• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Tax system...

Do you think our tax system is fair?

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 10.0%
  • No

    Votes: 18 90.0%

  • Total voters
    20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Not obvious from your statement.


The statement you quoted was made before the system was explained to me. Perhaps you should have kept reading. [/quote]

Gotta answer as I read em, but I did see that later in the thread.




Yes, I understand that now. And as I already told M14, I misunderstood what I read and posted before I fully thought about it. Again, if you had read all posts, you would see that, as well.

As I said I don't read ALL the post and then go back and respond I respond as I read em, your enlightenment has been noted.
 
Engimo said:
Because of the fact that the cost of living does not increase proportionately with salary, a flat tax is essentially regressive. 17% of the income of someone making $30,000 is a lot more important to him/her than 17% of the income of someone making $500,000.

Which is no business of a tax system.
 
Engimo said:
While that does make the proposition much more attractive, the fact remains that the middle class is getting the short end of the stick when compared to the upper class -

Not they don't, they get a better deal because the rich don't get a porportionally bigger personal deduction. At the marginal rate the rich pay more in percentage than do the poor (most of whom have a marginal rate of 0 anyway). How is that the short end of the stick?

even if the absolute poorest are doing decently (of course, they're still poor, but they pay no taxes).

The purpose of the tax system is not to make poor people wealthier or rich people poor and even things out. The purpose of the tax system should be to raise the bare necessary revenues to operate the government and doing so with the least intrusion on persons and the economy as a whole. I firmly believe there should be a minimum tax that even the poor pay, and know they pay it not like the gasoline tax. Everyone should have a financial stake in the government even if a very minimal one.
 
No, I don't think it is fair.

BTW, the flat tax idea I read about in this thread seems like a very good thing. It may upset some people, but I think most of the nation would be relieved to not have to spend a large amount of time or money just to decide how much you owe the government.
 
Stinger said:
The purpose of the tax system is not to make poor people wealthier or rich people poor and even things out. The purpose of the tax system should be to raise the bare necessary revenues to operate the government and doing so with the least intrusion on persons and the economy as a whole. I firmly believe there should be a minimum tax that even the poor pay, and know they pay it not like the gasoline tax. Everyone should have a financial stake in the government even if a very minimal one.

A very well explained statement which I fully agree with.

If everyone pays at least a small, or even tiny amount, they would be more inclined to think about who they are electing and if they would be willing to pay said person for said job. I hope.
 
The Mark said:
If everyone pays at least a small, or even tiny amount, they would be more inclined to think about who they are electing and if they would be willing to pay said person for said job. I hope.

Exactly, and when they see government waste it's THEIR money that's being wasted.
 
Engimo said:
Because of the fact that the cost of living does not increase proportionately with salary, a flat tax is essentially regressive. 17% of the income of someone making $30,000 is a lot more important to him/her than 17% of the income of someone making $500,000.

so get another job, get a different job or get an education so you can get a better job
Poor shouldnt blame the wealthy for their lot in life
without the wealthy their would be no middle class
because there would be no JOBS
we would all be scrounging for our own survival
 
DeeJayH said:
so get another job, get a different job or get an education so you can get a better job
Poor shouldnt blame the wealthy for their lot in life
without the wealthy their would be no middle class
because there would be no JOBS
we would all be scrounging for our own survival

Approximately 75% of the population cannot get "another" job... get a "different" job... or get an "education" that will further their prosperation in this country. THat is problematic.

This is where communism is made to be rational ... by those who confide in the exploitation of capitialism and the lack of wealth distribution by saying I'm sorry...

Derrrrr It's not my fault that goods and services have inflated over 27 percent in the past decade while the general base pay of the people has failed to reach the projected 4 percent.

A government for the people and by the people, with equal opportunity? LOL!

America is the land of the Brave, and if your not brave enough to see the truth then take your ass to former CCCP.
 
Conflict said:
Approximately 75% of the population cannot get "another" job... get a "different" job... or get an "education" that will further their prosperation in this country. THat is problematic.

This is where communism is made to be rational ... by those who confide in the exploitation of capitialism and the lack of wealth distribution by saying I'm sorry...

Derrrrr It's not my fault that goods and services have inflated over 27 percent in the past decade while the general base pay of the people has failed to reach the projected 4 percent.

A government for the people and by the people, with equal opportunity? LOL!

America is the land of the Brave, and if your not brave enough to see the truth then take your ass to former CCCP.

Ah, it's no good arguing that point with him, Conflict. I've tried. He doesn't respond well to reason.
 
