• 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
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.

Thank you, Dr. Marx.

The worker gets the benefit of employment, and the job security of working for a company that knows how to succeed.

Have you a better system in mind?
 
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?

I dont understand what the second line means. Its sort of weirdly phrased.
 
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.

you dislike the right to contract

when I got out of law school I had several offers-some from Big $$$$ new york or san fran firms. I went with a smaller firm in Ohio so I could get trial experience. They paid me about 30 an hour to start and billed my time at 125. They made money off my labor but trained me how to be a pretty decent trial attorney which allowed me to get a better job at a different employer.

Now if they didn't make any money off me wtf would they hire me? You don't seem to understand how the world works

no insult intended but what exactly do you do for a job?
 
Thank you, Dr. Marx.

The worker gets the benefit of employment, and the job security of working for a company that knows how to succeed.

Have you a better system in mind?

Well I'm certainly not delusional like most of my colleagues in academia but for starters I would like an amendment that guarantees a living wage, health coverage etc.

The worker is allowed to work, yes or starve. But why does the CEO get so wealthy? What is he actually doing? His workers make cars that generate thousands in profit, but he pays them $15 an hour?
 
I dont understand what the second line means. Its sort of weirdly phrased.

the point is while I oppose government forced 'charity' I fully support private charity and believe those who have the time and money ought to help others and I put substantial amounts of my time and my money towards helping others
 
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.

How many successful lazy people have you met?
 
the point is while I oppose government forced 'charity' I fully support private charity and believe those who have the time and money ought to help others and I put substantial amounts of my time and my money towards helping others

I know many people who are self-interested and apathetic in this regard, good for you
 
How many successful lazy people have you met?

I've met a lot of unsuccessful hard-working people. The kind that need to take out student loans for medical coverage
 
I know many people who are self-interested and apathetic in this regard, good for you

I have almost as little use for them as I do those who demand others pay for what they want. My late mother-a British style "fabian" at one era of her life-later a pro choice GOPer who died a "friend of Hillary" noted rich people have no excuse to be either boring or stingy.
 
Well I'm certainly not delusional like most of my colleagues in academia but for starters I would like an amendment that guarantees a living wage, health coverage etc.

The worker is allowed to work, yes or starve. But why does the CEO get so wealthy? What is he actually doing? His workers make cars that generate thousands in profit, but he pays them $15 an hour?

The wage disparity is another matter, and I'm curious about that, too, but the successful CEO is wealthy because his business skills are marketable and shareholders are willing to pay him what they do.

$15 an hour to build a car probably isn't the best example for your argument, but I understand.

The subject is taxation. Of course there would be (or should be) a minimum income exception. A day laborer who is not able to earn more than $6 an hour his best year, for example, should get a pass.

You also mentioned a guaranteed wage. That would certainly prevent a lot of start-up businesses that do not have the capital to meet a mandated minimum payroll. Those are entry level or temp jobs that will never be created in your system.
 
The wage disparity is another matter, and I'm curious about that, too, but the successful CEO is wealthy because his business skills are marketable and shareholders are willing to pay him what they do.

$15 an hour to build a car probably isn't the best example for your argument, but I understand.

The subject is taxation. Of course there would be (or should be) a minimum income exception. A day laborer who is not able to earn more than $6 an hour his best year, for example, should get a pass.

You also mentioned a guaranteed wage. That would certainly prevent a lot of start-up businesses that do not have the capital to meet a mandated minimum payroll. Those are entry level or temp jobs that will never be created in your system.

Thanks for this. I am feeling very weird right now. Ill be on tomorrow maybe. I've hung out with radicals(admitting it tbh) for over a year and my worldview is so cynical im going to just take a breather here
 
Thanks for this. I am feeling very weird right now. Ill be on tomorrow maybe. I've hung out with radicals(admitting it tbh) for over a year and my worldview is so cynical im going to just take a breather here

Hope you're feeling better soon.
 
