• 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!

Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

Which do you prefer:


  • Total voters
    133
Why would we want to burden those who can pay the least? What kind of evil, selfish, self centered, totally absorbed individual who scorns society would want that? There cannot be more than a few of those people ..... can there????? Such feelings are 180 degrees opposite the Christian tradion that helped found this nation and the spirit of fellowship and community which unites us as a common people. Its un-American I tell you!!!!

Hold on a moment. Why is it when we start talking about people paying their fair share, there is always a person that jumps onto the "this nation was founded upon Christian values" wagon - but these are often times, the SAME people that will dig their heels in when talking about the 'far right' being radical Christians. I believe this is called selective reasoning and I dismiss posts like this. :?

Tell me - do you think it's better to enable learned helplessness or do you feel it's better to empower people with the tools necessary to take care of themselves?

Why is it selfish and self centered to WANT people to learn how to care for themselves and not continue on a cycle of dependency that falls squarely on the shoulders of others who have had the tools necessary to care for themselves and their families?

I don't know of a single person who would want the truly needy to go without - but I DO know people who want those same people to learn new skills and have the opportunity to do for themselves and not continue on being a dependent of our taxes.

Do you disagree?
No, not really. Our economy is based on consumerism. When we don't spend money we fall into a recession. If spending drops too much we will be in a depression.

What are we in now?
 
you seem to forget-if the government spends less money we are better off

To a point. Government spending did help build this country. It built infrastructure, security, safety, stability, schools, hospitals, defense, roads, dams and assistance for those that can't help themselves, everything that allowed this country to be the greatest on earth. It allowed many people to get very rich. Compare the US to at other countries with zero government spending and you will understand where we would be without it. The problem is wasteful government spending (for example the trillion dollars wasted in Iraq) and government should only spend what it takes in.
 
Last edited:
why should there be a tax on wealth other than to pander to parasitic mentalities

To pay for the things that allowed the person to get weathly. They could not have done it alone or without a stable environment created by the government or educated employees educated by the government or the infrastructure created by the government. They benefited most from government spending.
 
Hold on a moment. Why is it when we start talking about people paying their fair share, there is always a person that jumps onto the "this nation was founded upon Christian values" wagon - but these are often times, the SAME people that will dig their heels in when talking about the 'far right' being radical Christians. I believe this is called selective reasoning and I dismiss posts like this. :?

Tell me - do you think it's better to enable learned helplessness or do you feel it's better to empower people with the tools necessary to take care of themselves?

Why is it selfish and self centered to WANT people to learn how to care for themselves and not continue on a cycle of dependency that falls squarely on the shoulders of others who have had the tools necessary to care for themselves and their families?

I don't know of a single person who would want the truly needy to go without - but I DO know people who want those same people to learn new skills and have the opportunity to do for themselves and not continue on being a dependent of our taxes.

Do you disagree?


What are we in now?

Admitting our historical foundations is not the same thing as being a radical anything be it Christian, Jew, Muslim or whatever.

I certainly agree that it is much better to help people acquire the skills and tools to fend for themselves. I also accept that some falter aand need help along the way.
 
To pay for the things that allowed the person to get weathly. They could not have done it alone or without a stable environment created by the government or educated employees educated by the government or the infrastructure created by the government. They benefited most from government spending.

those people pay tons of income tax, death taxes and pay the burden for many who pay nothing

claiming they benefit most is complete bs-the biggest expansion in government spending over the last 70 years is entitlements for the lower and middle classes

try again
 
Which would you prefer: (over simplistic - just a poll)

Income tax - nothing changes and the tax system as we know it continues on as always - changing and morphing month to month

Flat tax - Revisions to current tax code in effect doing away with all other forms of taxation except for a low percentage of flat tax across the board

National Sales tax - Revisions to current tax code in effect doing away with all other forms of taxation except for a nation wide sales tax - if you spend nothing, you pay nothing

No tax - The tax codes as written currently are un-Constitutional and therefore should be abolished entirely. In place of taxes, we would rely on donations by private citizens/corporations.

I think the reason why there's such a conflict as to "what to do" is because there are different issues at hand.

Recession: what to do to *get out of it*
Excessive government spending: this needs assessment, various solutions, and people to actually concede that they *need to do something*
Balanced budget: you have to be able to GET there to begin with and STAY there.
How to not lose sight of your balanced budget, etc: once you're out of the muck and on a stable path you have to learn how NOT to stray - this would require action BEFORE bad things happen.

So some of people's suggestions work great WHILE you're in a recession - to get out. But after you're out they would need to be discontinued.
Other things won'tw ork at all to get a country OUT of a recession - but when you're out you can transition to them.