Conflict said:
Approximately 75% of the population cannot get "another" job... get a "different" job... or get an "education" that will further their prosperation in this country. THat is problematic.

And where exactly did you obtain this percentage?


Conflict said:
This is where communism is made to be rational ... by those who confide in the exploitation of capitialism and the lack of wealth distribution by saying I'm sorry...

What?


Conflict said:
Derrrrr It's not my fault that goods and services have inflated over 27 percent in the past decade while the general base pay of the people has failed to reach the projected 4 percent.

Your source?


Conflict said:
A government for the people and by the people, with equal opportunity? LOL!

The government is not the economy. By meshing the two, we create less oppurtunity.


Conflict said:
America is the land of the Brave, and if your not brave enough to see the truth then take your ass to former CCCP.

What truth?

The truth I see is that we have a system that fosters growth, hard work and social mobility and if you don't like that then take your ass to the former CCCP.
 
Conflict said:
Approximately 75% of the population cannot get "another" job... get a "different" job... or get an "education" that will further their prosperation in this country. THat is problematic.
According to whom, and based on what?
Some places are -always- hiring. Its hard to imagine the sort of person who presently has a job but cannot get a new one.

This is where communism is made to be rational ... by those who confide in the exploitation of capitialism and the lack of wealth distribution by saying I'm sorry...
I have always wondered:
How is the taking of peoples property and giving it to other people a legitimate function of a legitimate government?
 
Conflict said:
Approximately 75% of the population cannot get "another" job... get a "different" job... or get an "education" that will further their prosperation in this country. THat is problematic.

This is where communism is made to be rational ... by those who confide in the exploitation of capitialism and the lack of wealth distribution by saying I'm sorry...

Derrrrr It's not my fault that goods and services have inflated over 27 percent in the past decade while the general base pay of the people has failed to reach the projected 4 percent.

A government for the people and by the people, with equal opportunity? LOL!

America is the land of the Brave, and if your not brave enough to see the truth then take your ass to former CCCP.

try using sourced facts, rather than the diatribe of the disgruntled who failed to take advantage of what this country has to offer
anybody can be successful through hard work and sacrifice
everything else is excuses
 
DeeJayH said:
try using sourced facts, rather than the diatribe of the disgruntled who failed to take advantage of what this country has to offer
anybody can be successful through hard work and sacrifice
everything else is excuses

I am not here to educate you folks... but there are several fine institutions that offer courses in basic economics.....

:cool:
 
With flat tax everyone would get the same tax rate, which in return would create a bigger gap between the rich and the poor. And usually when this happens a revolution take place, as seen throughout history. And just image how much money would be token out of social programs because the rich would pay less tax so the government couldn’t give as much money out to theses social programs. I just remember what type of government this is, and it ant’s socialism were everyone is equal. lol
 
Loxd4 said:
With flat tax everyone would get the same tax rate, which in return would create a bigger gap between the rich and the poor.
Even if thats true.... so?
When did it become the government's job to narrow the gap between the rich and poor?

And just image how much money would be token out of social programs because the rich would pay less tax so the government couldn’t give as much money out to theses social programs.
Even if that's true... the more the better.
 
Loxd4 said:
With flat tax everyone would get the same tax rate, which in return would create a bigger gap between the rich and the poor.

There's less upward mobility today than there was a hundred years ago, partly because there's less incentive to succeed thanks to our tax laws. Even if the flat tax resulted in a bigger gap (which I don't think it necessarily would), it would make EVERYONE better off. If the poor and middle-class were better off, and the wealthy were a LOT better off...how is that not a good thing? There's nothing wrong with wealth disparity, as long as there's not a situation where people can never better themselves. And we certainly aren't at that point.

Loxd4 said:
And usually when this happens a revolution take place, as seen throughout history.

The United States has only ever fought one civil war, and it had little to do with taxes. So if we managed to have flat taxes for the first 160 years of our country's existence without a revolution, what makes you think there would be one today?

Loxd4 said:
And just image how much money would be token out of social programs because the rich would pay less tax so the government couldn’t give as much money out to theses social programs. I just remember what type of government this is, and it ant’s socialism were everyone is equal. lol

Being equal under the law doesn't mean that everyone has to have exactly the same amount of money.
 