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

no need to try again since he got it perfectly right the first time.
 
no need to try again since he got it perfectly right the first time.

sure haymarket sure

what do you deny-that those who are targeted for a wealth tax also pay substantial income and death confiscation taxes or that these high tax payers pay for services many others use

try to refute either
 
sure haymarket sure

what do you deny-that those who are targeted for a wealth tax also pay substantial income and death confiscation taxes or that these high tax payers pay for services many others use

try to refute either

You still have not remedied you basic and fundamental problem - CONTINUAL COSTCO CONFUSION. Until you take care of that problem, we will get the same post from you over and over and over and over in thread after thread after thread. You simply either do not understand how our society works or you refuse to accept the will of the American people as expressed through our duly elected government.
 
You still have not remedied you basic and fundamental problem - CONTINUAL COSTCO CONFUSION. Until you take care of that problem, we will get the same post from you over and over and over and over in thread after thread after thread. You simply either do not understand how our society works or you refuse to accept the will of the American people as expressed through our duly elected government.

you continue to play silly games-these threads are about philosophical arguments and your dullardly and repetitive charges that if the will of the people (which is manipulated by politicians using a tax code designed to do just that) says one thing all argument is precluded are useless . I understand how society works far better than you and I argue it has lots of problems. Since you like the system that allows your leaders to pander to the parasite mentality, you caterwaul that any challenge to that system is based on misunderstanding rather than what it is really based on-contempt
 
you continue to play silly games-these threads are about philosophical arguments and your dullardly and repetitive charges that if the will of the people (which is manipulated by politicians using a tax code designed to do just that) says one thing all argument is precluded are useless . I understand how society works far better than you and I argue it has lots of problems. Since you like the system that allows your leaders to pander to the parasite mentality, you caterwaul that any challenge to that system is based on misunderstanding rather than what it is really based on-contempt

You have repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of any accurate knowledge or understanding about
- the purpose of taxation
- the history of taxation
- the bipartisan origins of the progressive income tax
- the role of taxation in a democratic republic and how it reflects the will of the people
- the relationship between taxation and government services
- the lack of any relationship between taxation and consumption of government services

It is those fundamental areas in which you lack knowledge or fail to comprehend what you have been taught that produces your ideological differences on the issue. That renders any opinions or views you have worth nothing s they are based only on your own selfish desires and motivations of greed and not on any actual facts or reality.

You are indeed entitled to your own opinion. What you are not entitled to is your own made up facts.
 
you know, i vote that we lower income tax rates and raise tax rates on non-income compensation.

pension benefits, for example, should be taxed 50%. ditto for employer-provided health plans.
 
(My highlighting)
My opinion on this one has varied a bit. A few months ago I would have said that any progressive tax was an unfair tax on success.

The fact is though, a flat tax capable of generating enough revenue to run even half of what the government currently does would be Devastating to the poor and the modest-income working class.

Okay, so you exempt those below the poverty line. I got news: the last time I read what the so-called "poverty line" was, buddy it isn't high enough! You can't support a small family in America, in what we consider decent conditions, on 25k a year in most areas.

Okay, so we kick the bar up again...your first 30k is exempt. Now...you know what we've actually got here? We have a progressive tax.

If you make 25k, you pay no income tax.
If you make 35k, you pay taxes only on the last 5k.
If you make 100k, you pay taxes on 70k of it.
If you make 500k, you pay taxes on 470k of it.

Hello, progressive tax. :2wave:

A sales tax adequate to support current governmental spending would have to be huge... like 20-30 cents on the dollar...nor would I be willing to bet that sales tax would definately end income tax for all time; politicians are untrustworthy $@%$#@es.

No, I think a progressive income tax is inevitable, as much as I hate it. I think the "curve" should be moderate and there should be a top end no higher than 30%... and everybody with an income should have to pay something, say put a bottom rate of 0.5% so that everyone has a stake in gov't and spending.
An intelligent and Humane solution.
I have proposed similar systems.

