Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Taxes for the Poor

JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:39:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ok, this is in response to LK's claim that the poor should pay more in taxes.

First off, let's define some things. For poor, let's use the bottom 20% of Americans. The mean income for the bottom 20% is $11,5003.[1] The mean household size for people through $25,000 is 1.9, so we'll say 2.[2]

Let's look at three households. For $11,500 we will look at a Single taxpayer, a HoH with 1 dependent, and a married couple with no dependents. I used a bit of copypasta so forgive any mistakes.

$11,500 - Single

This household will pay $650 into FICA[3].
This household will pay $35 into federal taxes[4].
$100/month for food, $400/month for rent, $100/month for utilities. These figures are from my personal experience with prices in AZ.

That's $7885 total in expenses, leaving the household with $3615 left for the year.

$11,500 - HoH

This household will pay $650 into FICA[3].
This household will receive $4094 in federal taxes[4].
$200/month for food, $500/month for rent, $100/month for utilities.

That's $10,250 total in expenses, leaving the household with $5344 left for the year.

$11,500 - Married

This household will pay $650 into FICA[3].
This household will receive $464 in federal taxes[4].
$200/month for food, $500/month for rent, $100/month for utilities.

That's $10,250 total in expenses, leaving the household with $1714 left for the year.

So the median groups for the bottom quintile could have some money left over, but we haven't factored in the cost of clothes, transportation, schooling, healthcare, savings, etc... These groups are (generally) receiving quite a bit in tax credits. Just taking away the credits would leave them with almost nothing. Adding tax on top of that would be asking them for money that they don't have.

I don't think it's right to take away any 'excess' shown here. These people have a 50% chance of moving up a quintile over the course of a decade. Take away their extra income, and upward mobility will suffer.

I think it would be unconscionable to add tax to these groups, and just as bad to take away their credits.

I do think there should be outreach programs though, for households that are taking advantage of EIC. Helping with education and career planning, things like that.

[1]http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://www.calculatorpro.com...
[4]http://www.hrblock.com...
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:41:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
First of, justify people using public services but not paying for them.

Then we will talk about whether the tax is "just" (a subjective term by itself).
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:45:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The marginal utility of extra income drops off sharply once a family/individual has reached a certain point of self-sustenance (when all fixed costs/rent/food/education can be paid for). I believe that taxes should be progressively based on increasing tax burden proportionately to how much income over the point of self-sustenance. Of course, this would take a lot of nuances (for instance, self-sustenance points change by region). This would be included with a lower tax rate for capital investments.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:46:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 1:41:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
First of, justify people using public services but not paying for them.

Then we will talk about whether the tax is "just" (a subjective term by itself).

A better question is how the government can best protect the people in arenas that cannot be better served by pure privatization. For example, fire departments and police in low-income areas.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:48:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 1:46:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:41:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
First of, justify people using public services but not paying for them.

Then we will talk about whether the tax is "just" (a subjective term by itself).

A better question is how the government can best protect the people in arenas that cannot be better served by pure privatization. For example, fire departments and police in low-income areas.

Say what? I'm not talking about privatization....I'm asking Jaxson how he justifies usage of resources without some form of compensation to the provider.

Also, I agree that critical resources in lower-income areas should remain publicly funded, but in higher-income areas become more privatized.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:49:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 1:41:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
First of, justify people using public services but not paying for them.

Then we will talk about whether the tax is "just" (a subjective term by itself).

First off, people do pay for some of them.

If you pay rent, some of that goes to property tax to pay for schools and such. If you drive a car or ride a bus, some of that goes to fuel tax that pays for roads and such.

Secondly, no, America is not a country where we say 'Hey! You! I know you lost your job, but since you aren't paying taxes right now, you aren't entitled to police protection, or military protection for that matter. You have lost your rights because you're poor!'.

Are you really making that argument?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:50:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 1:45:00 PM, Wnope wrote:
The marginal utility of extra income drops off sharply once a family/individual has reached a certain point of self-sustenance (when all fixed costs/rent/food/education can be paid for). I believe that taxes should be progressively based on increasing tax burden proportionately to how much income over the point of self-sustenance. Of course, this would take a lot of nuances (for instance, self-sustenance points change by region). This would be included with a lower tax rate for capital investments.

