which would you pick?

This is a general thing, not necessarily relating directly to your choic during the economic crisis.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
44,215
Reaction score
24,374
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
This is something that hit me while reading kandahar's interesting "how much do you care about the budget" post.

Conservatives...if faced with the choice of lowering lower and middle class taxes but raising the rich's taxes, or keeping everyone at the place they're at now, which would you pick?

Liberals...if faced with the choice of lowering everyones taxes, or keeping eveyrone at the place they're at now, which would you pick?

This is a general thing, not necessarily relating directly to your choic during the economic crisis.

Decrease whenever possible. However, don't take on government debt to do it.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
This is something that hit me while reading kandahar's interesting "how much do you care about the budget" post.

Conservatives...if faced with the choice of lowering lower and middle class taxes but raising the rich's taxes, or keeping everyone at the place they're at now, which would you pick?

Liberals...if faced with the choice of lowering everyones taxes, or keeping eveyrone at the place they're at now, which would you pick?

This is a general thing, not necessarily relating directly to your choic during the economic crisis.

If my taxes are raised, everyone's taxes should be raised. If my taxes are lowered, everyone's taxes should be lowered. Every single American should have a dog in the fight when it comes to Federal spending. Every single one.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
44,215
Reaction score
24,374
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
One unfortunate aspect of tax policy is the unspoken debate between fairness and practicality.

People paying the same rates or amounts, is in a sense fair, but tends to be impractical in the face of economic reality. Generally when one takes those economic realities into account, a more progressive tax scheme begins to seem fair as well.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
If my taxes are raised, everyone's taxes should be raised. If my taxes are lowered, everyone's taxes should be lowered. Every single American should have a dog in the fight when it comes to Federal spending. Every single one.

I agree that everyone should have a dog in the fight. What if everyone was taxed at the same rate? The rich would still pay more, because they make more. The lower income people would still get their food stamps (maybe more than before) and would probably require more government help than before, but at least they would be paying something
We also need to make those who are able, work for their welfare checks. Too many free rides are given and I honestly believe people would be happier if they didn't feel like they were just getting handouts. So I say, taxes for everyone.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
44,215
Reaction score
24,374
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
We also need to make those who are able, work for their welfare checks. Too many free rides are given and I honestly believe people would be happier if they didn't feel like they were just getting handouts. So I say, taxes for everyone.

I completely agree with this. There is always something to do, like pick up trash or work at the landfill.
 

VF500

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
190
Reaction score
39
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, if you're in the lower 47% of households in this country, you don't care much about federal income taxes because you don't pay any, as in zip, nada, zilch. If you're in the bottom 40%, you actually make money at tax time because of "earned" tax credits. That's according to a 2009 IRS statement that was even published in the Huffinton Post, so it's gotta be true. That fact drives progressive liberals right up the wall and puts the lie to what Obama keeps pushing about "Fat Cats" not paying their "fair share". The truth is the top brackets pay a lot more than their fair share. But, don't take my word for it. Here it is from Miss Arianna herself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/07/income-tax-47-of-american_n_529059.html
 
Last edited:

Psychoclown

Clown Prince of Politics
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
1,786
Reaction score
1,472
Location
Hiding from the voices in my head.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
If my taxes are raised, everyone's taxes should be raised. If my taxes are lowered, everyone's taxes should be lowered. Every single American should have a dog in the fight when it comes to Federal spending. Every single one.

I agree 100%. This whole mentality some folks have of "Raise someone else's taxes to pay for my entitlements" is very corrupting. As another poster mentioned, almost half of all households don't pay federal taxes and some of them actually profit from tax credits. When nearly half the population has no reason to worry about paying for the latest government expansion, it's almost impossible to maintain any sense of fiscal responsibility. If I didn't pay any taxes, I'd be all in favor of the governmetn spending as much money as possible, especially on programs that would be benefit me! Afterall, I don't have to worry about the bill.

I'd make two major changes to our tax system. First, EVERYONE pays some form of federal income tax. When it's your money being spent, you tend to pay more attention to how its being spent. That way everyone has a vested interest in asking "How will we pay for this?" when someone proposes a new program or entitlement. Secondly, I'd require than any change in the tax rate be applied evenly to all brackets. None of this, we'll raise some folks taxes and cut other folks. We're all in this together, as a nation, and we should all be treated equally. I'm not opposed to progressive taxation, but I am opposed to using progressive taxation to wage class warfare.
 

JohnWOlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,594
Reaction score
1,257
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Where is the option about I don't care eitherway because I'm still going to get ****ed one way or the other?
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
One unfortunate aspect of tax policy is the unspoken debate between fairness and practicality.

People paying the same rates or amounts, is in a sense fair, but tends to be impractical in the face of economic reality. Generally when one takes those economic realities into account, a more progressive tax scheme begins to seem fair as well.

A tax system can be progressive but also have the requirement that, if one bracket is raised, they are all raised (or lowered in the case of negative brackets.)
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
44,215
Reaction score
24,374
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
A tax system can be progressive but also have the requirement that, if one bracket is raised, they are all raised (or lowered in the case of negative brackets.)

I could go with that, but theres still a lot of work left in the details about how that would be implemented.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I could go with that, but theres still a lot of work left in the details about how that would be implemented.

The biggest thing that'd have to be worked out is how to get the 47% of Americans who don't pay taxes TO PAY SOME!
 

JohnWOlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,594
Reaction score
1,257
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The biggest thing that'd have to be worked out is how to get the 47% of Americans who don't pay taxes TO PAY SOME!

You know how you do that? Bring jobs back to the United States so people can make more money. Our #1 industry is the service industry, it used to be manufacturing. That's how you do it. It's that simple people!
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
You know how you do that? Bring jobs back to the United States so people can make more money. Our #1 industry is the service industry, it used to be manufacturing. That's how you do it. It's that simple people!

Baloney. Positively baloney. The way you do it is to make everyone who earns money pay taxes. Period.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
44,215
Reaction score
24,374
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The biggest thing that'd have to be worked out is how to get the 47% of Americans who don't pay taxes TO PAY SOME!

That statement sounds good on its surface, but when I really think about it, I run into some questions.

1. Would those people be able to thrive without the additional support?
2. Are there primary, secondary, and tertiery benefits to social assistance that we should be considering?
3. What proof do we have that this arrangement is more or less optimal than a smaller government. Remember, pretty much all successful first world countries have a massive government and massive social programs.
4. If benefits had to increase to make up the short fall, would these people even notice?
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I could go with that, but theres still a lot of work left in the details about how that would be implemented.

True, just tying everyone to some form of additional taxation puts a "skin in the game" feeling for everyone.
Even if we were to maintain the current negative tax rates, those people should still be required to sacrifice, like everyone else.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
44,215
Reaction score
24,374
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
True, just tying everyone to some form of additional taxation puts a "skin in the game" feeling for everyone.
Even if we were to maintain the current negative tax rates, those people should still be required to sacrifice, like everyone else.

You cannot get something for nothing is a basic economic lesson that all adults know. So, I would support this on a social engineering level (and I am not against social engineering).
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
That statement sounds good on its surface, but when I really think about it, I run into some questions.

1. Would those people be able to thrive without the additional support?
2. Are there primary, secondary, and tertiery benefits to social assistance that we should be considering?
3. What proof do we have that this arrangement is more or less optimal than a smaller government. Remember, pretty much all successful first world countries have a massive government and massive social programs.
4. If benefits had to increase to make up the short fall, would these people even notice?

What?? #1 -- what additional support? I'm asking that people pay income tax. Ya' know, actually pay toward the infrastructure they use? #2 -- what does social assistance have to do with this? #3 -- what does the size of government have to do with people paying some income tax? #4 -- Huh?

I don't get anything you're saying, Mega. Not trying to be difficult. I just don't understand. 47% of people don't pay income tax. Everybody should pay income tax.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
44,215
Reaction score
24,374
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I don't think it as social engineering.
Fairness is an innate trait in humans.

I tend to look at it from a creating the behavior on society that you think would benefit society perspective, which is social engineering.

You look at it from a fair perspective, which is not.

Its all about intent. My goal is to produce more productive members of society through government intervention, since looking back at history, nonintervention has lead to all sorts of misery.

Also, my idea of fair is different than yours. For me, to say that people should pay the same amounts is fair ignores the consequences, which can be very unfair. But I think that is a common argument between liberal and conservative/libertarian economic approaches.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
44,215
Reaction score
24,374
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
What?? #1 -- what additional support? I'm asking that people pay income tax. Ya' know, actually pay toward the infrastructure they use? #2 -- what does social assistance have to do with this? #3 -- what does the size of government have to do with people paying some income tax? #4 -- Huh?

I don't get anything you're saying, Mega. Not trying to be difficult. I just don't understand. 47% of people don't pay income tax. Everybody should pay income tax.

See my post above (#20) to see what leads me to asking those questions.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I tend to look at it from a creating the behavior on society that you think would benefit society perspective, which is social engineering.

You look at it from a fair perspective, which is not.

Its all about intent. My goal is to produce more productive members of society through government intervention, since looking back at history, nonintervention has lead to all sorts of misery.

Also, my idea of fair is different than yours. For me, to say that people should pay the same amounts is fair ignores the consequences, which can be very unfair. But I think that is a common argument between liberal and conservative/libertarian economic approaches.

I'm tolerant to some amount of unfairness (as perceived by libertarians), as long as there is some amount of communal responsibility involved, that is required by all members of society.
 

earthworm

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
5,728
Reaction score
904
Location
Goldsboro,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Neither.
Obama, stand up to those rich ******** and make them pay.
35% up to 300K
36% up to 500K
37% up to 700K
and 40% for the millionaires.
If they don't like this, then suggest the old 1949 tax rates, where the rate was 90% for the millionaires.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
44,215
Reaction score
24,374
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Neither.
Obama, stand up to those rich ******** and make them pay.
35% up to 300K
36% up to 500K
37% up to 700K
and 40% for the millionaires.
If they don't like this, then suggest the old 1949 tax rates, where the rate was 90% for the millionaires.

I wouldn't suggest the old tax rates as those numbers are not pegged to inflation.
 

Coronado

Voluntary Resignation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
7,059
Reaction score
2,412
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Neither.
Obama, stand up to those rich ******** and make them pay.
35% up to 300K
36% up to 500K
37% up to 700K
and 40% for the millionaires.
If they don't like this, then suggest the old 1949 tax rates, where the rate was 90% for the millionaires.
Yes, let's drive as much capital offshore as possible! Brilliant idea!!

:doh
 
Top Bottom