Most proposing 'fair' or 'flat' taxes know NOT what they're voting for... they just think it sounds 'fair' or Imagine some low rate.
The specific Natl sales tax/oxymoron called 'Fairtax' entails an (independently scored) rate of 56/57%. (Not incl state sales tax and state inc tax converted to sales tax)
Knowing a Natl sale tax is outrageous on it's face (tho not to posters here!), 'Fairtax' added a 'prebate' to try and mediate that devastating/impossible regressivity. That raised the needed rate.

Anyone voting for a Nat'l Sales or Flattax should have to say at WHAT rate/or up until what rate they still support it.
It's easy/meaningless to say your 'for' something with no numbers.

Your proposal also cuts the IRS by perhaps 1/3- ridding them of processing chicken-feed returns who provide only a tiny percent of revs anyway.
But it would never win support as there are no Bribes/Lobby for the under 30k/50k crowd.
That's why most tax 'simplification' schemes are top-down and regressive.

more here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/90108-truth-can-afford-pay-taxes.html
 
Last edited:
what does that study count as "taxes"
 
(My highlighting)
An intelligent and Humane solution.
I have proposed similar systems.

Most proposing 'fair' or 'flat' taxes know NOT what they're voting for... they just think it sounds 'fair' or Imagine some low rate.
The specific Natl sales tax/oxymoron called 'Fairtax' entails an (independently scored) rate of 56/57%. (Not incl state sales tax and state inc tax converted to sales tax)
Knowing a Natl sale tax is outrageous on it's face (tho not to posters here!), 'Fairtax' added a 'prebate' to try and mediate that devastating/impossible regressivity. That raised the needed rate.

Anyone voting for a Nat'l Sales or Flattax should have to say at WHAT rate/or up until what rate they still support it.
It's easy/meaningless to say your 'for' something with no numbers.

Your proposal also cuts the IRS by perhaps 1/3- ridding them of processing chicken-feed returns who provide only a tiny percent of revs anyway.
But it would never win support as there are no Bribes/Lobby for the under 30k/50k crowd.
That's why most tax 'simplification' schemes are top-down and regressive.

more here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/90108-truth-can-afford-pay-taxes.html

Warren Buffett exposed this to daylight in 2007 ~ "Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation."
Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online

Those of us that were around in the pre-Reagan days have seen the ever widening gap between the rich and the poor. Today 1 out 7 people fall below the poverty line.
 
why does Buffett structure his compensation so he only has a salary of 100 grand?

If he structured his salary consistent with other people running similar organizations he would have several million being taxed at 35%

he pays a higher tax on his earned income than his ad staff and the same or higher rates on other forms of income

those who lap up his BS are gullilble
 
why does Buffett structure his compensation so he only has a salary of 100 grand?

If he structured his salary consistent with other people running similar organizations he would have several million being taxed at 35%

he pays a higher tax on his earned income than his ad staff and the same or higher rates on other forms of income

those who lap up his BS are gullilble

And focusing on his income tax as it seems he and other do is missing the mark.

He isn't just earning multi-millions every year - that's income, there. He's WORTH Billions and that WORTH is amassed in everything from personal property, stocks and bonds, assests - and so on.

Focusing on just his pay-cut is a narrow scope to be looking through.
 
the uber rich often support welfare socialist schemes so as to ingratiate themselves to politicians. welfare socialism also protects those at the very top. Buffett and his ilk want to jack up taxes on people making 400K-a couple million a year and pretend it won't hurt those people because it doesn't hurt someone whose wealthy doubles faster than the income taxes can cut it down.

treating someone who makes 400K a year like a guy making 400 million a year is stupid-the 400K guy is far more like someone making 100K a year
 
And focusing on his income tax as it seems he and other do is missing the mark.

He isn't just earning multi-millions every year - that's income, there. He's WORTH Billions and that WORTH is amassed in everything from personal property, stocks and bonds, assests - and so on.

Focusing on just his pay-cut is a narrow scope to be looking through.

the guy is basically a hypocrite for whining about getting "breaks" that he created due to his power

how many people-even lower earning millionaires-can structure their compensation so its listed as capitalgains or dividends rather than salary?

and after doing that complain that its "unfair"
 
Back
Top Bottom