Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

LOGIC: Flat Tax

ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 1:09:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
A flat tax rate for everyone makes sense.

It makes everyone equal under the tax law, but, the rich still technically "pay more". And it would be a "fair" share because well, everyone is equal.

For example: a 10% flat income tax.

Person A makes $10,000 and pays $1,000 in taxes.

Person B makes $1,000,000 and pays $100,000 in taxes.

Same rate, rich pay more. IT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE.

Why hasn't this happened yet?
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 1:11:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
No tax would be better, but a flat tax is preferable to a progressive tax.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 1:31:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 1:09:36 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
A flat tax rate for everyone makes sense.

It makes everyone equal under the tax law, but, the rich still technically "pay more". And it would be a "fair" share because well, everyone is equal.

For example: a 10% flat income tax.

Person A makes $10,000 and pays $1,000 in taxes.

Person B makes $1,000,000 and pays $100,000 in taxes.

Same rate, rich pay more. IT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE.

Why hasn't this happened yet?

Because when lower-income people have more money, they tend to spend a larger portion of it on basic necessities. A rich person would spend the same amount on basic necessities. Lower taxes on the poor would create greater demand for basic necessities (either by having people able to actually buy all of their necessities, or by the fact that lower taxes on the rich wouldn't confer this benefit at all), and then greater demand for small luxuries. Greater demand for basic necessities and small luxuries demands a supply. Greater supply requires more workers. With the new income from the less tax-burdened poor, these businesses can hire more workers, who will in turn buy more basic luxuries and necessities, thus creating economic growth.

The rich person doesn't directly stimulate the economy in this way. Therefore, giving him a nice fat tax cut doesn't confer as much of a benefit.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 3:09:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here's what we should do -

Institute a 3 year trial period for:

1. Cleaner progressive tax system similar to our current system, but with some of the stupidity taken out.

2. Flat tax

3. "Fair" Tax (national sales tax)

During this three year period, taxes would still be prepared at the end of the year, due the following April, but individuals (not businesses) would be able to calculate their tax under any/all 3 methods and choose the lesser of these choices (which means people would have to save receipts all year to use the "fair" tax, which I know is unfair, but oh well).

In the fourth year - vote for the one you like (or, use everyone's choices each of the previous 3 years as the votes).

I think, after that, you'll find us in the same set-up we have now.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 9:07:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 1:31:35 AM, drhead wrote:
At 3/24/2013 1:09:36 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
A flat tax rate for everyone makes sense.

It makes everyone equal under the tax law, but, the rich still technically "pay more". And it would be a "fair" share because well, everyone is equal.

For example: a 10% flat income tax.

Person A makes $10,000 and pays $1,000 in taxes.

Person B makes $1,000,000 and pays $100,000 in taxes.

Same rate, rich pay more. IT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE.

Why hasn't this happened yet?

Because when lower-income people have more money, they tend to spend a larger portion of it on basic necessities. A rich person would spend the same amount on basic necessities. Lower taxes on the poor would create greater demand for basic necessities (either by having people able to actually buy all of their necessities, or by the fact that lower taxes on the rich wouldn't confer this benefit at all), and then greater demand for small luxuries. Greater demand for basic necessities and small luxuries demands a supply. Greater supply requires more workers. With the new income from the less tax-burdened poor, these businesses can hire more workers, who will in turn buy more basic luxuries and necessities, thus creating economic growth.

The rich person doesn't directly stimulate the economy in this way. Therefore, giving him a nice fat tax cut doesn't confer as much of a benefit.

That argument would hold if both classes had the same opinion of what a "basic necessity" is. I doubt a rich person would consider ramen noodles a necessity.
lannan13
Posts: 23,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 9:17:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 1:11:25 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
No tax would be better, but a flat tax is preferable to a progressive tax.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 11:23:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Many advocates of the flat tax also support a personal deduction. So if you are filing jointly, I think you get like a $20,000 deduction, and an additional say $6000 for each dependent.

