• 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 am not making the "employer argument" as a valid position. I am making it to show the INvalidity of YOUR argument.

Your logic is faulty.

Property owners pay property taxes. They charge rent to cover the expenses of the rental property and to make a profit. Each rented unit provides a portion of the overall costs. If a property owner rents all the units he covers all his costs and makes a profit. The fewer units rented the less income to cover the costs but the property owner remains responsible for the whole balance. If no one rents he still pays, if some rents he cocer all the difference out of his pocket, if all rents he can make a profit after covering all expenses from the rents.

You, the renter, are paying RENT. What the landlord does with the rent is HIS business, not yours.

No rent money........ no funds to pay the taxes.
 
So can I, but you are boring the feck outta me.

Only because your eyes are closed by false belief. But hey, feel free to believe anything you wish, however illogical and invalid it has been shown to be. It's a relatively free country still.
 
Ideally, the most fair tax system is one where everyone pays the same flat amount, for the same benefit. For example, the way a membership works.

That would be pretty difficult to do with something like taxes. Because a lot of the benefits government provides are intangible.

For example, one of the functions of government that almost everyone agrees on is to provide a military to defend its citizens against invasion.

Now how exactly do you determine 'the same benefit' where that is concerned? Is a rich man benefiting more from the military than a poor man because he has more to lose if the country was invaded and his possessions seized? Or is the poor man benefiting more, because the rich man could hire private guards to defend his property, but the poor man couldn't and has to rely solely on the military?
 
A lot of people seem to be very against certain types of taxes. There's always lots of complaining about income taxes, and there's another recent poll about abolishing property taxes. I think almost everyone would agree that some type of taxation is necessary to fund government services though.

So what types of taxes do you support?

I do not intend this thread to be a debate about how high the tax rate should be, simply what sort of taxation should be used.

Property and estate taxes are sinister, perverse machinations of crypto-socialists.

Sales taxes and tariffs are perfectly legitimate.

There's no good reason for the stock market to exist, but jnsifar as it does exist, it should be taxed.

Income taxes are legitimate.
 
That would be pretty difficult to do with something like taxes. Because a lot of the benefits government provides are intangible.

For example, one of the functions of government that almost everyone agrees on is to provide a military to defend its citizens against invasion.

Now how exactly do you determine 'the same benefit' where that is concerned? Is a rich man benefiting more from the military than a poor man because he has more to lose if the country was invaded and his possessions seized? Or is the poor man benefiting more, because the rich man could hire private guards to defend his property, but the poor man couldn't and has to rely solely on the military?

Isnt a poor mans limited property worth more to them than a rich persons vast property? What about their freedom, or their life, or their families lives?

Take the subjectivity out of it. Everyone benefits equally from the fundamental functions of govt, protection from invasion and administration of justice. Thus everyone should pay the same for it. Take a park for example. Both the rich person and the poor person pay the same entrance fee. Same for highways, though the rich person may drive a Bently on it, and the poor person a Hyundai.

What you do with your freedom is up to you. The way the govt treats us should be equal, and thus fair.
 
Isnt a poor mans limited property worth more to them than a rich persons vast property? What about their freedom, or their life, or their families lives?

Take the subjectivity out of it. Everyone benefits equally from the fundamental functions of govt, protection from invasion and administration of justice. Thus everyone should pay the same for it. Take a park for example. Both the rich person and the poor person pay the same entrance fee. Same for highways, though the rich person may drive a Bently on it, and the poor person a Hyundai.

What you do with your freedom is up to you. The way the govt treats us should be equal, and thus fair.

I'm sorry but that's objectively wrong. Exxon and other multinationals (and therefore their shareholders) with billions in assets overseas and shipping products from all over the globe objectively benefit FAR more from the military which protects the sea lanes and their foreign based assets than does some rural farmer in E. Tennessee growing tomatoes. Same with lenders who turn to the courts daily to enforce their debts, versus a Walmart worker. Even the parks are a bad example. I live an hour or so from Pigeon Forge. At one time it had the largest percentage of millionaires in the country (or so I read) because a few hillbillies living near the Great Smoky Mountains National Park saw their otherwise nearly worthless mountain property shoot up by 100x or more in value because of businesses buying it up to build shopping, hotels, etc. near the park that has about 7 million visitors per year. Those families get thousands of times the benefit from the GSMNP than someone just 100 miles away on similar property. There are others who lead photo classes in the park, hiking tours, birding tours, etc. and their livelihood depends on a taxpayer funded workplace for which they pay nothing. It's impossible to evaluate government services objectively and conclude we get anything like 'equal' benefits from the basic functions.

