• 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!

Should people who pay no income tax be allowed to vote?

Huh? What are you talking about?

I know you aren't trying to be the grammar police over one "s".
 
Given that Payroll taxes like Social security have brought in nearly as much money as income taxes for 2010, using Income taxes as the cut off for people who pays taxes would be a rather wrong

$1.061 trillion – Individual income taxes
$940 billion – Social Security and other payroll tax
$222 billion – Corporation income taxes
$77 billion – Excise taxes
$23 billion – Customs duties
$20 billion – Estate and gift taxes
$22 billion – Deposits of earnings
$16 billion – Other
2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I've finally met someone that is as vague as I am. Are you just mocking me?

I work for the DOD designing night vision systems.

cool, work on one that doesn't get wigged out from the flash of say a 7.62 running at 800 RPM
 
This is a stupid topic. Everyone pays taxes.
 
This is a stupid topic. Everyone pays taxes.

most people get more back from the government than they pay in

those who do not are being targeted for even more taxes.
 
most people get more back from the government than they pay in

those who do not are being targeted for even more taxes.

Not really. Unless you actually do count what everyone gets back from the very establishment of a government. Even if you take into account that 40% number of people who didn't pay income taxes this year, how often does that actually occur? Do you know for sure that none of those people ever paid the government income taxes? How do you know that they didn't deserve a refund one year, but didn't file for it? Wouldn't that be overpaying?
 
Not really. Unless you actually do count what everyone gets back from the very establishment of a government. Even if you take into account that 40% number of people who didn't pay income taxes this year, how often does that actually occur? Do you know for sure that none of those people ever paid the government income taxes? How do you know that they didn't deserve a refund one year, but didn't file for it? Wouldn't that be overpaying?

I constantly hear that the rich don't pay their fair share. They don't pay enough. So tell me, what part of society actually pays too much to cover for all those rich people?
 
I constantly hear that the rich don't pay their fair share. They don't pay enough. So tell me, what part of society actually pays too much to cover for all those rich people?

How do you define "fair?"

On the notion of wealth, the rich for the most part (except between the top 15% and top 10%) pay a proportional share of taxes. You own 70% of the wealth, and you pay 70% of the taxes. That's a version of fair.
 
How do you define "fair?"

On the notion of wealth, the rich for the most part (except between the top 15% and top 10%) pay a proportional share of taxes. You own 70% of the wealth, and you pay 70% of the taxes. That's a version of fair.

so you are claiming we have a tax on wealth rather than on income

that is stupid

and much wealth doesn't generate income so taxing wealth is moronic.
 
so you are claiming we have a tax on wealth rather than on income

that is stupid

Come again? The entire economy is little more then a wealth generating device. And those at the top are doing well. It therefore makes sense that those who benefit the most from the wealth generation pay their porportional share of costs to ensure that device keeps running and generating more wealth for them. Just because you don't like that does not mean it is not fair in one aspect of the word.

much wealth doesn't generate income so taxing wealth is moronic.

True, much wealth does not generate returns. However, that wealth was generated by the system for the receiver.
 
I constantly hear that the rich don't pay their fair share. They don't pay enough. So tell me, what part of society actually pays too much to cover for all those rich people?

First of all, I try my best not to generalize to the point of saying such things as "the rich don't pay their fair share" or that "poor people work just as hard as rich people". I consider myself to be the most truthful when I use quantifiers such as some, most, many, or a few, to name a few, unless I have facts to back me up. I know that some rich people do not work hard and some rich people do work hard. I know that some poor people work hard and some poor people don't work hard. I don't know the exact numbers of any of these people. I also don't really know what tax is "fair".

Of course, determining fair taxes requires more than just saying everyone use the system, so everyone has to pay the same amount or even the same percentage. How do you judge "fairness"? How do you quantify how much an individual actually benefits from having an established government in place? How is it possibly the same for every person as to how much that person benefits? How do you factor in the value of indirect consequences of government actions that lead to either a decrease or increase in wealth? Would these not be benefits to some people from the government and detriments to others from the government?
 
Come again? The entire economy is little more then a wealth generating device. And those at the top are doing well. It therefore makes sense that those who benefit the most from the wealth generation pay their porportional share of costs to ensure that device keeps running and generating more wealth for them. Just because you don't like that does not mean it is not fair in one aspect of the word.



True, much wealth does not generate returns. However, that wealth was generated by the system for the receiver.

socialists and other supporters of parasitic government practices try to justify parasitic actions by claiming that those who succeed somehow are "given" more than those who are untalented, stupid, lazy or unlucky. Yet that is idiotic. I have asked the parasite promoters why a kid who makes top grades at a public school was somehow given more than some slug who flunks out because he doesn't study.
 
First of all, I try my best not to generalize to the point of saying such things as "the rich don't pay their fair share" or that "poor people work just as hard as rich people". I consider myself to be the most truthful when I use quantifiers such as some, most, many, or a few, to name a few, unless I have facts to back me up. I know that some rich people do not work hard and some rich people do work hard. I know that some poor people work hard and some poor people don't work hard. I don't know the exact numbers of any of these people. I also don't really know what tax is "fair".

Of course, determining fair taxes requires more than just saying everyone use the system, so everyone has to pay the same amount or even the same percentage. How do you judge "fairness"? How do you quantify how much an individual actually benefits from having an established government in place? How is it possibly the same for every person as to how much that person benefits? How do you factor in the value of indirect consequences of government actions that lead to either a decrease or increase in wealth? Would these not be benefits to some people from the government and detriments to others from the government?

the most valid version of fair--paying for what you use.
 
the most valid version of fair--paying for what you use.

Impossible, government is inherently social. You try to ignore the fact that everything the government does has distributive effects one way or another, and then you use this presupposition to tear down progressive taxation, the "parasitic" class, etc.

Therefore, your most valid version of fair is of little help to us when deciding which tax policy is most fair.
 
Last edited:
the most valid version of fair--paying for what you use.

Impossible, government is inherently social. You try to ignore the fact that everything the government does has distributive effects one way or another, and then you use this presupposition to tear down progressive taxation, the "parasitic" class, etc.
Therefore, your most valid version of fair is of little help to us when deciding which tax policy is most fair.

Possibly a "most valid version of fair" is impossible to find, although it is ideal in everyone's pursuit. However, there is always a practical version of fair: the fairness that is escorted by power. Backed by power, "the socialists and other supporters of parasitic government practices" must say that the only fair is to tax those who enjoy more until they themselves enter the group that can enjoy more. Before they can enter the group, as to what someone else has contributed to the society in order to enjoy more, who the hell cares; just tax him!
 
socialists and other supporters of parasitic government practices try to justify parasitic actions by claiming that those who succeed somehow are "given" more than those who are untalented, stupid, lazy or unlucky. Yet that is idiotic. I have asked the parasite promoters why a kid who makes top grades at a public school was somehow given more than some slug who flunks out because he doesn't study.

One must wonder if you are capable of actually responding to contrary opinion with relevant comments.
 
Back
Top Bottom