The benefit of this approach is that it refrains from taxing the poor, and they have more income.

However, the true essence of the flat tax is removed. It would still be a progressive structure, with a family of 4 making $50,000 paying a 4.32% tax rate, while a CEO making $700,000 and files alone paying a 14.79% tax rate (assuming a 15% rate).

I am though undecided on which is better.

And the value added business tax is a bad idea.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 11:39:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 10:37:07 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
9-9-9 ftw!

The sales tax would increase taxes drastically. So a 9-9 plan would be superior.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 11:42:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 11:23:19 AM, Contra wrote:
Many advocates of the flat tax also support a personal deduction. So if you are filing jointly, I think you get like a $20,000 deduction, and an additional say $6000 for each dependent.

The benefit of this approach is that it refrains from taxing the poor, and they have more income.

However, the true essence of the flat tax is removed. It would still be a progressive structure, with a family of 4 making $50,000 paying a 4.32% tax rate, while a CEO making $700,000 and files alone paying a 14.79% tax rate (assuming a 15% rate).

I am though undecided on which is better.

And the value added business tax is a bad idea.

I'm for a progressive two teir flat tax, no deductions. 10% for, lets say, anything under 200,000 dollars, and for 200,000 up a 20-28% rate. And cut the corporate tax rate to 10%, also flat.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 11:44:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 11:39:49 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 3/24/2013 10:37:07 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
9-9-9 ftw!

The sales tax would increase taxes drastically. So a 9-9 plan would be superior.

Cain said that the sales tax replaces already embedded taxes that the American people do not typically see. The current corporate tax rate could be considered a sales tax because they simply pass it over to the buyers. Transparency is important in a tax system.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 11:45:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 11:42:30 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 3/24/2013 11:23:19 AM, Contra wrote:
Many advocates of the flat tax also support a personal deduction. So if you are filing jointly, I think you get like a $20,000 deduction, and an additional say $6000 for each dependent.

The benefit of this approach is that it refrains from taxing the poor, and they have more income.

However, the true essence of the flat tax is removed. It would still be a progressive structure, with a family of 4 making $50,000 paying a 4.32% tax rate, while a CEO making $700,000 and files alone paying a 14.79% tax rate (assuming a 15% rate).

I am though undecided on which is better.

And the value added business tax is a bad idea.

I'm for a progressive two teir flat tax, no deductions. 10% for, lets say, anything under 200,000 dollars, and for 200,000 up a 20-28% rate. And cut the corporate tax rate to 10%, also flat.

With taxes so low, how will you pay for stuff and pay down the debt?
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 11:48:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 11:45:00 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 3/24/2013 11:42:30 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 3/24/2013 11:23:19 AM, Contra wrote:
Many advocates of the flat tax also support a personal deduction. So if you are filing jointly, I think you get like a $20,000 deduction, and an additional say $6000 for each dependent.

The benefit of this approach is that it refrains from taxing the poor, and they have more income.

However, the true essence of the flat tax is removed. It would still be a progressive structure, with a family of 4 making $50,000 paying a 4.32% tax rate, while a CEO making $700,000 and files alone paying a 14.79% tax rate (assuming a 15% rate).

I am though undecided on which is better.

And the value added business tax is a bad idea.

I'm for a progressive two teir flat tax, no deductions. 10% for, lets say, anything under 200,000 dollars, and for 200,000 up a 20-28% rate. And cut the corporate tax rate to 10%, also flat.

With taxes so low, how will you pay for stuff and pay down the debt?

Low taxes has little effect on revenues and if anything can actually raise revenue.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 11:57:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 11:42:30 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 3/24/2013 11:23:19 AM, Contra wrote:
Many advocates of the flat tax also support a personal deduction. So if you are filing jointly, I think you get like a $20,000 deduction, and an additional say $6000 for each dependent.

The benefit of this approach is that it refrains from taxing the poor, and they have more income.