There's just no *one* right policy to enact - such a thing needs continual reassessment without losing focus.
 
those people pay tons of income tax, death taxes and pay the burden for many who pay nothing

claiming they benefit most is complete bs-the biggest expansion in government spending over the last 70 years is entitlements for the lower and middle classes

try again

Do you think the rich could have become rich without the rest of the country?
Did you know many rich people don't pay any tax.
 
Last edited:
Do you think the rich could have become rich without the rest of the country?

that is not an argument to make the top 1% pay 40% of the income tax and all the death and proposed wealth tax

this country was #1 in the world and had plenty of rich before we started the New Deal
 
this country was #1 in the world and had plenty of rich before we started the New Deal

There are a lot more rich people now. Everyone is better off now than before the New Deal.
 
There are a lot more rich people now. Everyone is better off now than before the New Deal.

and there is no proof that the New Deal caused that. what we do know is that FDR's lapdog jurists allowed massive expansions of federal power that serve as the foundation for our out of control government we have today

rich people tend to do well under most systems. its the poor who benefit the most from this sort of society
 
There are a lot more rich people now. Everyone is better off now than before the New Deal.

Only very few things are remaining from the actual New Deal (one and two). Several of it's key active compnents at THAT time were ruled unconstitutional and some of what's left is a burden and has created many other unstable areas of government and the economy (Social Security - for example).

Yet other thinsg that came directly from it (public works projects as one example) - are actually a key failing point of our infrastructure (bridges, damns, etc - many have run their course and need repair and to be rebuilt). What the "New Deal" really marked was an increase in government regulation, notice, action and activity in the business-worlds. Up until then things were predominately separated - laissez faire, really.

But, many economic analysts argue that the New Deal didn't boost us out of the Depression - in stead- they argue that we started to grow out of it *naturally* - and then the war hit. To make this point they usually sight the fact that the government was compelled to enact two, not just one, "new deal" efforts.

However, what's more important to note when you look at the history of wealth, where it accumulates, average income, etc - is that what played a key part in change people's lives and living standards in general wasn't *the New Deal* - it was the *Industrial Revolution* - predating the Great Depression by a while.
And uncontrolled explosion of business and factory growth netted the need for heavier regulation (safety concerns, etc).

But my post is stil just a shortened mentioning of these things - it's a very complex situation.
 
Last edited:
Only very few things are remaining from the actual New Deal (one and two). Several of it's key active compnents at THAT time were ruled unconstitutional and some of what's left is a burden and has created many other unstable areas of government and the economy (Social Security - for example).

Yet other thinsg that came directly from it (public works projects as one example) - are actually a key failing point of our infrastructure (bridges, damns, etc - many have run their course and need repair and to be rebuilt). What the "New Deal" really marked was an increase in government regulation, notice, action and activity in the business-worlds. Up until then things were predominately separated - laissez faire, really.

But, many economic analysts argue that the New Deal didn't boost us out of the Depression - in stead- they argue that we started to grow out of it *naturally* - and then the war hit. To make this point they usually sight the fact that the government was compelled to enact two, not just one, "new deal" efforts.

However, what's more important to note when you look at the history of wealth, where it accumulates, average income, etc - is that what played a key part in change people's lives and living standards in general wasn't *the New Deal* - it was the *Industrial Revolution* - predating the Great Depression by a while.
And uncontrolled explosion of business and factory growth netted the need for heavier regulation (safety concerns, etc).

But my post is stil just a shortened mentioning of these things - it's a very complex situation.

What led to this country's growth after WWII hit was unprecidented massive government spending. Some people seem to ignore that fact and say it was just the war that saved the economy. It was the spending.
 
What led to this country's growth after WWII hit was unprecidented massive government spending. Some people seem to ignore that fact and say it was just the war that saved the economy. It was the spending.

In some ways we grew - in other ways we declined.

One way in which we grew was by lending money out to other countries who needed to rebuild their infrastructure - over the decades since some have paid off their loans + interest.
 
What led to this country's growth after WWII hit was unprecidented massive government spending. Some people seem to ignore that fact and say it was just the war that saved the economy. It was the spending.

sometimes giving a patient morphine is good

sometimes it will kill him
 
Flat tax is absolute garbage. It's just another institutional provision to protect moneyed interest and work against the interests of the working class. You earn more, you pay more in taxes. End of story.
 
