Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How do liberals justify...

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 9:20:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This will be my "How do liberals justify..." series so I can see where you guys are coming from.

This will be taxes.
It seems you guys are more for a progressive tax that taxes the rich and gives to the lower classes.

How can you justify that?
Why do you want taxes, for what?
How can it really work?
Do you have any samples of this working well in other countries?
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 9:23:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Because privatizing things like roads isn't practical.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 9:26:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 9:23:15 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Because privatizing things like roads isn't practical.

Ok???

Why is it not practical?

How did monroe make the first national road?
Was it not a mix of federal and private sector.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 9:30:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I justify a progressive tax system because it's more practical. Flat taxes place a higher burden on the middle class and give them less money to buy goods which stimulate the economy, and it generates less tax revenue (if we have less revenue, we'll never be able to pay off our massive debt).
President of DDO
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 9:34:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 9:30:45 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I justify a progressive tax system because it's more practical. Flat taxes place a higher burden on the middle class and give them less money to buy goods which stimulate the economy, and it generates less tax revenue (if we have less revenue, we'll never be able to pay off our massive debt).

Yeah I do not like a flat tax either.
I like a fair tax but progressive tax has proven itself to not be fair and it is proving to not be so practical.
The rich know of ways to get out of paying taxes.

And how is it fair to spread the wealth of few to the many?
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 9:37:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 9:26:57 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 4/17/2010 9:23:15 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Because privatizing things like roads isn't practical.

Ok???

Why is it not practical?

How did monroe make the first national road?
Was it not a mix of federal and private sector.

Sure, and so what? Would having all private roads be more practical for you or all public roads? And why?
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 9:38:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 9:34:44 PM, comoncents wrote:

Yeah I do not like a flat tax either.
I like a fair tax but progressive tax has proven itself to not be fair and it is proving to not be so practical.
The rich know of ways to get out of paying taxes.

And how is it fair to spread the wealth of few to the many?

... Huh? Is it just me, or are you contradicting yourself? On one hand you're saying that you don't support a flat tax (so you support a progressive tax), but on the other hand you're saying you don't want to spread the wealth of a few to the many which is exactly what a progressive tax does lol.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 9:40:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 9:26:57 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 4/17/2010 9:23:15 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Because privatizing things like roads isn't practical.

Ok???

Why is it not practical?

"Outsourcing borrowing against future toll revenue to a private entity is likely to generate less money than a public entity could produce with the same tolls. This is the case because a private toll road operator will have higher borrowing costs and must divert some revenues to shareholder profits. In addition to these fiscal problems, long-term road contracts pose other serious threats to the public interest. These include fragmentation and loss of public control over transportation policy, and the inability to plan for future public needs in contracts that stretch over multiple decades." -- Phineas Baxandall, Ph.D.

just to name a few
President of DDO
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 9:43:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 9:38:37 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 4/17/2010 9:34:44 PM, comoncents wrote:

Yeah I do not like a flat tax either.
I like a fair tax but progressive tax has proven itself to not be fair and it is proving to not be so practical.
The rich know of ways to get out of paying taxes.

And how is it fair to spread the wealth of few to the many?

... Huh? Is it just me, or are you contradicting yourself? On one hand you're saying that you don't support a flat tax (so you support a progressive tax), on income.

I was talking about the actual "Flat tax" system.
"Usually the term flat tax refers to household income (and sometimes corporate profits) being taxed at one marginal rate"

What I am proposing is a form of flat tax, but with style.
So I can see where you can say that.

but on the other hand you're saying you don't want to spread the wealth of a few to the many which is exactly what a progressive tax does lol.

I am totally against a progressive tax.
I am for a "national sales tax"
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 9:45:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago

What I am proposing is a form of flat tax, but with style.

What's your "flat tax with style"?
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 9:46:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 9:43:43 PM, comoncents wrote:

What I am proposing is a form of flat tax, but with style.

