Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Progressive Tax vs Flat Tax

Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 7:13:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Anyone want to have a debate on this. On the forums I mean. I'll let someone make an argument on flat taxes, and I'll respond.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
CJKAllstar
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 7:29:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
A low flat tax is equally progressive. The rich still pay more, and the poor less, and it also allows a negative income tax system to work for those who can not manage the flat tax, and doesn't send the message that those who are richer and work harder should get more of their money taken away.
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 8:08:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 7:29:35 AM, CJKAllstar wrote:
A low flat tax is equally progressive. The rich still pay more, and the poor less, and it also allows a negative income tax system to work for those who can not manage the flat tax, and doesn't send the message that those who are richer and work harder should get more of their money taken away.

Low flat taxes are a minimal for what needs to happen. And to call them progressive is misguided. The law has very little progression.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 8:36:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 7:29:35 AM, CJKAllstar wrote:
A low flat tax is equally progressive. The rich still pay more, and the poor less, and it also allows a negative income tax system to work for those who can not manage the flat tax, and doesn't send the message that those who are richer and work harder should get more of their money taken away.

The last sentence is the problem with the right-wing. You presume that people who are affluent, by definition, work harder than people who work 70+ hours a week slaving away at a minimum wage job under crappy working conditions. Even Greg Mankiw doesn't agree with you -- he made the case that IQ and hereditary factors play a large role in wage determination.

But, anyway, you're also wrong that the typical flat tax allows for a negative rate. A typical flat tax, like the one Art Laffer has called for, does away with deductions and exemptions and taxes all income at a single flat rate -- Newt Gingrich's plan had loopholes, but in principle a flat tax does away with them. Therefore, a poor family not currently filing an income tax return would pay, let's say, 15%. That's a giant tax increase, wouldn't you agree?
SeekingWisdom
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 8:18:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I used to believe that a flat tax made sense. But let me pose a question about this point: does anyone reject the idea that the uber-wealthy and corporations (especially the multi-nationals) use far more of 'the commons'? That is, "bank loans, courts to guarantee contracts, the SEC to regulate the Stock Market, the Internet, cell phones, roads to transport goods, airplanes for travel, universities for research and trained employees" [and the U.S. Military to protect shipping lanes]?

Do you disagree that "The idea of pooling the commonwealth for the common good so that individuals can have the resources to be free to pursue their individual goals is an idea as old in America as the colonies... the idea that the central role of government is to use the commonwealth for the common good to make individual freedom possible"?

Unless you reject both, wouldn't you agree that the wealthy should pay more taxes than medium and small business, and individuals? [Both quoted segments are from "Whose Freedom" by George Lakoff]
AnonCastillo
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 8:49:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 8:36:38 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
The last sentence is the problem with the right-wing. You presume that people who are affluent, by definition, work harder than people who work 70+ hours a week slaving away at a minimum wage job under crappy working conditions. Even Greg Mankiw doesn't agree with you -- he made the case that IQ and hereditary factors play a large role in wage determination.

What matters isn't how hard you're working. What matters is how much you're contributing to the wellbeing of other people in society.

If you're Microsoft and you made an operating system that was more customizable than Apple's and better standardized than Unix/Linux, which met the needs of both users and software developers better than the competition and allowed for more rapid advancement of computer technology, which improved the efficiency of production in a lot of industries and improved the quality of life of billions of people, can society afford to let you have a lot of money? Billions of dollars, even? Hell yes.

If you're JP Morgan and you gave bad loans to home buyers which you expected most of them to default on knowing that you had enough clout with the government to bail you out after foreclosing on most of the homes, allowing you to keep the property while still making billions, and then manipulated the Federal Reserve out of billions of dollars more during the bailout and recovery, can society afford to let you have billions of dollars? Well not really, because you made a lot of those billions without actually providing anything of value to society.