Which is basically why we have personal exemptions and earned income credit. I'm not at all fine with raising taxes on people who are struggling to provide the necessities of life.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:51:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 1:48:55 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:46:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:41:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
First of, justify people using public services but not paying for them.

Then we will talk about whether the tax is "just" (a subjective term by itself).

A better question is how the government can best protect the people in arenas that cannot be better served by pure privatization. For example, fire departments and police in low-income areas.

Say what? I'm not talking about privatization....I'm asking Jaxson how he justifies usage of resources without some form of compensation to the provider.

Also, I agree that critical resources in lower-income areas should remain publicly funded, but in higher-income areas become more privatized.

LK, there is no income requirement to retain US citizenship. That's how I justify it.

How can you justify otherwise? If someone isn't paying taxes they can't use something?

Oh crap. You better not get ride a bike to work. You won't be paying anything toward the upkeep of the road and can't use it.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:56:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 1:50:02 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:45:00 PM, Wnope wrote:
The marginal utility of extra income drops off sharply once a family/individual has reached a certain point of self-sustenance (when all fixed costs/rent/food/education can be paid for). I believe that taxes should be progressively based on increasing tax burden proportionately to how much income over the point of self-sustenance. Of course, this would take a lot of nuances (for instance, self-sustenance points change by region). This would be included with a lower tax rate for capital investments.

Which is basically why we have personal exemptions and earned income credit. I'm not at all fine with raising taxes on people who are struggling to provide the necessities of life.

Flat tax advocates would argue otherwise.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 2:02:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 1:49:04 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:41:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
First of, justify people using public services but not paying for them.

Then we will talk about whether the tax is "just" (a subjective term by itself).

First off, people do pay for some of them.

If you pay rent, some of that goes to property tax to pay for schools and such. If you drive a car or ride a bus, some of that goes to fuel tax that pays for roads and such.

That tax is absolutely minimal and completely universal. I am talking about income taxes.

Secondly, no, America is not a country where we say 'Hey! You! I know you lost your job, but since you aren't paying taxes right now, you aren't entitled to police protection, or military protection for that matter. You have lost your rights because you're poor!'.

What rights? The only rights given to citizens are those in the Constitution and I don't exactly see one that says "You have the right to leech off society" or "You have the right to free ambulance, fire department, and police service."

Are you really making that argument?

If you went to Wal-Mart and said "I'm starving and I need some food to live," they would justly deny you from taking food for free. That is because you pay for the voluntary exchange of services. Of course, one could argue that State provided services aren't necessarily voluntary but you always have a choice of whether to accept them or to move to a different country.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 2:02:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 1:51:21 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:48:55 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:46:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:41:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
First of, justify people using public services but not paying for them.

Then we will talk about whether the tax is "just" (a subjective term by itself).

A better question is how the government can best protect the people in arenas that cannot be better served by pure privatization. For example, fire departments and police in low-income areas.

Say what? I'm not talking about privatization....I'm asking Jaxson how he justifies usage of resources without some form of compensation to the provider.

Also, I agree that critical resources in lower-income areas should remain publicly funded, but in higher-income areas become more privatized.

LK, there is no income requirement to retain US citizenship. That's how I justify it.

How can you justify otherwise? If someone isn't paying taxes they can't use something?

That wouldn't be very effective. You force people to pay the tax and use the good.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 2:03:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Struggling to provide for necessities" does not justify receiving goods for free.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 2:04:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
if someone comes into Wal-Mart and says "I'm starving, I need food or I'll die" and you don't give them food, essentially rejecting them their life over making a larger profit, this would be failing Corporate Social Responsibility, and thus Wal-Mart is acting unjustly.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 2:06:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 2:04:15 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
if someone comes into Wal-Mart and says "I'm starving, I need food or I'll die" and you don't give them food, essentially rejecting them their life over making a larger profit, this would be failing Corporate Social Responsibility, and thus Wal-Mart is acting unjustly.