However, the true essence of the flat tax is removed. It would still be a progressive structure, with a family of 4 making $50,000 paying a 4.32% tax rate, while a CEO making $700,000 and files alone paying a 14.79% tax rate (assuming a 15% rate).

I am though undecided on which is better.

And the value added business tax is a bad idea.

I'm for a progressive two teir flat tax, no deductions. 10% for, lets say, anything under 200,000 dollars, and for 200,000 up a 20-28% rate. And cut the corporate tax rate to 10%, also flat.

Like Paul Ryan's code, with the 10% rate and the 25% rate. But it lacks the simplicity of the one single rate, and is thus not truly equal, and reduces economic growth (by what it could have been).
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 12:04:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 11:45:00 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 3/24/2013 11:42:30 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 3/24/2013 11:23:19 AM, Contra wrote:
Many advocates of the flat tax also support a personal deduction. So if you are filing jointly, I think you get like a $20,000 deduction, and an additional say $6000 for each dependent.

The benefit of this approach is that it refrains from taxing the poor, and they have more income.

However, the true essence of the flat tax is removed. It would still be a progressive structure, with a family of 4 making $50,000 paying a 4.32% tax rate, while a CEO making $700,000 and files alone paying a 14.79% tax rate (assuming a 15% rate).

I am though undecided on which is better.

And the value added business tax is a bad idea.

I'm for a progressive two teir flat tax, no deductions. 10% for, lets say, anything under 200,000 dollars, and for 200,000 up a 20-28% rate. And cut the corporate tax rate to 10%, also flat.

With taxes so low, how will you pay for stuff and pay down the debt?

If you cut a lot of the waste in the budget, reform and save entitlement programs, legalize and tax drugs, and reduce America's overseas presence militarily by 2/3rds, we would have about $1.1 trillion right there in savings.

This is enough to balance the budget, create a 15% flat tax on both the personal and corporate levels, and create a surplus. With tax relief, you restore economic growth and thus increase revenues (though the revenue growth is gradual).

With that surplus, we can increase highway infrastructure investment by 50%, and increase K12 subsidies by 50%, and also increase programs like green energy research and NASA by 50%, to hold an olive branch to the liberals (I don't support the last decisions, but it would be needed to gain any progressive support). We could also pay down the national debt, or increase the spending on the last programs by even more.

Did it for a school project so the figures are accurate.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 12:15:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 11:23:19 AM, Contra wrote:
Many advocates of the flat tax also support a personal deduction. So if you are filing jointly, I think you get like a $20,000 deduction, and an additional say $6000 for each dependent.

The benefit of this approach is that it refrains from taxing the poor, and they have more income.

However, the true essence of the flat tax is removed. It would still be a progressive structure, with a family of 4 making $50,000 paying a 4.32% tax rate, while a CEO making $700,000 and files alone paying a 14.79% tax rate (assuming a 15% rate).

I am though undecided on which is better.

And the value added business tax is a bad idea.

Why shouldn't we tax the poor? They're citizens aren't they? Everyone needs to pay taxes.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 12:17:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 1:09:36 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
A flat tax rate for everyone makes sense.

It makes everyone equal under the tax law, but, the rich still technically "pay more". And it would be a "fair" share because well, everyone is equal.

For example: a 10% flat income tax.

Person A makes $10,000 and pays $1,000 in taxes.

Person B makes $1,000,000 and pays $100,000 in taxes.

Same rate, rich pay more. IT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE.

Why hasn't this happened yet?

Your argument is based on principle. Most people care about the results. Every time someone goes down this path they usually gain support until people see what their plan would actually mean, then it gets overwhelmingly rejected.
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 1:52:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Its because fairness and equality are different things according to liberals and conservatives.

This might help clarify: http://www.orangejuiceblog.com...
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 2:06:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 1:52:47 PM, imabench wrote:
Its because fairness and equality are different things according to liberals and conservatives.

This might help clarify: http://www.orangejuiceblog.com...

Both the liberals and conservatives are free loading bastards.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 2:06:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 1:52:47 PM, imabench wrote:
Its because fairness and equality are different things according to liberals and conservatives.