The key to making capitalism work is making sure people can only make money by providing things of value to other people in society. From an evolutionary standpoint, you want a society where people who do things that help others survive are rewarded with things that help them survive. According to evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, the point of money is to be a symbol of reciprocal altruism - you do something that helps someone, they give you money as a symbol that you deserve to be helped as well. So the idea that we should tax all high earners more is absurd - a lot of high earners contribute more to the wellbeing of society than the average person working 70 hours a week at minimum wage. But that doesn't mean there aren't people who've profited greatly off of our system without doing much to help it. Bailing out "too big to fail" companies is a terrible policy that encourages businesses to abuse the system. We could afford lower and flatter tax rates if government wasn't doing so much to help rich people stay rich even when they're not doing anything to help society.
HenryR
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 1:03:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 8:18:06 PM, SeekingWisdom wrote:
I used to believe that a flat tax made sense. But let me pose a question about this point: does anyone reject the idea that the uber-wealthy and corporations (especially the multi-nationals) use far more of 'the commons'? That is, "bank loans, courts to guarantee contracts, the SEC to regulate the Stock Market, the Internet, cell phones, roads to transport goods, airplanes for travel, universities for research and trained employees" [and the U.S. Military to protect shipping lanes]?

Do you disagree that "The idea of pooling the commonwealth for the common good so that individuals can have the resources to be free to pursue their individual goals is an idea as old in America as the colonies... the idea that the central role of government is to use the commonwealth for the common good to make individual freedom possible"?

Unless you reject both, wouldn't you agree that the wealthy should pay more taxes than medium and small business, and individuals? [Both quoted segments are from "Whose Freedom" by George Lakoff]

I agree that the institution of the state allows for/enhances the economy by providing personal and proprietary security and public goods. Therefore, I think that a proportional tax is more fair than a lump-sum tax, as people with more property benefit more from society and thus should pay more to support it. However, I don't think it follows that the wealthy should pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes. A middle or working class person also benefits from the institutions of protection of property and public goods, and should thus pay the same proportion (although a lower amount) than a wealthy person does.
Subutai
Posts: 3,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 4:19:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 7:13:58 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Anyone want to have a debate on this. On the forums I mean. I'll let someone make an argument on flat taxes, and I'll respond.

How about for eliminating the income tax altogether?
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 5:02:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 4:19:08 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 4/12/2014 7:13:58 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Anyone want to have a debate on this. On the forums I mean. I'll let someone make an argument on flat taxes, and I'll respond.

How about for eliminating the income tax altogether?

Then are economy would collapse. I'm sorry, but that's just the reality of it. I cant stress enough that whats fair is not always realistic.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Subutai
Posts: 3,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 5:11:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 5:02:36 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 4:19:08 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 4/12/2014 7:13:58 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Anyone want to have a debate on this. On the forums I mean. I'll let someone make an argument on flat taxes, and I'll respond.

How about for eliminating the income tax altogether?

Then are economy would collapse. I'm sorry, but that's just the reality of it. I cant stress enough that whats fair is not always realistic.

That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. How would the economy collapse if the income tax were eliminated? America was doing pretty well before the 16th amendment.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 5:31:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 5:11:00 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 4/15/2014 5:02:36 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 4:19:08 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 4/12/2014 7:13:58 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Anyone want to have a debate on this. On the forums I mean. I'll let someone make an argument on flat taxes, and I'll respond.

How about for eliminating the income tax altogether?

Then are economy would collapse. I'm sorry, but that's just the reality of it. I cant stress enough that whats fair is not always realistic.

That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. How would the economy collapse if the income tax were eliminated? America was doing pretty well before the 16th amendment.

Actually, America was not any bit close to being a superpower at the time. We collect over a trillion on income taxes, which is essential for running 1/3rd of our government programs and keeping the ones that would remain efficient.

You would see are education decrease. are military decrease, and pretty much everything that makes us strong. The very fact that you would propose this is idiocy.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 7:10:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 5:11:00 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 4/15/2014 5:02:36 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 4:19:08 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 4/12/2014 7:13:58 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Anyone want to have a debate on this. On the forums I mean. I'll let someone make an argument on flat taxes, and I'll respond.

How about for eliminating the income tax altogether?

Then are economy would collapse. I'm sorry, but that's just the reality of it. I cant stress enough that whats fair is not always realistic.