And there is no way to pay the bills if we're all treated "equal" and are taxed on a per person basis, and fair is in the eye of the beholder. So whether it's 'fair' or not, the rich will pay more than the poor because it's necessary to pay the bills.
 
I support a tax that requires everyone to pay the same rate. Why-so politicians cannot buy the votes of the many by merely promising them that the politicians will give them more and more and only a minority will face higher taxes to pay for the pandering

It is awful that the minority enjoying nearly all the wealth and income gains over the past few decades pay more in taxes than a poor janitor. We should make the janitor even poorer by taking more of his meager wages so the already rich get richer! That's what this country needs! Vote Republican! :roll:
 
No. They pay rent. The owner pays the property taxes out of the rent.

To be honest I don't see why this is so hard for some people to see.

If you don't own the property, then you are not personally responsible for the property taxes. The property owner is.

Even if your particular contract says you are paying a variable amount for property taxes adjusted periodically, it is simply an explanation for one of the various reasons a property owner uses to increase rents from time to time.

The law considers this a part of your rent, and the renter is not allowed to use this as a deduction on taxes; the property owner does.

The bottom line is the legal incidence really has nothing to do with the economic incidence - who suffers a decline in wealth from the tax. And there is a lot of debate about the economic incidence. The short answer to the question 'who ultimately bears the burden of the tax?' is 'it depends' same as with all other taxes, including income taxes.

Typical article about tax incidence here: Who Pays the Property Tax?
 
Property and estate taxes are sinister, perverse machinations of crypto-socialists.

Sales taxes and tariffs are perfectly legitimate.

There's no good reason for the stock market to exist, but jnsifar as it does exist, it should be taxed.

Income taxes are legitimate.

Our nation's founders disagreed.
 
Our nation's founders disagreed.

They also owned slaves, so I wouldn't exactly look towards their views on property for anything useful.
 
It is awful that the minority enjoying nearly all the wealth and income gains over the past few decades pay more in taxes than a poor janitor. We should make the janitor even poorer by taking more of his meager wages so the already rich get richer! That's what this country needs! Vote Republican! :roll:

I know, it's horrible treating people equally under the law.

:lamo
 
I know, it's horrible treating people equally under the law.

:lamo

What does that even mean for tax purposes, treating people equally under the law? Should taxes be "equal" as a share of income? What is "income"? As a share of gross receipts? In total, so a head tax? As a share of wealth? Spending? Consumption? Consumption of tangible goods? All consumption? Could be any of those! And if we're all going to be treated equal under the law, then don't we have to make all state taxes 'equal' so our total tax burden is equal under the law?

Etc. In this context equal under the law is a red herring. We design tax systems to pay the bills, period, and to do that the rich will pay more than the poor because of MATH. And I really don't get moved by the whinging of the wealthy that their tax burden is too high, given the fact that the rich have enjoyed nearly all the income and wealth gains for decades now. Boo f'ing hoo... The bottom line is what matters is after tax income, which is affected by income and taxes, obviously, and the system should take both into account if we're going to talk about fairness or equity or whatever.
 
What does that even mean for tax purposes, treating people equally under the law? Should taxes be "equal" as a share of income? What is "income"? As a share of gross receipts? In total, so a head tax? As a share of wealth? Spending? Consumption? Consumption of tangible goods? All consumption? Could be any of those! And if we're all going to be treated equal under the law, then don't we have to make all state taxes 'equal' so our total tax burden is equal under the law?

Etc. In this context equal under the law is a red herring. We design tax systems to pay the bills, period, and to do that the rich will pay more than the poor because of MATH. And I really don't get moved by the whinging of the wealthy that their tax burden is too high, given the fact that the rich have enjoyed nearly all the income and wealth gains for decades now. Boo f'ing hoo... The bottom line is what matters is after tax income, which is affected by income and taxes, obviously, and the system should take both into account if we're going to talk about fairness or equity or whatever.

If one person pays 25% of their income in taxes and another person gets more money back than they ever paid in, is that system fair?
 
