• 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!

I'm poor myself and I could not care less if someone else is rich.

Guyzilla

Supporting Member
Joined
May 26, 2020
Messages
1,653
Reaction score
577
Location
menifee calif.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Of course that's what you are saying. Biden is currently getting more donations in than Trump. These people sending in moucho dollars are trying to buy the election. Will you now back Trump, or do you want big dollars buying the election? Hell, in 2016 Hillary far far outspent Trump so you should be glad that the little guy won. In fact, there were tons of rich people spending money to stop Trump so Trump should be your man. But, I'm guessing that you are now OK with corporate dollars buying the election for Biden, aren't you?
How dare you try holding your opponent to moral standards when you have NO MORALS.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
72,576
Reaction score
31,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Left wing propaganda. I just posted to you about how Trump is actually the one corporate America are donating against and for Biden. Does Trump now have your support or do you favor the rich buying the election for Biden?
Yeah, I already responded to that. It's adorable that you think Trump doesn't get corporate donations.
 

Good4Nothin

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2018
Messages
5,990
Reaction score
1,527
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
how does the wealthy (someone like a Bill Gates) affect him, or say me

He doesnt affect my business one iota

doesnt affect what i pay for groceries or gas

doesnt affect my customers on whether or not they use my services

he doesnt affect the taxes i pay

he doesnt affect what i pay for health insurance

so please....in what way does Bill Gates or some other wealthy person affect my life

does what Washington do really affect my life? do i really care what lobbyists do?

my everyday life is in no material way affected.....
Campaign donations and lobbying influence laws. Laws can affect everyone.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
72,576
Reaction score
31,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Campaign donations and lobbying influence laws. Laws can affect everyone.
Maybe he thinks billionaires give millions to candidates just out of the goodness of their hearts.
 

Michael Cole

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
8,696
Reaction score
3,190
Location
Northern Nevada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
But everyone got tax cuts. You're just jealous because those paying more in taxes got bigger tax cuts and those who paid no taxes in the first place got nothing.
Lol. No, I don't envy the rich. The measly tax cut I got doesn't cover the increase in insurance premiums. My paycheck is actually a little less.

And I was referring to the Pop's support for a flat tax
 

TobyOne

I am the pretty one.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 24, 2014
Messages
5,382
Reaction score
1,772
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kudos. :rock:shoot:boom:drink:usflag2:

First off, I don't envy the rich. Yes, someday I'd aspire to get a career that would get me there, but I focus on the now. I don't blame any of the rich for my problems, and I don't think they should have to give up any of their income to support me. I still support either a flat tax, a fair tax, but the best option I think would be a basic consumption tax (not a fair tax). I think any of those would be the best options. I do have a disability, and I get some aid. But I'm striving to work my way out of it, unlike some. I think privatization of my aid would still be better. I plan to go to a different state to go to school someday, but for privacy reasons (I already told you enough) I won't share what those are. I will tell you it's a liberal dominated field though.
 

jimjeff

Banned
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
197
Reaction score
38
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I think at least half of the government should be privatized. We could have things like private militaries, police forces, etc., as well as privatized aid like Social Security and Medicaid. This would cut quite a bit of costs for the government.
You need to go to school as quick as possible and get some knowledge about what you're talking about....
 

gdgyva

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
10,134
Reaction score
4,922
Location
Near Atlanta Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Campaign donations and lobbying influence laws. Laws can affect everyone.
"can"

tell me a law that truly influences my life....just one

one that dictates i do something different than i was going to do anyway....

what so many of you fail to grasp....DC and the idiots there really dont affect you....they really dont

the state laws...yes....your local laws, even more

get involved in your local politics.....that is where you can and WILL make a difference
 

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
13,563
Reaction score
5,401
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The touchstone of fairness is equality and there is nothing more equal than everybody being taxed at the same rate. It has nothing to do with relative increases and decreases. As for the rest, I already pointed out that they would be inadequate to fund the government.

You are mistaken. Taxing everyone at 'the same rate' equals more pain for the poor, less pain for the rich. It is absolutely unequal. You are looking at numbers and fail to grasp what the true issue is.

The ONLY fair tax is one that strives to achieve equality of burden. 15% to a poor man is a much greater burden and subsequently more painful than 15% to a rich man. A poor man's life is painful by virtue of his poverty. Because of that, Democrats feel it's fair not to increase that person's pain and to start taxation at some threshold above the poverty line.

The ONLY way to get equality of burden (in the sense of 'pain' ) is via a progressive tax. In fact, it can't ever be 'equal' in any sense of the word, but we can strive to make more equal. Always, the operative word is 'strive'. Take crime, for example, we can never eliminate it entirely, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to eliminate it.

As an egalitarian, I understand the we cannot legislate equality of wealth, there will be rich people, affluent people, and poor people. No egalitarian I know would support a 'flat tax' for the above stated reason.

What we can do is strive for equality of opportunity, we can strive to close the gap between the rich and poor (though we know it's impossible to eliminate it entirely ) and strive to make the lives of those in poverty less painful.