That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. How would the economy collapse if the income tax were eliminated? America was doing pretty well before the 16th amendment.

Uhh, let's see....the 16th Amendment was passed in 1914, and prior to that, not only were there five major financial panics in the 1800s, but literally social darwinism -- it's what many of us consider the dark ages. No Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. How exactly was the US "doing pretty well?"

Oddly enough, the best time in US history was from 1945 to 1980 with tax rates as high as 91%.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 7:11:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 8:49:06 PM, AnonCastillo wrote:
At 4/12/2014 8:36:38 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
The last sentence is the problem with the right-wing. You presume that people who are affluent, by definition, work harder than people who work 70+ hours a week slaving away at a minimum wage job under crappy working conditions. Even Greg Mankiw doesn't agree with you -- he made the case that IQ and hereditary factors play a large role in wage determination.

What matters isn't how hard you're working. What matters is how much you're contributing to the wellbeing of other people in society.

If you're Microsoft and you made an operating system that was more customizable than Apple's and better standardized than Unix/Linux, which met the needs of both users and software developers better than the competition and allowed for more rapid advancement of computer technology, which improved the efficiency of production in a lot of industries and improved the quality of life of billions of people, can society afford to let you have a lot of money? Billions of dollars, even? Hell yes.

If you're JP Morgan and you gave bad loans to home buyers which you expected most of them to default on knowing that you had enough clout with the government to bail you out after foreclosing on most of the homes, allowing you to keep the property while still making billions, and then manipulated the Federal Reserve out of billions of dollars more during the bailout and recovery, can society afford to let you have billions of dollars? Well not really, because you made a lot of those billions without actually providing anything of value to society.

The key to making capitalism work is making sure people can only make money by providing things of value to other people in society. From an evolutionary standpoint, you want a society where people who do things that help others survive are rewarded with things that help them survive. According to evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, the point of money is to be a symbol of reciprocal altruism - you do something that helps someone, they give you money as a symbol that you deserve to be helped as well. So the idea that we should tax all high earners more is absurd - a lot of high earners contribute more to the wellbeing of society than the average person working 70 hours a week at minimum wage. But that doesn't mean there aren't people who've profited greatly off of our system without doing much to help it. Bailing out "too big to fail" companies is a terrible policy that encourages businesses to abuse the system. We could afford lower and flatter tax rates if government wasn't doing so much to help rich people stay rich even when they're not doing anything to help society.

So let me parse what you said there: productivity determines your worth and taxes should follow accordingly.

I hope you realize that you literally just argued for social darwinism. For goodness' sake, man, Greg Mankiw wrote a paper -- actually, strike that, TWO papers -- making about the same case, except even he wasn't as candid as you.
SeekingWisdom
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 12:09:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 4:19:08 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 4/12/2014 7:13:58 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Anyone want to have a debate on this. On the forums I mean. I'll let someone make an argument on flat taxes, and I'll respond.

How about for eliminating the income tax altogether?

Your question, and your quote by Voltaire, suggest that you do not beleive that govenrment offers any value at all. Our infrastructure is already crumbling and by some estimates, is now worse than some third-world countries. Would you have us spiral to the bottom of the third-world status? I am puzzled by your question. Please correct me if I misunderstand your postition.
AnonCastillo
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 12:13:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 7:11:43 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
So let me parse what you said there: productivity determines your worth and taxes should follow accordingly.

I hope you realize that you literally just argued for social darwinism. For goodness' sake, man, Greg Mankiw wrote a paper -- actually, strike that, TWO papers -- making about the same case, except even he wasn't as candid as you.

Well yes, we should take evolution into account when determining social and economic policy. It's kinda the study of what has and hasn't worked for the survival of everything that's lived on this planet for the last 4 billion years, in case you weren't aware. If humanity is to survive, we need a system that encourages the survival of people who help humanity survive. I guess if human survival isn't one of your goals I could see how you could ignore evolution, but if you like humanity and want that to be a thing that continues to exist, you might want to find evolution and accept it into your life.
SeekingWisdom
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 12:32:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 7:10:08 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 5:11:00 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 4/15/2014 5:02:36 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 4:19:08 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 4/12/2014 7:13:58 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Anyone want to have a debate on this. On the forums I mean. I'll let someone make an argument on flat taxes, and I'll respond.