This might help clarify: http://www.orangejuiceblog.com...

I agree with the conservative one but the liberal would be more accurate if the tall and medium person both bent down so no one could see :)
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 2:07:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 1:52:47 PM, imabench wrote:
Its because fairness and equality are different things according to liberals and conservatives.

This might help clarify: http://www.orangejuiceblog.com...

That actually seems pretty accurate.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 2:09:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 2:06:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/24/2013 1:52:47 PM, imabench wrote:
Its because fairness and equality are different things according to liberals and conservatives.

This might help clarify: http://www.orangejuiceblog.com...

I agree with the conservative one but the liberal would be more accurate if the tall and medium person both bent down so no one could see :)

no, it is accurate. all can see only just over the fence.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 2:42:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 1:09:36 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
A flat tax rate for everyone makes sense.

It makes everyone equal under the tax law, but, the rich still technically "pay more". And it would be a "fair" share because well, everyone is equal.

For example: a 10% flat income tax.

Person A makes $10,000 and pays $1,000 in taxes.

Person B makes $1,000,000 and pays $100,000 in taxes.

Same rate, rich pay more. IT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE.

Why hasn't this happened yet?

Because your definition of fairness ignores the realities of being a consumer with fixed costs of shelter and food versus the ability to purchase luxury items or invest savings.

If it takes $15,000 to pay for rent/food/utilities, then a 10% tax on a $16,000 income and a 10% tax on a 30,000 income have extremely different effects on the people.

Namely, someone with a 10% tax on 16k could not afford to survive whereas a 10% tax on 30k poses no such crisis.

It'd a bit like saying that equality isn't hitting a child with a stick and hitting an adult with a 2x4, it's hitting both the child and adult with a 2x4. I'm guessing you consider that a fine analogy for taxation.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 7:21:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 1:52:47 PM, imabench wrote:
Its because fairness and equality are different things according to liberals and conservatives.

Equality =/= Fairness
This might help clarify: http://www.orangejuiceblog.com...

LOL
The conservative definition of "equality" shows them with an "equal" number of boxes, and an unfair view. The liberal definition of "equality" gives them an "unequal" number of boxes, and a fair view.

Equal means the same quantity. Fair means without favoritism. A progressive tax is neither fair nor equal.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 9:53:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 7:21:56 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/24/2013 1:52:47 PM, imabench wrote:
Its because fairness and equality are different things according to liberals and conservatives.

Equality =/= Fairness
This might help clarify: http://www.orangejuiceblog.com...

LOL
The conservative definition of "equality" shows them with an "equal" number of boxes, and an unfair view. The liberal definition of "equality" gives them an "unequal" number of boxes, and a fair view.

Equal means the same quantity. Fair means without favoritism. A progressive tax is neither fair nor equal.

Idiot... let me explain what the point of the picture is since you missed it

To conservatives, fairness is making sure that everybody holds the same amount of the burden and all people get the exact same amount of taxes. To liberals though, fairness is making sure that those who dont cant handle a tax burden they cant handle arent given one, and their share is given to those who can handle a little extra tax burden.

Imagine if you will that the boxes in the picture are 'tax cuts' for the sake of the following argument....

Conservatives would give one to each group because to them that would be fair, even though the tall people (the rich) clearly dont need the 'tax cut' to see over the fence (symbolism for get by in life) while the little guy (the poor) still doesnt have enough to see over the fence (get by in life)...

Liberals on the other hand would give boxes (tax breaks) according to those who need them the most, which would be the shortest people (the poor) and then the average height people (the middle class) while those who can already get by in life (the tall) arent given any since they dont need it.

See it yet?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 9:57:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 2:42:20 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/24/2013 1:09:36 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
A flat tax rate for everyone makes sense.

It makes everyone equal under the tax law, but, the rich still technically "pay more". And it would be a "fair" share because well, everyone is equal.

For example: a 10% flat income tax.

Person A makes $10,000 and pays $1,000 in taxes.

