• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

What types of taxes do you support?

I support the following types of taxes

  • Income Tax

    Votes: 9 25.0%
  • Property Tax

    Votes: 3 8.3%
  • Sales Tax

    Votes: 10 27.8%
  • Estate/Inheritance Tax

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Tariffs

    Votes: 1 2.8%
  • Capital Gains/Dividend Tax

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 9 25.0%
  • I support no form of taxation

    Votes: 4 11.1%

  • Total voters
    36
I support sales taxes.Everyone has to buy something, there is no way around it and everyone pays the same percentage. I support tariffs as a means to discourage outsourcing . I don't support income taxes due to the fact we are gouged in other taxes nor is it a fair or equal tax. I don't support property, taxes because you should only be taxed on something once. Estate/Inheritance Tax I don't support because taxes were already paid on that.Capital gains tax from what I can tell looks like a sales tax, so I can support that. A dividend tax is basically a income tax which I don't support for the same reason I don't support regular income taxes.

That does not mean that they have to buy it locally or new. Areas with mostly residential, industrial or agricultural property would not fair well if they had to rely on a local sales tax.
 
Last edited:
I prefer property taxes. The reason I prefer property taxes is because it is a voluntary tax, and it reduces property prices. If you don't want to pay so much in property tax, then just sell your home. The people who still choose to pay property tax, are people who has a decent amount of money.

Err...owning a home is one of the few solid investments for the lower income. It's a huge step on the road to having some semblance of retirement. Property tax may be one of the worst taxes out there. Grandma can have her house paid off and now she can live on very little income.
 
That does not mean that they have to buy it locally or new. Areas with mostly residential, industrial or agricultural property would not fair well if they had to rely on a local sales tax.

Sales taxes work great on a country/state/provincial wide scale, not so much on a small municipal scale unless you are NYC or LA.
 
Last edited:
The only tax I would support is a flat tax for gubmint infrastructure/police/military/courts/prisons, thats it.
 
Err...owning a home is one of the few solid investments for the lower income. It's a huge step on the road to having some semblance of retirement. Property tax may be one of the worst taxes out there. Grandma can have her house paid off and now she can live on very little income.

Yes but she also uses and benefits from municipal services, which is what that goes towards (usually).
 
Sales atxes work great on a country/state/provincial wide scale, not so much on a small municipal scale unless you are NYC or LA.

This is very true. It often leads to attempts at pay-as-you-use services for police, fire departments, EMT, etc. Of course as many small municipalities find out, while a resident may not need the services very often, when they do the cost can be so exorbitant that they could end up losing their property over the service costs.

Perhaps it's better to pay property taxes and accept limitations on services, or as I think some small communities have done, pool their tax base for services shared by several communities.
 
This is very true. It often leads to attempts at pay-as-you-use services for police, fire departments, EMT, etc. Of course as many small municipalities find out, while a resident may not need the services very often, when they do the cost can be so exorbitant that they could end up losing their property over the service costs.

Perhaps it's better to pay property taxes, and/or as I think some small communities have done, pool their tax base for services shared by several communities.

That is hometown did, otherwise there would be even less services than there are now. It doe snoty make sense for s small town <1000 people to have their own fire department or waste collection.
 
Sales atxes work great on a country/state/provincial wide scale, not so much on a small municipal scale unless you are NYC or LA.

They also tax visitors which makes them ideal for getting revenue from non-residents (like snowbirds) and those (like me) who earn "off the books" income. Texas uses property, sales and excise taxes yet has no state/local income taxation. So long as basic grocery items are exempt then a sales tax is not too regressive.
 
They also tax visitors which makes them ideal for getting revenue from non-residents (like snowbirds) and those (like me) who earn "off the books" income. Texas uses property, sales and excise taxes yet has no state/local income taxation. So long as basic grocery items are exempt then a sales tax is not too regressive.

I thought you were from Texas. Is it that you move from community to community depending on the job? Or do you commute between areas based on steady but seasonal work?

If so, aside from sales taxes how do they get you?
 
Sales and consumption taxes are pretty regressive in nature (e.g. gas tax hits the poor way harder than the rich). Property taxes also undermines the ability for poor or lower income to eventually retire. If they can stick with a 30 year loan they will eventually own their place and have a good shot at being self-sufficient.

Income taxes, as they currently stand, don't make any sense and is a hodge-podge of both progressive and regressive taxation.

I support the only true fair tax model, a flat % tax on income on everyone, no tax refunds and no write-offs. Other models are simply people trying to justify their own personal ideology of why X group should get taxed more than Y group and why Z group should be different as well.
 
They also tax visitors which makes them ideal for getting revenue from non-residents (like snowbirds) and those (like me) who earn "off the books" income. Texas uses property, sales and excise taxes yet has no state/local income taxation. So long as basic grocery items are exempt then a sales tax is not too regressive.

In Canada we have everything but property taxes are pretty much non-existent when compared to American rates.
 
Yes but she also uses and benefits from municipal services, which is what that goes towards (usually).

Everyone uses the benefits from municipal services, whether you own a home or rent.
 
Sales and consumption taxes are pretty regressive in nature (e.g. gas tax hits the poor way harder than the rich). Property taxes also undermines the ability for poor or lower income to eventually retire. If they can stick with a 30 year loan they will eventually own their place and have a good shot at being self-sufficient.

Income taxes, as they currently stand, don't make any sense and is a hodge-podge of both progressive and regressive taxation.