How about for eliminating the income tax altogether?

Then are economy would collapse. I'm sorry, but that's just the reality of it. I cant stress enough that whats fair is not always realistic.

That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. How would the economy collapse if the income tax were eliminated? America was doing pretty well before the 16th amendment.

Uhh, let's see....the 16th Amendment was passed in 1914, and prior to that, not only were there five major financial panics in the 1800s, but literally social darwinism -- it's what many of us consider the dark ages. No Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. How exactly was the US "doing pretty well?"

Oddly enough, the best time in US history was from 1945 to 1980 with tax rates as high as 91%.

Exactly right. 1946 to the mid 1970's have been termed our "Golden Age." Even the Debt, as a % of GDP, declined to the lowest we have seen since the Great Depression:

http://nationalpriorities.org...
SeekingWisdom
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 12:37:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 1:03:23 AM, HenryR wrote:
At 4/14/2014 8:18:06 PM, SeekingWisdom wrote:
I used to believe that a flat tax made sense. But let me pose a question about this point: does anyone reject the idea that the uber-wealthy and corporations (especially the multi-nationals) use far more of 'the commons'? That is, "bank loans, courts to guarantee contracts, the SEC to regulate the Stock Market, the Internet, cell phones, roads to transport goods, airplanes for travel, universities for research and trained employees" [and the U.S. Military to protect shipping lanes]?

Do you disagree that "The idea of pooling the commonwealth for the common good so that individuals can have the resources to be free to pursue their individual goals is an idea as old in America as the colonies... the idea that the central role of government is to use the commonwealth for the common good to make individual freedom possible"?

Unless you reject both, wouldn't you agree that the wealthy should pay more taxes than medium and small business, and individuals? [Both quoted segments are from "Whose Freedom" by George Lakoff]

I agree that the institution of the state allows for/enhances the economy by providing personal and proprietary security and public goods. Therefore, I think that a proportional tax is more fair than a lump-sum tax, as people with more property benefit more from society and thus should pay more to support it. However, I don't think it follows that the wealthy should pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes. A middle or working class person also benefits from the institutions of protection of property and public goods, and should thus pay the same proportion (although a lower amount) than a wealthy person does.

HenryR: Good points. And if there were a way to insure that, with a flat tax, that everyone pay the same percentage for ALL of thier income, inlcuding that from investments, and eliminating all tax haven's, you would have me leaning back toward a flat tax.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 1:59:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 7:10:08 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 5:11:00 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 4/15/2014 5:02:36 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 4:19:08 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 4/12/2014 7:13:58 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Anyone want to have a debate on this. On the forums I mean. I'll let someone make an argument on flat taxes, and I'll respond.

How about for eliminating the income tax altogether?

Then are economy would collapse. I'm sorry, but that's just the reality of it. I cant stress enough that whats fair is not always realistic.

That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. How would the economy collapse if the income tax were eliminated? America was doing pretty well before the 16th amendment.

Uhh, let's see....the 16th Amendment was passed in 1914, and prior to that, not only were there five major financial panics in the 1800s, but literally social darwinism -- it's what many of us consider the dark ages. No Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. How exactly was the US "doing pretty well?"

Oddly enough, the best time in US history was from 1945 to 1980 with tax rates as high as 91%.

He's not going to respond to this. Absolutely ridiculous. There's a poll where 4 conservatives have said they want it abolished, and then with further questions, it became evident that they had no idea what they were talking about.

I want a civil war. The conservatives would run their government into ruins 4 weeks in.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Subutai
Posts: 3,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 9:38:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 5:31:16 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 5:11:00 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 4/15/2014 5:02:36 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 4:19:08 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 4/12/2014 7:13:58 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Anyone want to have a debate on this. On the forums I mean. I'll let someone make an argument on flat taxes, and I'll respond.

How about for eliminating the income tax altogether?

Then are economy would collapse. I'm sorry, but that's just the reality of it. I cant stress enough that whats fair is not always realistic.