If one person pays 25% of their income in taxes and another person gets more money back than they ever paid in, is that system fair?

Is it "fair" that because of offshoring millions of jobs and automation and an explosion in world population and the ability of companies to pit U.S. workers against people making pennies per hour in third world hellholes that we have a domestic labor surplus and a person working full time in millions of jobs cannot afford healthcare, food, lodging, education for their kids, and to fund a decent retirement? No, that's not "fair" either. So what?

And equal treatment would take into account other taxes, not just "income" taxes. Maybe a "fair" tax is one based on wealth, so that person paying no income tax and a negative net worth should get a tax refund. Why is that not "fair" or, alternatively, how did you decide a "fair" tax is one based on the current definitions of "income" in the Code?

And, again, fair has little to do with tax systems, which are designed for the purpose of paying bills, and until someone figures out that blood from turnips thing, the rich will pay more. It appears to be working OK for them, since the rich have never in human history captured larger shares of income, controlled so much wealth and such a high share of global wealth, even after their terribly 'unfair' tax burden... Boo hooo life is unfair for the plutocrats. I'm crying......
 
Is it "fair" that because of offshoring millions of jobs and automation and an explosion in world population and the ability of companies to pit U.S. workers against people making pennies per hour in third world hellholes that we have a domestic labor surplus and a person working full time in millions of jobs cannot afford healthcare, food, lodging, education for their kids, and to fund a decent retirement? No, that's not "fair" either. So what?

Exactly, so what? What does any of that have to do with how taxes should be dealt with?

And equal treatment would take into account other taxes, not just "income" taxes. Maybe a "fair" tax is one based on wealth, so that person paying no income tax and a negative net worth should get a tax refund. Why is that not "fair" or, alternatively, how did you decide a "fair" tax is one based on the current definitions of "income" in the Code?

Why in the **** would you base an income tax on wealth and not, you know, INCOME? Btw, you don't want to take into account other taxes here since the rich would once be paying more.

And, again, fair has little to do with tax systems, which are designed for the purpose of paying bills, and until someone figures out that blood from turnips thing, the rich will pay more. It appears to be working OK for them, since the rich have never in human history captured larger shares of income, controlled so much wealth and such a high share of global wealth, even after their terribly 'unfair' tax burden... Boo hooo life is unfair for the plutocrats. I'm crying......

The fourteen amendment seems to demand equal treatment under the law and I fail to see how different rates for people is equal treatment. :shrug:
 
Our nation's founders disagreed.

And . . .

I might add that objecting to sales taxes but not income taxes is silly. Income taxes are ultimately just taxes on exonomic transactions.

Keep in mind, we're discussing inherent legitimacy, not prudence.
 
Exactly, so what? What does any of that have to do with how taxes should be dealt with?

So, you want the system to be "fair" with regard to taxes, but don't care if it's "fair" with regard to income or wages or wealth? Why do we only care about some part of the system and should ignore the rest? Because that's what benefits the rich, by ignoring "unfairness" with income and demanding perfect "fairness" with taxes? That's my guess....

Why in the **** would you base an income tax on wealth and not, you know, INCOME? Btw, you don't want to take into account other taxes here since the rich would once be paying more.

What I'm asking is why is share of 'income' the way to evaluate the fairness of any tax. Maybe taxes should be based on wealth?

The fourteen amendment seems to demand equal treatment under the law and I fail to see how different rates for people is equal treatment. :shrug:

All making the same 'income' pay the same tax rate!
 
Isnt a poor mans limited property worth more to them than a rich persons vast property? What about their freedom, or their life, or their families lives?

Take the subjectivity out of it. Everyone benefits equally from the fundamental functions of govt, protection from invasion and administration of justice. Thus everyone should pay the same for it. Take a park for example. Both the rich person and the poor person pay the same entrance fee. Same for highways, though the rich person may drive a Bently on it, and the poor person a Hyundai.

What you do with your freedom is up to you. The way the govt treats us should be equal, and thus fair.

So what about people who can't afford to pay the flat fee? Even if you cut government services/expenditures back significantly, there are going to be people who can't afford the flat fee, or at least it will eat up an unreasonable portion of their income. What is the plan to get the fee from those people?
 