This is what egalitarianism is all about, it's NOT about 'making everyone the same', and when the right offers that as an argument, it's a strawman.
 
Last edited:

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
13,563
Reaction score
5,401
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
While yes, it would be a tax cut for the rich, I do not believe it would be a tax increase for the poor. We just have to eliminate all other forms of federal taxes. There should be only one form anyways. But didn’t I already say the best system would be a consumption tax?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If a poor man pays no income tax, ( they don't pay income taxes below a certain threshold ), then a 15% tax is a tax increase.

The only way for a consumption tax to work is that every thing is taxed, and if you did that, you'd tax the poor more. For it to replace income tax, the consumption tax would be fairly high, increasing the price of everything.

Poor people, would, therefore, increase their purchase of used goods, and that would cause the prices of used goods to rise, which, in terms of 'pain' might well call it a tax due to the inflationary effect.


For those reasons, I cannot support a consumption tax.
 
Last edited:

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
13,563
Reaction score
5,401
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Should wealth be based on merit and achievement ? There is equality under the law(in theory) there isn't equality in outcomes of achievement and abilities.


See my comment on #86
 

SonOfDaedalus

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2017
Messages
11,370
Reaction score
6,540
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Flat taxes are theoretically "fair" but completely inadequate to fund the government if done at any level that does not put most of America into cardboard houses.
A flat tax is not even theoretically fair.

Let's say all of us need at least $1 a day to stay alive. There are 10 people in the room. Three people earn $1 a day. Five earn $5 a day. And two earn $100 per day. What's a fair tax? 20% on everyone? 20% is far bigger sacrifice for the guy who earns $1 day than it is for the guy who earns $100 a day.

The who idea behind a progressive tax system is that it targets LUXURY income. Everyone is taxed the same on the same tier of income. Even Bill Gates is taxed the same on his first $10,000 of income. It's only on the income he makes beyond $500k that he gets hit with the 37% rate.

(But of course a lot of wealthy people earn investment income which is taxed at 15 to 20%)
 

dairyair

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Messages
4,266
Reaction score
861
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
First off, I don't envy the rich. Yes, someday I'd aspire to get a career that would get me there, but I focus on the now. I don't blame any of the rich for my problems, and I don't think they should have to give up any of their income to support me. I still support either a flat tax, a fair tax, but the best option I think would be a basic consumption tax (not a fair tax). I think any of those would be the best options. I do have a disability, and I get some aid. But I'm striving to work my way out of it, unlike some. I think privatization of my aid would still be better. I plan to go to a different state to go to school someday, but for privacy reasons (I already told you enough) I won't share what those are. I will tell you it's a liberal dominated field though.
You are not poor.
You have a place to live, food to eat, access to the internet and a device that connects you to the internet.
That is no way poor.
 

dairyair

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Messages
4,266
Reaction score
861
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
how does the wealthy (someone like a Bill Gates) affect him, or say me

He doesnt affect my business one iota

doesnt affect what i pay for groceries or gas

doesnt affect my customers on whether or not they use my services

he doesnt affect the taxes i pay

he doesnt affect what i pay for health insurance

so please....in what way does Bill Gates or some other wealthy person affect my life

does what Washington do really affect my life? do i really care what lobbyists do?

my everyday life is in no material way affected.....
He had a huge impact on your internet access and operating system on your computer. A few years back.
But today, he is retired, so he has little impact on your life.
 

Drawdown

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
10,358
Reaction score
2,771
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A flat tax is not even theoretically fair.

Let's say all of us need at least $1 a day to stay alive. There are 10 people in the room. Three people earn $1 a day. Five earn $5 a day. And two earn $100 per day. What's a fair tax? 20% on everyone? 20% is far bigger sacrifice for the guy who earns $1 day than it is for the guy who earns $100 a day.

The who idea behind a progressive tax system is that it targets LUXURY income. Everyone is taxed the same on the same tier of income. Even Bill Gates is taxed the same on his first $10,000 of income. It's only on the income he makes beyond $500k that he gets hit with the 37% rate.

(But of course a lot of wealthy people earn investment income which is taxed at 15 to 20%)
Fairness is tax policy is not about who can better afford to pay more and most flat tax proposals have a bases exclusionary amount like say nothing on the first $30K
 

Drawdown

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
10,358
Reaction score
2,771
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You are mistaken. Taxing everyone at 'the same rate' equals more pain for the poor, less pain for the rich. It is absolutely unequal. You are looking at numbers and fail to grasp what the true issue is.

The ONLY fair tax is one that strives to achieve equality of burden. 15% to a poor man is a much greater burden and subsequently more painful than 15% to a rich man. A poor man's life is painful by virtue of his poverty. Because of that, Democrats feel it's fair not to increase that person's pain and to start taxation at some threshold above the poverty line.