That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. How would the economy collapse if the income tax were eliminated? America was doing pretty well before the 16th amendment.

Actually, America was not any bit close to being a superpower at the time. We collect over a trillion on income taxes, which is essential for running 1/3rd of our government programs and keeping the ones that would remain efficient.


There's three problems here - one, you're assuming that being a superpower is a measure of economic growth, even though, once a country becomes a superpower, their growth tends to slow in comparison to earlier years; two, you're assuming that only income taxes can provide the necessary funds, and are the most efficient way to garner such funds; and three, you're assuming government programs are efficient and overall good in the first place (see more below).
You would see are education decrease. are military decrease, and pretty much everything that makes us strong. The very fact that you would propose this is idiocy.

Why would education decrease with fewer taxes? Why would defense grow weaker with fewer taxes?
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Subutai
Posts: 3,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 9:45:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 7:10:08 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 5:11:00 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 4/15/2014 5:02:36 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 4:19:08 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 4/12/2014 7:13:58 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Anyone want to have a debate on this. On the forums I mean. I'll let someone make an argument on flat taxes, and I'll respond.

How about for eliminating the income tax altogether?

Then are economy would collapse. I'm sorry, but that's just the reality of it. I cant stress enough that whats fair is not always realistic.

That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. How would the economy collapse if the income tax were eliminated? America was doing pretty well before the 16th amendment.

Uhh, let's see....the 16th Amendment was passed in 1914, and prior to that, not only were there five major financial panics in the 1800s, but literally social darwinism -- it's what many of us consider the dark ages. No Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. How exactly was the US "doing pretty well?"

Oddly enough, the best time in US history was from 1945 to 1980 with tax rates as high as 91%.

I'd not say that. Here is a graph showing US GNP-per-capita income from 1869 to 1918:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Notice how it almost triples, which it only accomplishes again in today's time, in almost twice the amount of time. The 1800s are not as bad as most people imagine, especially when you compare it year-for-year with today.

The great critic of the income tax, Frank Chodorov wrote "Whichever way you turn this amendment, you come up with the fact that it gives the government a prior lien on all the property produced by its subjects."
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Subutai
Posts: 3,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 9:46:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 12:09:49 PM, SeekingWisdom wrote:
At 4/15/2014 4:19:08 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 4/12/2014 7:13:58 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Anyone want to have a debate on this. On the forums I mean. I'll let someone make an argument on flat taxes, and I'll respond.

How about for eliminating the income tax altogether?

Your question, and your quote by Voltaire, suggest that you do not beleive that govenrment offers any value at all. Our infrastructure is already crumbling and by some estimates, is now worse than some third-world countries. Would you have us spiral to the bottom of the third-world status? I am puzzled by your question. Please correct me if I misunderstand your postition.

Our infrastructure is crumbling because we live in some sort for anarcho-capitalist utopia? Thing again. We most certainly do not live in one, and showing that anarcho-capitalism is bad by pointing to modern day America is a very silly comparison.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 9:47:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 9:38:49 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 4/15/2014 5:31:16 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 5:11:00 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 4/15/2014 5:02:36 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 4:19:08 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 4/12/2014 7:13:58 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Anyone want to have a debate on this. On the forums I mean. I'll let someone make an argument on flat taxes, and I'll respond.

How about for eliminating the income tax altogether?

Then are economy would collapse. I'm sorry, but that's just the reality of it. I cant stress enough that whats fair is not always realistic.

That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. How would the economy collapse if the income tax were eliminated? America was doing pretty well before the 16th amendment.

Actually, America was not any bit close to being a superpower at the time. We collect over a trillion on income taxes, which is essential for running 1/3rd of our government programs and keeping the ones that would remain efficient.