Kandahar said:
There's less upward mobility today than there was a hundred years ago, partly because there's less incentive to succeed thanks to our tax laws. Even if the flat tax resulted in a bigger gap (which I don't think it necessarily would), it would make EVERYONE better off. If the poor and middle-class were better off, and the wealthy were a LOT better off...how is that not a good thing? There's nothing wrong with wealth disparity, as long as there's not a situation where people can never better themselves. And we certainly aren't at that point.

Now that I know a little more on this whole flat tax thing, it really does make an awful lot of sense. Even if there weren't provisions for people under a certain income level, it still seems quite fair to me.....someone making $20,000 a year would pay $2,000 under a 10% tax, and someone making $200,000 a year would pay $20,000. On my W-2 that I just got from the military for last year, I earned a bit over $17,000 that was taxable.....I know I paid well over $1,700 in taxes.


Being equal under the law doesn't mean that everyone has to have exactly the same amount of money.

Very true. Obviously, people that are wealthy did SOMETHING to earn that money.....well, or someone in their family did :2razz: Personally, the way I'm looking at it, I think it actually would help to decrease the income gap, to at least a small extent.
 
Kandahar said:
I recommend everyone read Flat Tax Revolution by Steve Forbes. It is an eloquent description of the many, many reasons that we should scrap our current tax system entirely and start anew with a flat tax. Under Forbes' plan, all income would be taxed at the same amount (he suggests 17%) and would allow generous personal deductions (a family of four would pay no tax on their first $46,000 of income).

Instituting a flat tax is one of the single most beneficial policy changes that our federal government could make.

The problem with Steve Forbes is that he advocates giving everyone a tax cut which will enivitably lead to less money going to public services. Sounds a little iresponsibile and nihilistic to me.

Im all for an uber tax on the very richest because these people waste an obscene amount of money, alot of which has been made my kicking a ball around or makeing **** records. To me it seams much more sensible to redirect resources that would be wasted on private jets and big houses into healthcare, education, science and maybe some overseas aid. Alot of the rich get rich through the labour of underpaid workers so it only seams fair that some of the money goes to makeing there lives easyer.
 
Red_Dave said:
The problem with Steve Forbes is that he advocates giving everyone a tax cut which will enivitably lead to less money going to public services. Sounds a little iresponsibile and nihilistic to me.
Its only 'irresposible' if you can show that the people who pay taxes are responsible for providing these public services.

That is, why are you responsible for paying for my mother's Medicare?


Im all for an uber tax on the very richest because these people waste an obscene amount of money, alot of which has been made my kicking a ball around or makeing **** records.
"Waste" an "obscene" amount of money"
They earned it. Who are you to say what they should and shold not spend it on?

Alot of the rich get rich through the labour of underpaid workers so it only seams fair that some of the money goes to makeing there lives easyer.
"underpaid"? According to whom?
They took the job voluntarily... if they don't make enough, aren't they to blame?
 
Red_Dave said:
The problem with Steve Forbes is that he advocates giving everyone a tax cut which will enivitably lead to less money going to public services. Sounds a little iresponsibile and nihilistic to me.

That's a good thing. With a handful of exceptions, the private sector is much more efficient than government social programs.

Red_Dave said:
Im all for an uber tax on the very richest because these people waste an obscene amount of money, alot of which has been made my kicking a ball around or makeing **** records. To me it seams much more sensible to redirect resources that would be wasted on private jets and big houses into healthcare, education, science and maybe some overseas aid. Alot of the rich get rich through the labour of underpaid workers so it only seams fair that some of the money goes to makeing there lives easyer.

Your desire for a progressive tax is based primarily on a resentment of success.

First of all, the very rich "waste" a lot less money (proportionally) than the middle-class or poor. That's one of the main REASONS they're rich and others aren't: because they know how to save and invest money wisely instead of blowing it on "private jets and big houses." If that is your conception of the wealthy, let me tell you that you are very mistaken. People who do those things are often millions of dollars in debt. Not every rich person is a sports hero or a pop singer or a movie star, you know.

Second of all, the rich do not get that way through the "labor of underpaid workers." If someone is willing to work for a certain wage, that's what it's worth. You are not one to judge whether they're being "underpaid."
 
The funny thing is that i think under the modified type of flat tax we have discussed the rich would pay more in real dollars. No tax shelters to use to avoid it.

You know when a rich person wastes money on those jets, yachts, and the like he is causing people to be employed making those jets and yachts and what have you. Also the restaurants across form the plants where the workers spend their wages eating. And then at the shoe store where the cook from that restaurant spends his wages on new shoes to wear to work.

You do not make the slow any faster, by breaking the legs of the swift.
 
Back
Top Bottom