The ONLY way to get equality of burden (in the sense of 'pain' ) is via a progressive tax. In fact, it can't ever be 'equal' in any sense of the word, but we can strive to make more equal. Always, the operative word is 'strive'. Take crime, for example, we can never eliminate it entirely, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to eliminate it.

As an egalitarian, I understand the we cannot legislate equality of wealth, there will be rich people, affluent people, and poor people. No egalitarian I know would support a 'flat tax' for the above stated reason.

What we can do is strive for equality of opportunity, we can strive to close the gap between the rich and poor (though we know it's impossible to eliminate it entirely ) and strive to make the lives of those in poverty less painful.

This is what egalitarianism is all about, it's NOT about 'making everyone the same', and when the right offers that as an argument, it's a strawman.
Equality of burden is not equality before the law.
 

gdgyva

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
10,134
Reaction score
4,922
Location
Near Atlanta Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
He had a huge impact on your internet access and operating system on your computer. A few years back.
But today, he is retired, so he has little impact on your life.

so during times of discovery, some men have influence

but even during the beginning, Gates had competition....they didnt last long, because their products were inferior

Same as Jobs had competition, and almost went under with a few bad ideas at Apple

The market and consumer is fickle...we can like a product, but the moment a new better one comes along....boom, there goes that loyalty

That is why little companies can sprout up and become giants almost overnight....building the proverbial better mousetrap

Is it easy? Hell no....many try and fail miserably

But getting back to the OP....wealthy people have LITTLE affect on most peoples lives day in or day out (they just dont)
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
128,453
Reaction score
38,157
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
It is staggering to see so many people defend not only billionaires but also this failed president while tens of thousands die due to governmental neglect and depraved indifference.
 

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
12,109
Reaction score
5,195
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
First off, I don't envy the rich. Yes, someday I'd aspire to get a career that would get me there, but I focus on the now. I don't blame any of the rich for my problems, and I don't think they should have to give up any of their income to support me. I still support either a flat tax, a fair tax, but the best option I think would be a basic consumption tax (not a fair tax). I think any of those would be the best options. I do have a disability, and I get some aid. But I'm striving to work my way out of it, unlike some. I think privatization of my aid would still be better. I plan to go to a different state to go to school someday, but for privacy reasons (I already told you enough) I won't share what those are. I will tell you it's a liberal dominated field though.
Ten dollars to a billionaire is not the same as someone making minimum wage. Just cut out the loopholes the rich use to protect their money from taxes.

If you think the rich have no bearing on your life, you're kidding yourself.
 

Kusa

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
49
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Good for you. But let's not pretend the wealthy don't have an effect on your life.
They certainly do have a effect on my personal life. I am employed by a wealthy family. I make a darn good living as a result.
 

Aurora

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 6, 2020
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
See my comment on #86
A flat tax implies equal percentage rate of tax. That is an equal burden. Any tax levied on a poor person is a burden, but poor are not exempt from civic responsibility. Poor are more likely to be given welfare in other matters. There should be a motivation to exceed not become complacent.
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
48,708
Reaction score
9,561
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
You are mistaken. Taxing everyone at 'the same rate' equals more pain for the poor, less pain for the rich. It is absolutely unequal. You are looking at numbers and fail to grasp what the true issue is.

The ONLY fair tax is one that strives to achieve equality of burden. 15% to a poor man is a much greater burden and subsequently more painful than 15% to a rich man. A poor man's life is painful by virtue of his poverty. Because of that, Democrats feel it's fair not to increase that person's pain and to start taxation at some threshold above the poverty line.

The ONLY way to get equality of burden (in the sense of 'pain' ) is via a progressive tax. In fact, it can't ever be 'equal' in any sense of the word, but we can strive to make more equal. Always, the operative word is 'strive'. Take crime, for example, we can never eliminate it entirely, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to eliminate it.

As an egalitarian, I understand the we cannot legislate equality of wealth, there will be rich people, affluent people, and poor people. No egalitarian I know would support a 'flat tax' for the above stated reason.

What we can do is strive for equality of opportunity, we can strive to close the gap between the rich and poor (though we know it's impossible to eliminate it entirely ) and strive to make the lives of those in poverty less painful.

This is what egalitarianism is all about, it's NOT about 'making everyone the same', and when the right offers that as an argument, it's a strawman.
I agree with you. The current system is just fine where 50% pay no taxes and the rich pay almost everything.
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
48,708
Reaction score
9,561
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
If a poor man pays no income tax, ( they don't pay income taxes below a certain threshold ), then a 15% tax is a tax increase.

The only way for a consumption tax to work is that every thing is taxed, and if you did that, you'd tax the poor more. For it to replace income tax, the consumption tax would be fairly high, increasing the price of everything.

Poor people, would, therefore, increase their purchase of used goods, and that would cause the prices of used goods to rise, which, in terms of 'pain' might well call it a tax due to the inflationary effect.


For those reasons, I cannot support a consumption tax.
I agree with you. The current system is just fine where 50% pay no taxes and the rich pay almost everything.
 
Top Bottom