There's three problems here - one, you're assuming that being a superpower is a measure of economic growth, even though, once a country becomes a superpower, their growth tends to slow in comparison to earlier years;

How does this support your argument in the slightest? Economic growth has nothing to do with my argument. I'm saying that the IT supports half of our government programs like the Department of education, health, and commerce. Are you saying we should defund our schools and teachers even more? We would be the only country to not pay a IT, making our wealth relative to Cuba's. This is idiocy.

two, you're assuming that only income taxes can provide the necessary funds, and are the most efficient way to garner such funds;

Once again, pointing at assumptions DOES not support your case. The Income tax is the most important way of collecting are huge revenue. You are asking to abolish 1.3 trillion dollars of yearly income. Do you know how stupid that sounds? That income is IMPOSSIBLE to recover any other way. Many countries hardly make a billion a year, yet you wish to throw away a trillion dollars of revenue due to ideology. Which is great, but not realistic.

and three, you're assuming government programs are efficient and overall good in the first place (see more below).

The point is, that this would make it even worse . Your weakening your argument by saying why help the US, its already broken. Now provide one reasonable argument for why we should throw away a 1/3 of our economy. Your points are stupid, idiotic, and not grounded in reality. The SEC and IRS would kill you for even mentioning this.

You would see are education decrease. are military decrease, and pretty much everything that makes us strong. The very fact that you would propose this is idiocy.

Why would education decrease with fewer taxes? Why would defense grow weaker with fewer taxes?
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 9:51:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 9:47:17 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 9:38:49 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 4/15/2014 5:31:16 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 5:11:00 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 4/15/2014 5:02:36 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 4:19:08 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 4/12/2014 7:13:58 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Anyone want to have a debate on this. On the forums I mean. I'll let someone make an argument on flat taxes, and I'll respond.

How about for eliminating the income tax altogether?

Then are economy would collapse. I'm sorry, but that's just the reality of it. I cant stress enough that whats fair is not always realistic.

That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. How would the economy collapse if the income tax were eliminated? America was doing pretty well before the 16th amendment.

Actually, America was not any bit close to being a superpower at the time. We collect over a trillion on income taxes, which is essential for running 1/3rd of our government programs and keeping the ones that would remain efficient.


There's three problems here - one, you're assuming that being a superpower is a measure of economic growth, even though, once a country becomes a superpower, their growth tends to slow in comparison to earlier years;

How does this support your argument in the slightest? Economic growth has nothing to do with my argument. I'm saying that the IT supports half of our government programs like the Department of education, health, and commerce. Are you saying we should defund our schools and teachers even more? We would be the only country to not pay a IT, making our wealth relative to Cuba's. This is idiocy.

two, you're assuming that only income taxes can provide the necessary funds, and are the most efficient way to garner such funds;

Once again, pointing at assumptions DOES not support your case. The Income tax is the most important way of collecting are huge revenue. You are asking to abolish 1.3 trillion dollars of yearly income. Do you know how stupid that sounds? That income is IMPOSSIBLE to recover any other way. Many countries hardly make a billion a year, yet you wish to throw away a trillion dollars of revenue due to ideology. Which is great, but not realistic.

and three, you're assuming government programs are efficient and overall good in the first place (see more below).

The point is, that this would make it even worse . Your weakening your argument by saying why help the US, its already broken. Now provide one reasonable argument for why we should throw away a 1/3 of our economy. Your points are stupid, idiotic, and not grounded in reality. The SEC and IRS would kill you for even mentioning this.

You would see are education decrease. are military decrease, and pretty much everything that makes us strong. The very fact that you would propose this is idiocy.

Why would education decrease with fewer taxes? Why would defense grow weaker with fewer taxes?
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 10:06:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 7:10:08 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:

Oddly enough, the best time in US history was from 1945 to 1980 with tax rates as high as 91%.

Setting aside the completely different climate....

Do you think we should go back to those tax rates?
Mind you, that would likely double the taxes on the poor, too, as 15-20% the bottom bracket was between, no standard deductions, and I would wager there weren't 47% of Americans not paying income taxes, either.
My work here is, finally, done.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 10:10:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 10:06:54 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/15/2014 7:10:08 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:

Oddly enough, the best time in US history was from 1945 to 1980 with tax rates as high as 91%.

Setting aside the completely different climate....

Do you think we should go back to those tax rates?
Mind you, that would likely double the taxes on the poor, too, as 15-20% the bottom bracket was between, no standard deductions, and I would wager there weren't 47% of Americans not paying income taxes, either.