Ok so what exactly are you proposing? Besides national sales tax?
President of DDO
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 9:46:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 9:30:45 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I justify a progressive tax system because it's more practical. Flat taxes place a higher burden on the middle class and give them less money to buy goods which stimulate the economy, and it generates less tax revenue (if we have less revenue, we'll never be able to pay off our massive debt).

Wait, I thought you believed taxation was theft?
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 9:53:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
My opinion is that the rich take in more resources than they actually produce. Because they take in more than they produce, they create inequity and inequality in our economic system. Hundreds of years ago, peasants would work half the week for themselves and half the week for their lords... I don't think much has changed. We work 102 days a year for taxes, and I would guess that we work another 100 days in the form of seeing our efforts soaked up by the rich to manipulate the system they own to their advantage. I don't have as much problem with the taxes, because my taxes are directly put back into the services that must be socialized (fire, roads, schools, you know the drill) and I have a VOTE in who gets that money. In the private sector, people are appointed, deals are made, and decisions are implemented in completely clandestine situations without a shred of accountability, transparency, or inputs from me. Just because I will tend to buy a good that is cheaper doesn't mean everything is OK and the private sector can have its complete and unadulterated way. I understand that there are evils from the public sector; just look at China. Am I naive to think that our culture has progresses so far that we would be immune from such disasters as totalitarian communism? Seems to me that the closest thing to that sort of system would be to let the private sector take off...
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 9:55:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 9:37:20 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 4/17/2010 9:26:57 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 4/17/2010 9:23:15 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Because privatizing things like roads isn't practical.

Ok???

Why is it not practical?

How did monroe make the first national road?
Was it not a mix of federal and private sector.


Sure, and so what?

History is there to teach us what to do... and what not to do.

Would having all private roads be more practical for you or all public roads?

No.
I am just asking the question.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 9:55:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 9:46:54 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:

Wait, I thought you believed taxation was theft?

Well I guess in a way it's theft lol but when I said that in our PM it was because I was playing devil's advocate to try and get you to justify your opinion :P Besides, taxes still are the only way we can pay off our debt regardless of whether or not it's theft...
President of DDO
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 9:56:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 9:45:38 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:

What I am proposing is a form of flat tax, but with style.


What's your "flat tax with style"?

http://www.fairtax.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 9:58:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 9:55:21 PM, comoncents wrote:

History is there to teach us what to do... and what not to do.

... Just bc the first roads were semi-private it means that future roads should be private? Well the first fax machine took a half hour to send a fax lol does that mean that fax machines today should take the same amount of time? Or does it mean that we should use history as a tool to show us how to IMPROVE things and make them better?
President of DDO
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 9:58:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 9:46:26 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 4/17/2010 9:43:43 PM, comoncents wrote:

What I am proposing is a form of flat tax, but with style.

Ok so what exactly are you proposing? Besides national sales tax?

A national sales tax with a prebate.

" FairTax actually eliminates and reimburses all federal taxes for those below the poverty line. This is accomplished through the universal prebate and by eliminating the highly regressive FICA payroll tax. Today, low and moderate income Americans pay far more in FICA taxes than income taxes. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a FairTax of only 11.5 percent -- a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today. Meanwhile, the wealthy pay the 23 percent retail sales tax on their retail purchases."

"In contrast, the FairTax dramatically improves economic growth and wage rates for all, but especially for lower-income families and individuals. In addition to receiving the monthly FairTax prebate, these taxpayers are freed from regressive payroll taxes, the federal income tax, and the compliance burdens associated with each. They pay no more business taxes hidden in the price of goods and services, and used goods are tax free."

http://www.fairtax.org...
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 9:59:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Oh and another thing, I propose taxing the hell out of the rich, in the sense that there would be a much smaller spectrum of wealth among the people. People will always be wealthier than others, but I think the magnitude of the phenomenon at this time is way out of control. 95% of the resources in the hands of the top 1%? Are you trying to tell me that 1% of the population creates 95% of the wealth here? How is that patriotic, or "American?" That's what we call, in economics, MARKET FAILURE
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 10:03:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 9:53:00 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
My opinion is that the rich take in more resources than they actually produce.