I support the only true fair tax model, a flat % tax on income on everyone, no tax refunds and no write-offs. Other models are simply people trying to justify their own personal ideology of why X group should get taxed more than Y group and why Z group should be different as well.

This I agree with. Although I would add corporate taxes on a similar basis. After all, if a corporation can get certain business advantages from being an artificial individual, then there should be no problem taxing it as an individual.

The problem remains with government spending over the available income stream. I know they hate to hear it but a balanced budget requirement would go a long way towards settling that issue.
 
Last edited:
Sales and consumption taxes are pretty regressive in nature (e.g. gas tax hits the poor way harder than the rich). Property taxes also undermines the ability for poor or lower income to eventually retire. If they can stick with a 30 year loan they will eventually own their place and have a good shot at being self-sufficient.

Income taxes, as they currently stand, don't make any sense and is a hodge-podge of both progressive and regressive taxation.

I support the only true fair tax model, a flat % tax on income on everyone, no tax refunds and no write-offs. Other models are simply people trying to justify their own personal ideology of why X group should get taxed more than Y group and why Z group should be different as well.

A flat tax is regressive, it still hits poor people a lot harder than well off individuals, losing 10% of your income when you are only making 20,000$/year is a huge hit to your income, when you are making 100,000$, not so much. The reason income taxes are progressive is that wealthier people have more of an ability to pay.
 
This I agree with. Although I would add corporate taxes on a similar basis. After all, if a corporation can get certain business advantages from being an artificial individual, then there should be no problem taxing it as an individual.

Yes, I definitely include businesses in that as well. Too much corruption exists to be giving pet businesses favoritism.
 
Everyone uses the benefits from municipal services, whether you own a home or rent.

I do not see how that changes anything a renter's property tax is part of their rent. Municipal services need to be funded somehow.
 
A flat tax is regressive, it still hits poor people a lot harder than well off individuals, losing 10% of your income when you are only making 20,000$/year is a huge hit to your income, when you are making 100,000$, not so much. The reason income taxes are progressive is that wealthier people have more of an ability to pay.


No, a flat tax is not regressive. It is neither progressive or regressive. By definition, it is neither.
 
A flat tax is regressive, it still hits poor people a lot harder than well off individuals, losing 10% of your income when you are only making 20,000$/year is a huge hit to your income, when you are making 100,000$, not so much. The reason income taxes are progressive is that wealthier people have more of an ability to pay.

Yes but then what is a fair and equitable cut-off? Currently anyone above that cut-off making a few dollars more than his neighbor below finds himself with 10% (or whatever) less. Kind of stifles any desire to actually try to earn higher wages unless the jump is high enough to balance 10% (or whatever) loss due to taxation.
 
I do not see how that changes anything a renter's property tax is part of their rent. Municipal services need to be funded somehow.

And a property tax is not a good way to do it. It undermines the ability of people to retire and I also see it as a violation of private property rights. The essence of property tax is saying that you don't own your property, the government does.
 
But people who don't own homes still use government services, and should pay their fair share. You may not own a home but you may drive a car on highways, may need help from police, firemen, or other social services provided by your government.

Why should only property owners foot the entire bill?

People who rent pay property taxes. When we owned a rental house, the property taxes were built into the rent. If the rent didn't cover taxes, mortgage and insurance it wouldn't have made sense as an investment- our profit came from the increase in property value.
 
And a property tax is not a good way to do it. It undermines the ability of people to retire and I also see it as a violation of private property rights. The essence of property tax is saying that you don't own your property, the government does.

Well that's hard to argue in our system since property taxes have been used at State and local level since the founding of the nation:

Property taxes in the United States originated during colonial times. By 1796, state and local governments in fourteen of the fifteen states taxed land, but only four taxed inventory (stock in trade). Delaware did not tax property, but rather the income from it. In some states, "all property, with a few exceptions, was taxed; in others, specific objects were named. Land was taxed in one state according to quantity, in another according to quality, and in a third not at all. Responsibility for the assessment and collection of taxes in some cases attached to the state itself; in others, to the counties or townships." Vermont and North Carolina taxed land based on quantity, while New York and Rhode Island taxed land based on value. Connecticut taxed land based on type of use. Procedures varied widely.

During the period from 1796 until the Civil War, a unifying principle developed: "the taxation of all property, movable and immovable, visible and invisible, or real and personal, as we say in America, at one uniform rate." During this period, property taxes came to be assessed based on value. This was introduced as a requirement in many state constitutions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_tax_in_the_United_States

Recall this was well before income tax was established as an alternate stream of government revenue.
 
Yes but then what is a fair and equitable cut-off? Currently anyone above that cut-off making a few dollars more than his neighbor below finds himself with 10% (or whatever) less. Kind of stifles any desire to actually try to earn higher wages unless the jump is high enough to balance 10% (or whatever) loss due to taxation.

That is exactly what a progressive income tax, like most countries including the US have now addresses. You only pay x% on a certain portion of your income and everyone pays the same % on that portion.
 
I thought you were from Texas. Is it that you move from community to community depending on the job? Or do you commute between areas based on steady but seasonal work?

If so, aside from sales taxes how do they get you?

I rent which, according to you, means that I pay no property taxes (directly), I pay excise taxes on various items and pay sales taxes as well. Most of my work income is paid in cash and not reported on a 1099.
 
Well, this will be a worthless discussion then. Most people aren't against various types of taxes, just the confiscatory amounts levied. :shrug:

On the contrary. There are a number of people already who have stated they are against a particular type of taxation altogether, regardless of the amount of the tax.

Just ask Turtledude about estate taxes sometime.
 
Back
Top Bottom