Flat tax is absolute garbage. It's just another institutional provision to protect moneyed interest and work against the interests of the working class. You earn more, you pay more in taxes. End of story.

well that settles it

the rich do pay more under a flat tax

epic fail dude
 
well that settles it

the rich do pay more under a flat tax

epic fail dude

Yes they pay more but its the same percentage of their income as people in poverty. If you are fortunate enough to become a billionaire and be set for life under our economic system, you are obligated to pay more percentage wise back to the system that made you affluent. Isn't their some logic fail in absolutely everyone paying 15%? If I make 30,000 a year I shouldnt have to pay taxes, everything I use my money on is immediate most likely, I am living subsistence, paycheck to paycheck. If Im a billionaire sitting on 900 million in my bank account shouldnt more of it (proportionally) be taxed? What happens when Uncle Sam's piggy bank has no $$ in it, and people cant get social security or medicare? Tax the rich to be honest. Most of them don't even earn what they have
 
Last edited:
Yes they pay more but its the same percentage of their income as people in poverty. If you are fortunate enough to become a billionaire and be set for life under our economic system, you are obligated to pay more percentage wise back to the system that made you affluent. Isn't their some logic fail in absolutely everyone paying 15%? If I make 30,000 a year I shouldnt have to pay taxes, everything I use my money on is immediate most likely, I am living subsistence, paycheck to paycheck. If Im a billionaire sitting on 900 million in my bank account shouldnt more of it (proportionally) be taxed? What happens when Uncle Sam's piggy bank has no $$ in it, and people cant get social security or medicare? Tax the rich to be honest. Most of them don't even earn what they have.

Doesn't sound very egalitarian.

PS. And how did "the system" make the rich rich? Why hasn't it made me rich?

Their hard work and ingenuity, not to mention their willingess to take risks, helped a little, too, in most cases. The "system" could just as easily have made them bankrupt - and often does when business ventures fail.
 
Last edited:
Yes they pay more but its the same percentage of their income as people in poverty. If you are fortunate enough to become a billionaire and be set for life under our economic system, you are obligated to pay more percentage wise back to the system that made you affluent. Isn't their some logic fail in absolutely everyone paying 15%? If I make 30,000 a year I shouldnt have to pay taxes, everything I use my money on is immediate most likely, I am living subsistence, paycheck to paycheck. If Im a billionaire sitting on 900 million in my bank account shouldnt more of it (proportionally) be taxed? What happens when Uncle Sam's piggy bank has no $$ in it, and people cant get social security or medicare? Tax the rich to be honest. Most of them don't even earn what they have


the rich pay hundreds of dollars for a dollar of government service

the poor might not pay a single cent for the same government service


your rant about the rich not earning it is pathetic and silly

why should your existence be a burden on someone else?
 
the rich pay hundreds of dollars for a dollar of government service

the poor might not pay a single cent for the same government service


your rant about the rich not earning it is pathetic and silly


why should your existence be a burden on someone else?

Off to the camps I guess?

The affluent don't need government services! The quality of life they enjoy is pristine. The poor are entitled to some level of social welfare, i mean they dont have as much control over their economic situation as some might believe. I work often and I am still in debt from college, wouldn't it be awesome if some funds could be allocated to low interest loans? I'd love it :(

No, my rant about the rich is correct. Labor theory of value. Employing individuals own what they don't labor and produce, and in return pay subsistence wage to their worker drones. Employers make millions but pay their employees $7.00 an hour, even less in right-to-work states. Why so meager?
 
Doesn't sound very egalitarian.

PS. And how did "the system" make the rich rich? Why hasn't it made me rich?

Their hard work and ingenuity, not to mention their willingess to take risks, helped a little, too, in most cases. The "system" could just as easily have made them bankrupt - and often does when business ventures fail.

In order to profit you have to make the production value of the worker's production be higher than what you pay the worker. You are making money off of labor that is not yours.

No one works harder than the 50 hour a week wage-slave. Don't even start with this "industrious vs laziness" argument.
 
Last edited:
I'm listening...

See my edit.

Here. I'll copy and paste.

And how did "the system" make the rich rich? Why hasn't it made me rich?

Their hard work and ingenuity, not to mention their willingess to take risks, helped a little, too, in most cases. The "system" could just as easily have made them bankrupt - and often does when business ventures fail.
 
Off to the camps I guess?

The affluent don't need government services! The quality of life they enjoy is pristine. The poor are entitled to some level of social welfare, i mean they dont have as much control over their economic situation as some might believe. I work often and I am still in debt from college, wouldn't it be awesome if some funds could be allocated to low interest loans? I'd love it :(

No, my rant about the rich is correct. Labor theory of value. Employing individuals own what they don't labor and produce, and in return pay subsistence wage to their worker drones. Employers make millions but pay their employees $7.00 an hour, even less in right-to-work states. Why so meager?

nope-maybe to a private charity which I fully support with my money. I also spend about 500 hours a year as volunteer helping youth athletes.

but what grounds exist-other than political power-that justifies forcing some people to pay for what you want or even need?
 
Back
Top Bottom