CSR doesn't legally exist past an ethical viewpoint.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 2:11:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 2:02:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:49:04 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:41:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
First of, justify people using public services but not paying for them.

Then we will talk about whether the tax is "just" (a subjective term by itself).

First off, people do pay for some of them.

If you pay rent, some of that goes to property tax to pay for schools and such. If you drive a car or ride a bus, some of that goes to fuel tax that pays for roads and such.

That tax is absolutely minimal and completely universal. I am talking about income taxes.

You were talking about public services. Not all public services are paid through income tax.

Secondly, no, America is not a country where we say 'Hey! You! I know you lost your job, but since you aren't paying taxes right now, you aren't entitled to police protection, or military protection for that matter. You have lost your rights because you're poor!'.

What rights? The only rights given to citizens are those in the Constitution and I don't exactly see one that says "You have the right to leech off society" or "You have the right to free ambulance, fire department, and police service."

Are you really making that argument?

If you went to Wal-Mart and said "I'm starving and I need some food to live," they would justly deny you from taking food for free. That is because you pay for the voluntary exchange of services. Of course, one could argue that State provided services aren't necessarily voluntary but you always have a choice of whether to accept them or to move to a different country.

I really don't get what you are saying. Should poor people that pay nothing in federal income taxes just not get anything from the services that those taxes fund? Since there is no way of separating those services out, they should move?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 2:12:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 2:06:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/17/2012 2:04:15 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
if someone comes into Wal-Mart and says "I'm starving, I need food or I'll die" and you don't give them food, essentially rejecting them their life over making a larger profit, this would be failing Corporate Social Responsibility, and thus Wal-Mart is acting unjustly.

CSR doesn't legally exist past an ethical viewpoint.

http://papers.ssrn.com...
http://www.csrandthelaw.com...
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 2:12:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 2:02:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:51:21 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:48:55 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:46:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:41:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
First of, justify people using public services but not paying for them.

Then we will talk about whether the tax is "just" (a subjective term by itself).

A better question is how the government can best protect the people in arenas that cannot be better served by pure privatization. For example, fire departments and police in low-income areas.

Say what? I'm not talking about privatization....I'm asking Jaxson how he justifies usage of resources without some form of compensation to the provider.

Also, I agree that critical resources in lower-income areas should remain publicly funded, but in higher-income areas become more privatized.

LK, there is no income requirement to retain US citizenship. That's how I justify it.

How can you justify otherwise? If someone isn't paying taxes they can't use something?

That wouldn't be very effective. You force people to pay the tax and use the good.

Ok, what 'good' and services are you talking about?

How do you propose that we only provide those services for taxpayers?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 2:13:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 2:03:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
"Struggling to provide for necessities" does not justify receiving goods for free.

What goods are you talking about?

Your original beef with me was how to justify taxes. I asked you how to justify taking taxes from people who don't have the money.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 5:46:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 2:11:56 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 2:02:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:49:04 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:41:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
First of, justify people using public services but not paying for them.

Then we will talk about whether the tax is "just" (a subjective term by itself).

First off, people do pay for some of them.

If you pay rent, some of that goes to property tax to pay for schools and such. If you drive a car or ride a bus, some of that goes to fuel tax that pays for roads and such.

That tax is absolutely minimal and completely universal. I am talking about income taxes.

You were talking about public services. Not all public services are paid through income tax.

They are mainly paid for by income taxes.

Secondly, no, America is not a country where we say 'Hey! You! I know you lost your job, but since you aren't paying taxes right now, you aren't entitled to police protection, or military protection for that matter. You have lost your rights because you're poor!'.

What rights? The only rights given to citizens are those in the Constitution and I don't exactly see one that says "You have the right to leech off society" or "You have the right to free ambulance, fire department, and police service."

Are you really making that argument?

If you went to Wal-Mart and said "I'm starving and I need some food to live," they would justly deny you from taking food for free. That is because you pay for the voluntary exchange of services. Of course, one could argue that State provided services aren't necessarily voluntary but you always have a choice of whether to accept them or to move to a different country.