Person B makes $1,000,000 and pays $100,000 in taxes.

Same rate, rich pay more. IT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE.

Why hasn't this happened yet?

Because your definition of fairness ignores the realities of being a consumer with fixed costs of shelter and food versus the ability to purchase luxury items or invest savings.

If it takes $15,000 to pay for rent/food/utilities, then a 10% tax on a $16,000 income and a 10% tax on a 30,000 income have extremely different effects on the people.

Namely, someone with a 10% tax on 16k could not afford to survive whereas a 10% tax on 30k poses no such crisis.

It'd a bit like saying that equality isn't hitting a child with a stick and hitting an adult with a 2x4, it's hitting both the child and adult with a 2x4. I'm guessing you consider that a fine analogy for taxation.

This. The tax rate being the same proprotion doesnt entail it having the same effects on standard of living
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 10:55:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 9:53:20 PM, imabench wrote:
At 3/24/2013 7:21:56 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/24/2013 1:52:47 PM, imabench wrote:
Its because fairness and equality are different things according to liberals and conservatives.

Equality =/= Fairness
This might help clarify: http://www.orangejuiceblog.com...

LOL
The conservative definition of "equality" shows them with an "equal" number of boxes, and an unfair view. The liberal definition of "equality" gives them an "unequal" number of boxes, and a fair view.

Equal means the same quantity. Fair means without favoritism. A progressive tax is neither fair nor equal.

Idiot... let me explain what the point of the picture is since you missed it

To conservatives, fairness is making sure that everybody holds the same amount of the burden and all people get the exact same amount of taxes. To liberals though, fairness is making sure that those who dont cant handle a tax burden they cant handle arent given one, and their share is given to those who can handle a little extra tax burden.

Imagine if you will that the boxes in the picture are 'tax cuts' for the sake of the following argument....

Conservatives would give one to each group because to them that would be fair, even though the tall people (the rich) clearly dont need the 'tax cut' to see over the fence (symbolism for get by in life) while the little guy (the poor) still doesnt have enough to see over the fence (get by in life)...

Liberals on the other hand would give boxes (tax breaks) according to those who need them the most, which would be the shortest people (the poor) and then the average height people (the middle class) while those who can already get by in life (the tall) arent given any since they dont need it.

See it yet?

Yes but I agree with equality under the law. I would almost go to venture that progressive income tax violates the 14th amendment but the liberals would never let that argument get off the ground.
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 11:16:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 10:55:06 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

Yes but I agree with equality under the law. I would almost go to venture that progressive income tax violates the 14th amendment but the liberals would never let that argument get off the ground.

Im pretty sure that even the Constitution would never let that argument get off the ground either since the 16th amendment allows Congress to impose income taxes....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 11:22:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 11:16:04 PM, imabench wrote:
At 3/24/2013 10:55:06 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

Yes but I agree with equality under the law. I would almost go to venture that progressive income tax violates the 14th amendment but the liberals would never let that argument get off the ground.

Im pretty sure that even the Constitution would never let that argument get off the ground either since the 16th amendment allows Congress to impose income taxes....

I know that, but I taxes are law and these law discriminate based on income which I think is a discriminatory practice which shouldn't be allowed.
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 11:27:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 11:22:34 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 3/24/2013 11:16:04 PM, imabench wrote:
At 3/24/2013 10:55:06 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

Yes but I agree with equality under the law. I would almost go to venture that progressive income tax violates the 14th amendment but the liberals would never let that argument get off the ground.

Im pretty sure that even the Constitution would never let that argument get off the ground either since the 16th amendment allows Congress to impose income taxes....

I know that, but If taxes are law and these laws discriminate based on income which I think is a discriminatory practice then it shouldn't be allowed.

Freedom from discrimination only goes so far though, all rights/freedoms have limits. Even freedom of speech has its limits before it doesnt fly anymore. No rights are universal or all powerful, and to believe that they are and then try to apply them to whatever you please is simply madness
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015