Having an opinion is good.

Because they take in more than they produce, they create inequity and inequality in our economic system.

But so do drug dealers, prostitutes, and illegal immigrants that do not have to pay a tax.

I don't have as much problem with the taxes, because my taxes are directly put back into the services that must be socialized (fire, roads, schools, you know the drill)

Wars you do not support. Bailing out banks... the list does go on.

and I have a VOTE in who gets that money.

How?

In the private sector, people are appointed, deals are made, and decisions are implemented in completely clandestine situations without a shred of accountability, transparency, or inputs from me. Just because I will tend to buy a good that is cheaper doesn't mean everything is OK and the private sector can have its complete and unadulterated way. I understand that there are evils from the public sector; just look at China. Am I naive to think that our culture has progresses so far that we would be immune from such disasters as totalitarian communism? Seems to me that the closest thing to that sort of system would be to let the private sector take off...

Cool, thanks.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 10:03:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 9:55:27 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 4/17/2010 9:46:54 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:

Wait, I thought you believed taxation was theft?

Well I guess in a way it's theft

Yes!

lol but when I said that in our PM it was because I was playing devil's advocate to try and get you to justify your opinion :P Besides, taxes still are the only way we can pay off our debt regardless of whether or not it's theft...

And Yes! It seems to be.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 10:06:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 9:56:11 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 4/17/2010 9:45:38 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:

What I am proposing is a form of flat tax, but with style.


What's your "flat tax with style"?

http://www.fairtax.org...

Ok, so you support the "fair tax" which is essentially abolishing income tax in favor of a national sales tax. But in order to generate the same amount of revenue that income tax does, sales tax would have to be at something like 30+ percent which would make things a lot more expensive (obviously) inhibiting people from buying certain goods and thus not stimulating the economy. Also, you mentioned that you don't like rich people trying to get out of paying taxes... but with a sales tax, intermediate goods that are a part of production would not be taxed. This creates potential for businesses to claim something is an intermediate good when really it is the end product that should be taxed, meaning people would cheat the system either way lol.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 10:10:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 10:03:07 PM, comoncents wrote:

But so do drug dealers, prostitutes, and illegal immigrants that do not have to pay a tax.

So make drugs and prostitution legal and tax them the same way pharmaceutical companies produce (addictive!) drugs and get taxed. Give immigrants amnesty and they'll have to pay taxes too.

Wars you do not support. Bailing out banks... the list does go on.

I don't think many people supported the bail outs. I know I didn't/don't!!! But that was not a democratic/liberal policy. Both parties wanted the bail outs. Anyway, yes, even liberals are taxed for wars they don't support just as conservatives are taxed for things they don't support (welfare, etc.).

In the private sector, people are appointed, deals are made, and decisions are implemented in completely clandestine situations without a shred of accountability, transparency, or inputs from me.

^^ To Rob: I wish that were true, but things like the bank bail outs (and where the money went) prove that this isn't always the case. We still have no idea where that money went and if it was useful.
President of DDO
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 10:11:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 10:06:36 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 4/17/2010 9:56:11 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 4/17/2010 9:45:38 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:

What I am proposing is a form of flat tax, but with style.


What's your "flat tax with style"?

http://www.fairtax.org...

Ok, so you support the "fair tax" which is essentially abolishing income tax in favor of a national sales tax. But in order to generate the same amount of revenue that income tax does, sales tax would have to be at something like 30+ percent which would make things a lot more expensive (obviously) inhibiting people from buying certain goods and thus not stimulating the economy.

It will not be 30 percent.
The 30 percent does not calculate the people that are not paying taxes now.
Illegals, drug dealers, and everyone that does not pay taxes.

http://www.fairtax.org...

This creates potential for businesses to claim something is an intermediate good when really it is the end product that should be taxed, meaning people would cheat the system either way lol.

But the materials they buy to make the product will have been taxed.

But i do get your point.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 10:11:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 9:30:45 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I justify a progressive tax system because it's more practical.