I really don't get what you are saying. Should poor people that pay nothing in federal income taxes just not get anything from the services that those taxes fund? Since there is no way of separating those services out, they should move?

If poor people will not and are not obliged to pay taxes for the public goods that are mainly provided through income taxes, then they should be prohibited from using these public goods.

However, ideally I would like a flat tax of about 8% on all people regardless of income, and therefore that would let them use the public goods.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 5:47:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 2:13:33 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 2:03:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
"Struggling to provide for necessities" does not justify receiving goods for free.

What goods are you talking about?

Public goods.

Your original beef with me was how to justify taxes. I asked you how to justify taking taxes from people who don't have the money.

No it wasn't. I asked you to justify taxes as paying for public goods (which you did), therefore catching you in a contradictory position. If taxes are justified by public goods, then it goes to figure that the usage of public goods justifies taxes.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 5:49:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 2:12:04 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/17/2012 2:06:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/17/2012 2:04:15 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
if someone comes into Wal-Mart and says "I'm starving, I need food or I'll die" and you don't give them food, essentially rejecting them their life over making a larger profit, this would be failing Corporate Social Responsibility, and thus Wal-Mart is acting unjustly.

CSR doesn't legally exist past an ethical viewpoint.

http://papers.ssrn.com...
http://www.csrandthelaw.com...

It seems as if you googled "CSR" and "law" and copy and pasted the first two links.

Tell me... which exact legal statute would force Wal-Mart to provide goods for the person if they are starving.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 5:55:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 5:47:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/17/2012 2:13:33 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 2:03:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
"Struggling to provide for necessities" does not justify receiving goods for free.

What goods are you talking about?

Public goods.

Like what? All you are doing is being contrary for arguments' sake.

Your original beef with me was how to justify taxes. I asked you how to justify taking taxes from people who don't have the money.

No it wasn't. I asked you to justify taxes as paying for public goods (which you did), therefore catching you in a contradictory position. If taxes are justified by public goods, then it goes to figure that the usage of public goods justifies taxes.

Me saying that taxes are justified by public services doesn't mean I am saying someone who can't afford taxes shouldn't have access to those same services. That's a strawman.

You seem to claim that poor people should have to pay taxes, and if they can't afford it, they don't get the services. But, you can't explain what services, or how we would refrain them from using them.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 6:05:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Question, LK.

For Aiche (american institute for chemical engineers), members had to pay $160 to view a video lecture and nonmembers had to pay more, while students get the video lectures for free. Do you think the Aiche was acting unjustly because students were't paying while non-students had to pay? How do you justify students not paying for the services?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 6:24:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 6:05:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Question, LK.

For Aiche (american institute for chemical engineers), members had to pay $160 to view a video lecture and nonmembers had to pay more, while students get the video lectures for free. Do you think the Aiche was acting unjustly because students were't paying while non-students had to pay? How do you justify students not paying for the services?

There is a clear distinction between a private organization and the government. The Aiche lecture is not an essential service and it is provided through voluntary exchange only. However, many public goods and services are essential to everyday lives and people use them everyday. Regardless, a private organization has authority to do whatever they want with the resources at their disposal because of property rights. A public organization is owned by the tax paying public, and does not necessarily have distinct property rights. To state that a person who does not pay for a service has a stake in the service or is owed that service is absurd, as anything other than that by the government is charity, which brings to light the entire arbitrariness of their decision

Furthermore, the "free lecture" is likely included in the tuition fees for the students.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 6:28:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 6:24:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/17/2012 6:05:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Question, LK.

For Aiche (american institute for chemical engineers), members had to pay $160 to view a video lecture and nonmembers had to pay more, while students get the video lectures for free. Do you think the Aiche was acting unjustly because students were't paying while non-students had to pay? How do you justify students not paying for the services?

There is a clear distinction between a private organization and the government. The Aiche lecture is not an essential service and it is provided through voluntary exchange only. However, many public goods and services are essential to everyday lives and people use them everyday. Regardless, a private organization has authority to do whatever they want with the resources at their disposal because of property rights. A public organization is owned by the tax paying public, and does not necessarily have distinct property rights. To state that a person who does not pay for a service has a stake in the service or is owed that service is absurd, as anything other than that by the government is charity, which brings to light the entire arbitrariness of their decision

Furthermore, the "free lecture" is likely included in the tuition fees for the students.