We shouldn't go back, even though he is right about our relative economy at the time. Progressive taxes are an undeniable answer to help the economy, but apparently they're not fair. Whats fair though, is not realistic.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 10:14:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 10:10:07 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 10:06:54 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/15/2014 7:10:08 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:

Oddly enough, the best time in US history was from 1945 to 1980 with tax rates as high as 91%.

Setting aside the completely different climate....

Do you think we should go back to those tax rates?
Mind you, that would likely double the taxes on the poor, too, as 15-20% the bottom bracket was between, no standard deductions, and I would wager there weren't 47% of Americans not paying income taxes, either.

We shouldn't go back, even though he is right about our relative economy at the time. Progressive taxes are an undeniable answer to help the economy, but apparently they're not fair. Whats fair though, is not realistic.

That's not the point I was making.
Everyone likes to talk about raising the taxes on the rich, while overlooking the fact that some 40+% of Americans pay zero or negative income taxes. Further, the lowest income bracket is the lowest it's been (since 2003 and Bush's evil tax cuts for the rich) since 1941.
So, if we are citing the good old days of taxation, why not bring it back in force?

I never said progressive taxes should be abolished.
My work here is, finally, done.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 10:17:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 10:14:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/15/2014 10:10:07 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 10:06:54 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/15/2014 7:10:08 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:

Oddly enough, the best time in US history was from 1945 to 1980 with tax rates as high as 91%.

Setting aside the completely different climate....

Do you think we should go back to those tax rates?
Mind you, that would likely double the taxes on the poor, too, as 15-20% the bottom bracket was between, no standard deductions, and I would wager there weren't 47% of Americans not paying income taxes, either.

We shouldn't go back, even though he is right about our relative economy at the time. Progressive taxes are an undeniable answer to help the economy, but apparently they're not fair. Whats fair though, is not realistic.

That's not the point I was making.
Everyone likes to talk about raising the taxes on the rich, while overlooking the fact that some 40+% of Americans pay zero or negative income taxes. Further, the lowest income bracket is the lowest it's been (since 2003 and Bush's evil tax cuts for the rich) since 1941.
So, if we are citing the good old days of taxation, why not bring it back in force?

I never said progressive taxes should be abolished.

I don't mind that at all. But using the progressive tax format, because most people don't pay at all unless they can afford it. Undoubtedly, this should be the next course of action.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 10:20:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 10:17:08 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 10:14:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/15/2014 10:10:07 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 10:06:54 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/15/2014 7:10:08 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:

Oddly enough, the best time in US history was from 1945 to 1980 with tax rates as high as 91%.

Setting aside the completely different climate....

Do you think we should go back to those tax rates?
Mind you, that would likely double the taxes on the poor, too, as 15-20% the bottom bracket was between, no standard deductions, and I would wager there weren't 47% of Americans not paying income taxes, either.

We shouldn't go back, even though he is right about our relative economy at the time. Progressive taxes are an undeniable answer to help the economy, but apparently they're not fair. Whats fair though, is not realistic.

That's not the point I was making.
Everyone likes to talk about raising the taxes on the rich, while overlooking the fact that some 40+% of Americans pay zero or negative income taxes. Further, the lowest income bracket is the lowest it's been (since 2003 and Bush's evil tax cuts for the rich) since 1941.
So, if we are citing the good old days of taxation, why not bring it back in force?

I never said progressive taxes should be abolished.

I don't mind that at all. But using the progressive tax format, because most people don't pay at all unless they can afford it. Undoubtedly, this should be the next course of action.

How much do you know about taxes?
What is "can afford it"?
Do you think anyone should have a negative liability? A negative liability is where you get money from the IRS that was never yours to begin with.
For example,
I make $30,000, I have zero money withheld, and my tax return is a "refund" of $3.400. What was refunded?
This is not to be confused with someone having $3,000 withheld out of their checks and getting a refund of $800.
My work here is, finally, done.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 10:27:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 10:20:56 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/15/2014 10:17:08 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 10:14:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/15/2014 10:10:07 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 10:06:54 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/15/2014 7:10:08 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:

Oddly enough, the best time in US history was from 1945 to 1980 with tax rates as high as 91%.