If by practical, you mean that the progressive tax system is more practical to get statist politicians elected more easily.

Flat taxes place a higher burden on the middle class

Flat taxes place the same burden on everyone as everyone is taxed at the same percentage.

and give them less money to buy goods which stimulate the economy

Progressive taxes don't give anyone more money, they simply transfer money for A to B. If your logic held true, then it would be logical for 5% of the population to work and the other 95% of the population to sit on their couches and simply spend what the other 5% make, since that would stimulate the economy. Of course this logic isn't true. For one, this provides an incentive not to work and produce, since you get taxed more for making more money and producing goods. Two, less people working and producing means that less goods and services are provided, which means that the economy as a whole is decreased, not stimulated. Basically, spending isn't good. What is good, is producing-- more goods and services.

and it generates less tax revenue (if we have less revenue, we'll never be able to pay off our massive debt).

Even if it were true that it generates less tax revenue, this is not a good argument. The Laffer Curve, which is what you're arguing, says that being taxed at 0% generates 0% of revenues and being taxed at 100% generates 0% of revenues, therefore the government must find an optimal percentage to generate the most revenues. Assuming you can somehow find this optimal point, which you can't, the revenues simply go into the hands of government bureaucrats who decide where the money will be spent, instead of being left in the hands of individuals, who are much better at stimulating the economy than any government bureaucrat could do.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 10:11:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 9:55:21 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 4/17/2010 9:37:20 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 4/17/2010 9:26:57 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 4/17/2010 9:23:15 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Because privatizing things like roads isn't practical.

Ok???

Why is it not practical?

How did monroe make the first national road?
Was it not a mix of federal and private sector.


Sure, and so what?

History is there to teach us what to do... and what not to do.


So you showed how the first road was made. So what? What exactly does this teach us?

Would having all private roads be more practical for you or all public roads?

No.
I am just asking the question.

Well, which do you think is more practical?
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 10:17:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 10:11:24 PM, Nags wrote:

Flat taxes place the same burden on everyone as everyone is taxed at the same percentage.

I know you're trying to be clever, but we both know that's not true. If I make 100$ and you make $20 but we are both taxed 5%, obviously it's going to impact you more.

For one, this provides an incentive not to work and produce, since you get taxed more for making more money and producing goods. Two, less people working and producing means that less goods and services are provided, which means that the economy as a whole is decreased, not stimulated. Basically, spending isn't good. What is good, is producing-- more goods and services.

We live in a progressive tax system now, and yet I still want to go and make as much money as possible. Don't you? If the answer is yes - that your goal is to earn a high income - then your whole argument fails. Also, if the proposed alternative is a national sales tax, then the exact same thing can be said of that system. People would have an incentive not to buy goods, meaning there would be no need for workers.

Even if it were true that it generates less tax revenue...

It is.

Assuming you can somehow find this optimal point, which you can't, the revenues simply go into the hands of government bureaucrats who decide where the money will be spent, instead of being left in the hands of individuals, who are much better at stimulating the economy than any government bureaucrat could do.

So implement a more direct democracy, or encourage people to get more involved in their government. Everyone has the right to be heard, but people are too lazy to go down to their town hall or contact their congressmen. They just like to sit home on the internet and complain about it.
President of DDO
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 10:17:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 10:13:29 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 4/17/2010 10:11:54 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:

Well, which do you think is more practical?

http://www.fairtax.org...


Get on board.

Lwerd already summed up my opinion on the Fair Tax. I don't think National Sales Tax is a good way to replace an income tax. The country will get FAR LESS money and the economy will be hurting very badly.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 10:26:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 10:17:53 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 4/17/2010 10:13:29 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 4/17/2010 10:11:54 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:

Well, which do you think is more practical?

http://www.fairtax.org...


Get on board.

Lwerd already summed up my opinion on the Fair Tax. I don't think National Sales Tax is a good way to replace an income tax. The country will get FAR LESS money and the economy will be hurting very badly.

I don't think so.