Aiche is separate from the university. The cost to actually distribute the video is minimal, and students don't have a lot of money, so it makes sense to give it to students for free.

In terms of the difference between government vs. private, the public votes on what services they want, and they also vote on who pays for it as well. If the public decides that they don't believe that the poor should have to pay more, then why should they have to pay more?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 6:30:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 5:55:43 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 5:47:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/17/2012 2:13:33 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 2:03:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
"Struggling to provide for necessities" does not justify receiving goods for free.

What goods are you talking about?

Public goods.

Like what? All you are doing is being contrary for arguments' sake.

Roads, transportation, ambulances, police, fire department, defence, etc....

Your original beef with me was how to justify taxes. I asked you how to justify taking taxes from people who don't have the money.

No it wasn't. I asked you to justify taxes as paying for public goods (which you did), therefore catching you in a contradictory position. If taxes are justified by public goods, then it goes to figure that the usage of public goods justifies taxes.

Me saying that taxes are justified by public services doesn't mean I am saying someone who can't afford taxes shouldn't have access to those same services. That's a strawman.

"Can't afford taxes" is completely subjective. According to your own analysis, the people who don't pay the taxes still have some money left over which could be used to pay for their usage of public goods.

Also, if taxes are justified by public goods, then that means that public goods are solely a result of taxes. Simple? Ok. Since they are a result of taxes and they provide services, the taxes are a sort of investment for the operation of these services. Now, how you would justify those that don't pay taxes for being the beneficiaries of the operation of these services?

You seem to claim that poor people should have to pay taxes, and if they can't afford it, they don't get the services.

Yes.

But, you can't explain what services,

Public goods. Look 'em up. Roads, transportation, essential services, yayadayada.

or how we would refrain them from using them.

If society accepted the reasoning that people that don't pay taxes ought not to use services, then it would be much more practical to just make them pay taxes rather than to station checkpoints at every road to check people if they are taxpaying.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 6:34:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 6:28:35 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/17/2012 6:24:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/17/2012 6:05:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Question, LK.

For Aiche (american institute for chemical engineers), members had to pay $160 to view a video lecture and nonmembers had to pay more, while students get the video lectures for free. Do you think the Aiche was acting unjustly because students were't paying while non-students had to pay? How do you justify students not paying for the services?

There is a clear distinction between a private organization and the government. The Aiche lecture is not an essential service and it is provided through voluntary exchange only. However, many public goods and services are essential to everyday lives and people use them everyday. Regardless, a private organization has authority to do whatever they want with the resources at their disposal because of property rights. A public organization is owned by the tax paying public, and does not necessarily have distinct property rights. To state that a person who does not pay for a service has a stake in the service or is owed that service is absurd, as anything other than that by the government is charity, which brings to light the entire arbitrariness of their decision

Furthermore, the "free lecture" is likely included in the tuition fees for the students.

Aiche is separate from the university. The cost to actually distribute the video is minimal, and students don't have a lot of money, so it makes sense to give it to students for free.

Is it separate to the university as in it is owned by a different company or that they are still affiliated but rather in different buildings (or some other distinction), per se?

In terms of the difference between government vs. private, the public votes on what services they want, and they also vote on who pays for it as well. If the public decides that they don't believe that the poor should have to pay more, then why should they have to pay more?

With the status quo, your reasoning is completely correct. Public owns the services, public decides who uses the services, and so forth. However, I was making the proposition that the non-tax paying individuals ought to pay taxes, which therefore eliminates the status quo from the argument.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 6:40:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 6:34:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/17/2012 6:28:35 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/17/2012 6:24:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/17/2012 6:05:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Question, LK.

For Aiche (american institute for chemical engineers), members had to pay $160 to view a video lecture and nonmembers had to pay more, while students get the video lectures for free. Do you think the Aiche was acting unjustly because students were't paying while non-students had to pay? How do you justify students not paying for the services?