I chose sales tax. I made my decision before reading the responses. Now I'd probably select other. I never thought of the implications for less commercial areas. My biggest concern when it came to instituting only a sales tax was hoarders. I thought it would be unfair to not tax people who weren't stimulating the economy.

I think the flaws in our taxation method here in America is we run our taxation process like its a business. Worse yet, it's a clunky obsolete business. It appears our government wanted to funnel money in, in as many ways as possible, rather than finding a way to funnel money in really well in one way.
To elaborate a little bit. Our government has numerous methods of income. Taxes, licensed privileges, judicial seizures, fund raising, among other means. Rather than our government finding a way to collect the necessary funds to sustain itself, and the best way to collect those funds, it operates in the same manner it has for generations which has become dysfunctional. I think our government should limit "who" pays the taxes, as I've seen other people suggest. The less people submitting tax forms, the easier it is for our government to hold someone accountable.
Let me put something into perspective. The IRS initiated 3,800 investigations for the tax year of 2015. There are 160+ million people in America who are supposed to be filing taxes, and another 27+ million businesses in America that are supposed to be filing taxes. That calculates to 187 million+ taxes filed and only 0.003% suspicion of fraud. I personally don't think their is a lack of suspicion in fraud, only a lack in man power to find wrong doers, and the right process for our government to obtain the easiest and most fair streams of taxes.

I kind of agree with the idea of property owners and businesses footing the bill. Everyone knows the costs of the owner gets passed to the consumer, thus the consumer would still be paying taxes but the business and property owners would be the only ones submitting paper work.
 
I'm sorry but that's objectively wrong. Exxon and other multinationals (and therefore their shareholders) with billions in assets overseas and shipping products from all over the globe objectively benefit FAR more from the military which protects the sea lanes and their foreign based assets than does some rural farmer in E. Tennessee growing tomatoes. Same with lenders who turn to the courts daily to enforce their debts, versus a Walmart worker. Even the parks are a bad example. I live an hour or so from Pigeon Forge. At one time it had the largest percentage of millionaires in the country (or so I read) because a few hillbillies living near the Great Smoky Mountains National Park saw their otherwise nearly worthless mountain property shoot up by 100x or more in value because of businesses buying it up to build shopping, hotels, etc. near the park that has about 7 million visitors per year. Those families get thousands of times the benefit from the GSMNP than someone just 100 miles away on similar property. There are others who lead photo classes in the park, hiking tours, birding tours, etc. and their livelihood depends on a taxpayer funded workplace for which they pay nothing. It's impossible to evaluate government services objectively and conclude we get anything like 'equal' benefits from the basic functions.

And there is no way to pay the bills if we're all treated "equal" and are taxed on a per person basis, and fair is in the eye of the beholder. So whether it's 'fair' or not, the rich will pay more than the poor because it's necessary to pay the bills.

Corporations arent citizens, and my tax preference is to only tax citizens. Fair isnt in the eye of the beholder. It is defined as "treating people in a way that does not favor some over others" ie. equal. The price of a hamburger is FAIR to everyone, in that everyone pays the same price. So it should be with govt.
 
So what about people who can't afford to pay the flat fee? Even if you cut government services/expenditures back significantly, there are going to be people who can't afford the flat fee, or at least it will eat up an unreasonable portion of their income. What is the plan to get the fee from those people?

Thats a good question, and Im not sure there is a answer. Some possibilities would be

-society would have to accept a certain number of people unable to pay, or kick them out
-a percentage fee for people under a certain income
-a work program where you can pay your way by serving society instead of paying cash, like military service

And before we say this benefits the rich, keep in mind that 99% of votes are made by the not-rich. The majority of citizens who are not rich would have to agree to whatever scheme we came up with BEFORE forming a state.
 
Corporations arent citizens, and my tax preference is to only tax citizens. Fair isnt in the eye of the beholder. It is defined as "treating people in a way that does not favor some over others" ie. equal. The price of a hamburger is FAIR to everyone, in that everyone pays the same price. So it should be with govt.

Their shareholders (many of them) ARE citizens and I explicitly mentioned them as receiving the benefit.

And math says you can't fund government and have everyone pay the same price, so even if "fair" was the goal and we agree that "fair" = equal, a "Fair" tax system is impossible. So taxes will be "unfair" like the rest of life.....
 
Back
Top Bottom