Setting aside the completely different climate....

Do you think we should go back to those tax rates?
Mind you, that would likely double the taxes on the poor, too, as 15-20% the bottom bracket was between, no standard deductions, and I would wager there weren't 47% of Americans not paying income taxes, either.

We shouldn't go back, even though he is right about our relative economy at the time. Progressive taxes are an undeniable answer to help the economy, but apparently they're not fair. Whats fair though, is not realistic.

That's not the point I was making.
Everyone likes to talk about raising the taxes on the rich, while overlooking the fact that some 40+% of Americans pay zero or negative income taxes. Further, the lowest income bracket is the lowest it's been (since 2003 and Bush's evil tax cuts for the rich) since 1941.
So, if we are citing the good old days of taxation, why not bring it back in force?

I never said progressive taxes should be abolished.

I don't mind that at all. But using the progressive tax format, because most people don't pay at all unless they can afford it. Undoubtedly, this should be the next course of action.

How much do you know about taxes?
What is "can afford it"?

Simple enough where I should not have to explain it. People literally can not pay the set taxes, so they need to pay a limited one to pay at all. Its the basic philosophy behind the progressive tax, besides taxing the $hit out of the rich.

Do you think anyone should have a negative liability? A negative liability is where you get money from the IRS that was never yours to begin with.

Yeah, I personally do, but your wording is subjective. The money belongs to the government, a collective body to serve the people. It is your money at the end of the day.

For example,
I make $30,000, I have zero money withheld, and my tax return is a "refund" of $3.400. What was refunded?
This is not to be confused with someone having $3,000 withheld out of their checks and getting a refund of $800.

There is certainly some problems with what your saying, and it does need to be reformed. Lets be honest though, this hardly happens or should happen. Especially under a progressive tax, where the idea is to make sure you can indeed afford the tax your paying, where tax refunds become otherwise irrelevant.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 8:47:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 10:27:18 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 10:20:56 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

How much do you know about taxes?
What is "can afford it"?

Simple enough where I should not have to explain it. People literally can not pay the set taxes, so they need to pay a limited one to pay at all. Its the basic philosophy behind the progressive tax, besides taxing the $hit out of the rich.

Subjective terms should always be defined.
Should a man making $12,000 pay any taxes?

Do you think anyone should have a negative liability? A negative liability is where you get money from the IRS that was never yours to begin with.

Yeah, I personally do, but your wording is subjective.
What is subjective about the wording?
Are you trolling or ignorant?
Tax liability is the amount of taxes you owe (liabilities are bills due to others, an accounting term). Liabilities are generally "positive", as if it is negative, it would be an asset, like accounts receivable. Therefore, if your tax liability nets you money, that is a negative tax liability.

The money belongs to the government, a collective body to serve the people. It is your money at the end of the day.
Expand on this.
Also, the money belongs to the government and should be spent by the government through it spending agencies, fine.
However, the IRS is not a spending agency, it is revenue (i.e. collection). It should not be spending money as it collects it.


For example,
I make $30,000, I have zero money withheld, and my tax return is a "refund" of $3.400. What was refunded?
This is not to be confused with someone having $3,000 withheld out of their checks and getting a refund of $800.

There is certainly some problems with what your saying, and it does need to be reformed. Lets be honest though, this hardly happens or should happen. Especially under a progressive tax, where the idea is to make sure you can indeed afford the tax your paying, where tax refunds become otherwise irrelevant.

Which is it? Hardly happens, or should happen?
We have a progressive tax system, and it happens all the time.
34.3 percent of tax filers have zero liability. That means they pay zero income taxes. (as in if they had any withholdings, they get 100% of it back, and getting your money back, is not a negative liability)

14.1% have negative liability due to child tax credits. (average of $2,251/ applicable return
16.9% have negative liability due to earned income tax credits. (average of $1,341/ applicable return)
5.3% due to college credits. (average of $860/applicable return)

There may be overlap with these groups.
Table 3.3 for 2011
http://www.irs.gov...
My work here is, finally, done.