There is a clear distinction between a private organization and the government. The Aiche lecture is not an essential service and it is provided through voluntary exchange only. However, many public goods and services are essential to everyday lives and people use them everyday. Regardless, a private organization has authority to do whatever they want with the resources at their disposal because of property rights. A public organization is owned by the tax paying public, and does not necessarily have distinct property rights. To state that a person who does not pay for a service has a stake in the service or is owed that service is absurd, as anything other than that by the government is charity, which brings to light the entire arbitrariness of their decision

Furthermore, the "free lecture" is likely included in the tuition fees for the students.

Aiche is separate from the university. The cost to actually distribute the video is minimal, and students don't have a lot of money, so it makes sense to give it to students for free.

Is it separate to the university as in it is owned by a different company or that they are still affiliated but rather in different buildings (or some other distinction), per se?

It's a different company, but students get discounts. It's a non-profit organization. Many places have student discounts.

In terms of the difference between government vs. private, the public votes on what services they want, and they also vote on who pays for it as well. If the public decides that they don't believe that the poor should have to pay more, then why should they have to pay more?

With the status quo, your reasoning is completely correct. Public owns the services, public decides who uses the services, and so forth. However, I was making the proposition that the non-tax paying individuals ought to pay taxes, which therefore eliminates the status quo from the argument.

Based on what justification? You already conceded that my reasoning is correct, but you assert that non-tax paying individuals ought to pay taxes? Why?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 7:11:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 6:30:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/17/2012 5:55:43 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 5:47:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/17/2012 2:13:33 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 2:03:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
"Struggling to provide for necessities" does not justify receiving goods for free.

What goods are you talking about?

Public goods.

Like what? All you are doing is being contrary for arguments' sake.

Roads, transportation, ambulances, police, fire department, defence, etc....

Right. What is fuel tax for? Property tax?

Should people without a car be allowed to ride their bicycle on a road? They aren't paying fuel tax for it...

Your original beef with me was how to justify taxes. I asked you how to justify taking taxes from people who don't have the money.

No it wasn't. I asked you to justify taxes as paying for public goods (which you did), therefore catching you in a contradictory position. If taxes are justified by public goods, then it goes to figure that the usage of public goods justifies taxes.

Me saying that taxes are justified by public services doesn't mean I am saying someone who can't afford taxes shouldn't have access to those same services. That's a strawman.

"Can't afford taxes" is completely subjective. According to your own analysis, the people who don't pay the taxes still have some money left over which could be used to pay for their usage of public goods.

My analysis didn't include anything but housing food and utilities. There are still pesky things like clothes and transportation and heaven forbid they have a little left over for school...

Also, if taxes are justified by public goods, then that means that public goods are solely a result of taxes. Simple? Ok. Since they are a result of taxes and they provide services, the taxes are a sort of investment for the operation of these services. Now, how you would justify those that don't pay taxes for being the beneficiaries of the operation of these services?

I've done that already.

You seem to claim that poor people should have to pay taxes, and if they can't afford it, they don't get the services.

Yes.

But, you can't explain what services,

Public goods. Look 'em up. Roads, transportation, essential services, yayadayada.

or how we would refrain them from using them.

If society accepted the reasoning that people that don't pay taxes ought not to use services, then it would be much more practical to just make them pay taxes rather than to station checkpoints at every road to check people if they are taxpaying.

Right. Any dollar left after rent is fair game right?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 7:22:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Most people in the bottom percentiles don't pay any taxes. In fact many end up being owed money by the government.

I think we should abolish all direct taxes, such as the income tax, and completely fund the budget through indirect taxes. If taxes are too high, it hurts the nation's prosperity, therefore federal government should remove all spending that does not directly deal with international or interstate affairs. Any program or policy that does not deal with international or interstate affairs is a state power, and should be funded by the state which uses the program. It's a state power for a reason; so one state is not given preference over another in the allocations of funds, and because such programs must be molded to fit the local community's needs. The larger the geographical area, the more oppressive a policy becomes; that's why the original role of the federal government was to simply deal with international relations, and interstate relations.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle