Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:31-50|Last Page
Jump to topic:

LOGIC: Flat Tax

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:07:44 AM
Posted: 7 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.

Doesn't say "fairness" it says "equality".
Imagine if you will that the boxes in the picture are 'tax cuts' for the sake of the following argument....

If they were tax cuts the conservative cuts would be both fair and equal, and the liberal cuts would be neither.
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)...

To say the successful must pay more because they make more is by definition unfair. The only way the "liberal" notion of fair makes any logical sense, is if you completely alter the definition.
Picking winners and losers is not fair. Taxing one group more because they make more is not fair. Grouping people in to tax brackets is not fair.
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.

So by definition liberals support an unfair tax code.
See it yet?
Yes, I see you are ignorant when it comes to the meaning of "fairness".

fair, just - free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception; or conforming with established standards or rules; "a fair referee"; "fair deal"; "on a fair footing"; "a fair fight"; "by fair means or foul"

Antonyms: unfair, unjust, below the belt, cheating, dirty, foul, unsporting, unsportsmanlike, raw

impartial, fair - showing lack of favoritism; "the cold neutrality of an impartial judge"
http://www.wordnet-online.com...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
imabench
Posts: 20,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 7:36:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/25/2013 1:07:44 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/24/2013 9:53:20 PM, imabench wrote:

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.

Doesn't say "fairness" it says "equality".

I know that words confuse you but try to listen to the point im trying to make, mkay?

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

If they were tax cuts the conservative cuts would be both fair and equal, and the liberal cuts would be neither.

opinion

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)...

To say the successful must pay more because they make more is by definition unfair. The only way the "liberal" notion of fair makes any logical sense, is if you completely alter the definition.

Could you maybe wait until something is explained before you give your biased opinion on everything?

Picking winners and losers is not fair. Taxing one group more because they make more is not fair. Grouping people in to tax brackets is not fair.

Now you just sound like a whining little kid at this point...

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.

So by definition liberals support an unfair tax code.

Flew right over your head didnt it....

See it yet?

Yes, I see you are ignorant when it comes to the meaning of "fairness".

fair, just - free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception; or conforming with established standards or rules; "a fair referee"; "fair deal"; "on a fair footing"; "a fair fight"; "by fair means or foul"

Antonyms: unfair, unjust, below the belt, cheating, dirty, foul, unsporting, unsportsmanlike, raw

impartial, fair - showing lack of favoritism; "the cold neutrality of an impartial judge"
http://www.wordnet-online.com...

For anyone who doesnt know DanT, let me explain what just happened here,

DanT (Verb) - To overdefine every word in order to try to win an argument by using semantics.
DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

12/14/14 to 1/1/15 = VP of DDO
8/4/18 to 8/6/18 = Start of the Worst Spam Attack in DDO History (61 Hours, 21 Minutes, and 37 seconds... Estimated 63,175 Spam Posts during the main attack)

Be Today's Hero and Tomorrow's Hero
The trash from yesterday will still be trash from every day onwards
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 8:27:09 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Look at flat taxes in Russia and the Baltic States. It has worked perfectly.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 12:17:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/25/2013 7:36:52 AM, imabench wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:07:44 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/24/2013 9:53:20 PM, imabench wrote:

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.

Doesn't say "fairness" it says "equality".

I know that words confuse you but try to listen to the point im trying to make, mkay?

>.< The point you are trying to make is that fairness = equality, and equality =/= being equal.

The picture does not say "fairness" it says "equality". Relying on the picture alone, liberals are imbeciles who think 2=1 given the context. The picture makes no reference to "fairness" and your interpretation of t picture makes no reference to "equality". Once again equality =/= fairness.

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

If they were tax cuts the conservative cuts would be both fair and equal, and the liberal cuts would be neither.

opinion

Not true.
If you give one bracket more tax cuts than another bracket, you are
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)...

To say the successful must pay more because they make more is by definition unfair. The only way the "liberal" notion of fair makes any logical sense, is if you completely alter the definition.

Could you maybe wait until something is explained before you give your biased opinion on everything?

Not an opinion
Picking winners and losers is not fair. Taxing one group more because they make more is not fair. Grouping people in to tax brackets is not fair.

Now you just sound like a whining little kid at this point...

No you sound like a wining little kid, with your misuse of the word "fair". When you pick winners, and assign tax brackets, you are arbitrarily favoring one group over another.
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.

So by definition liberals support an unfair tax code.

Flew right over your head didnt it....

No. You are saying liberals support arbitrarily raising taxes on those who make more, simply because they make more, thus favoring those who make less. On the other hand, conservatives want an impartial tax code, where the government does not arbitrarily assign brackets to tax segments of the population differently.
See it yet?

Yes, I see you are ignorant when it comes to the meaning of "fairness".

fair, just - free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception; or conforming with established standards or rules; "a fair referee"; "fair deal"; "on a fair footing"; "a fair fight"; "by fair means or foul"

Antonyms: unfair, unjust, below the belt, cheating, dirty, foul, unsporting, unsportsmanlike, raw

impartial, fair - showing lack of favoritism; "the cold neutrality of an impartial judge"
http://www.wordnet-online.com...

For anyone who doesnt know DanT, let me explain what just happened here,

DanT (Verb) - To overdefine every word in order to try to win an argument by using semantics.

It's not an over definition you moron. Providing a definition =/= over defining a term.
I'm not the one using semantics, you are. In order to draw emotional support, you are creating a semantic shift, where "fair" no longer means "fair".
If the resolution was "the sky is pink", and you argued that the the term "pink", not "blue", means a primary color between green and violet, you are using semantics support your illogical argument.

Please provide a definition of what you deem "fair", so when you use it I can understand what you intend. As it stands, you are using the term "fair" simply to provoke an emotion response; like a 3 year old screaming "it' not fair".
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 12:26:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ideally, taxes would be flat (taking the same percentage out of incomes), low, and simple.

However, we do not live in an ideal world. In particular, we live in a world with regressive state and local taxes (as well as regressive payroll taxes).

The federal income tax is extremely progressive. However, that really just makes up for the regressivity elsewhere in the tax code. On net, the tax code is slightly progressive.

The real problem in our tax code is the level of taxation (too high) and the complexity of taxation (too complex).
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 12:46:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/25/2013 12:26:42 PM, BigRat wrote:
Ideally, taxes would be flat (taking the same percentage out of incomes), low, and simple.

However, we do not live in an ideal world. In particular, we live in a world with regressive state and local taxes (as well as regressive payroll taxes).

What state do you live in? I'm not aware of any state with a regressive tax system. You have to be kidding me about payroll taxes being regressive. The obligation of the employer to pay payroll taxes is one of the major causes of unemployment.

I looked up where you got this misinformation; looks like it came from Paul Krugman; "the payroll tax is regressive, as are most state and local taxes, which largely offsets the progressivity of the income tax."

In reality, the claim is false.
"The studies suggest that both of the payroll-tax systems are progressive, not regressive. Moreover, according to a July 2012 study by the Congressional Budget Office, entitled "The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2008 and 2009," the entire U.S. federal tax system (including the earned-income tax, the various capital income taxes, the two types of payroll taxes, the corporate tax, and the excise tax) is also progressive."
http://online.wsj.com...

The federal income tax is extremely progressive. However, that really just makes up for the regressivity elsewhere in the tax code. On net, the tax code is slightly progressive.

I have to disagree.
The real problem in our tax code is the level of taxation (too high) and the complexity of taxation (too complex).
I agree
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 12:55:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/25/2013 12:46:27 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/25/2013 12:26:42 PM, BigRat wrote:
Ideally, taxes would be flat (taking the same percentage out of incomes), low, and simple.

However, we do not live in an ideal world. In particular, we live in a world with regressive state and local taxes (as well as regressive payroll taxes).

What state do you live in? I'm not aware of any state with a regressive tax system. You have to be kidding me about payroll taxes being regressive. The obligation of the employer to pay payroll taxes is one of the major causes of unemployment.

I looked up where you got this misinformation; looks like it came from Paul Krugman; "the payroll tax is regressive, as are most state and local taxes, which largely offsets the progressivity of the income tax."


In reality, the claim is false.
"The studies suggest that both of the payroll-tax systems are progressive, not regressive. Moreover, according to a July 2012 study by the Congressional Budget Office, entitled "The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2008 and 2009," the entire U.S. federal tax system (including the earned-income tax, the various capital income taxes, the two types of payroll taxes, the corporate tax, and the excise tax) is also progressive."
http://online.wsj.com...


The federal income tax is extremely progressive. However, that really just makes up for the regressivity elsewhere in the tax code. On net, the tax code is slightly progressive.

I have to disagree.
The real problem in our tax code is the level of taxation (too high) and the complexity of taxation (too complex).
I agree

Krugman is wrong 99% of the time. This is the other 1% of the time he is at least partially right.

Sales taxes are regressive, things like alcohol and tobacco taxes are regressive, and property taxes are sometimes regressive.

The USA federal tax code IS progressive (all things included). It is state and local taxes that are regressive. When the total tax code is looked at, it is still progressive but not by much.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:06:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/25/2013 12:55:38 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/25/2013 12:46:27 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/25/2013 12:26:42 PM, BigRat wrote:
Ideally, taxes would be flat (taking the same percentage out of incomes), low, and simple.

However, we do not live in an ideal world. In particular, we live in a world with regressive state and local taxes (as well as regressive payroll taxes).

What state do you live in? I'm not aware of any state with a regressive tax system. You have to be kidding me about payroll taxes being regressive. The obligation of the employer to pay payroll taxes is one of the major causes of unemployment.

I looked up where you got this misinformation; looks like it came from Paul Krugman; "the payroll tax is regressive, as are most state and local taxes, which largely offsets the progressivity of the income tax."


In reality, the claim is false.
"The studies suggest that both of the payroll-tax systems are progressive, not regressive. Moreover, according to a July 2012 study by the Congressional Budget Office, entitled "The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2008 and 2009," the entire U.S. federal tax system (including the earned-income tax, the various capital income taxes, the two types of payroll taxes, the corporate tax, and the excise tax) is also progressive."
http://online.wsj.com...


The federal income tax is extremely progressive. However, that really just makes up for the regressivity elsewhere in the tax code. On net, the tax code is slightly progressive.

I have to disagree.
The real problem in our tax code is the level of taxation (too high) and the complexity of taxation (too complex).
I agree


Krugman is wrong 99% of the time. This is the other 1% of the time he is at least partially right.

Sales taxes are regressive, things like alcohol and tobacco taxes are regressive, and property taxes are sometimes regressive.

WTF Sales taxes are indirect. A regressive sales tax would be the more you buy, the less taxes you have to pay. A progressive sales tax would be the more you buy, the more you have to pay. A flat sales tax would be the same rate no matter how much you buy.

Also, not every state has sales taxes. My state only has sales taxes for food; everything else is tax free. It really bugs me when people people group the states together, or assume that each state has the same laws and policies.
The USA federal tax code IS progressive (all things included). It is state and local taxes that are regressive.
A.) No they are not.
B.) Why are you referring to the states as if they are a single entity? That is a major generalization.
When the total tax code is looked at, it is still progressive but not by much.
It's extremely progressive.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
imabench
Posts: 20,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:56:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/25/2013 12:17:17 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/25/2013 7:36:52 AM, imabench wrote:

The picture does not say "fairness" it says "equality". Relying on the picture alone, liberals are imbeciles who think 2=1 given the context. The picture makes no reference to "fairness" and your interpretation of t picture makes no reference to "equality". Once again equality =/= fairness.

I know fairness =/= equality retard, the picture was meant for a different argument in a different context. Im simply using it because it also has relevance to levying taxes.

Now try to focus

If they were tax cuts the conservative cuts would be both fair and equal, and the liberal cuts would be neither.

opinion

Not true. If you give one bracket more tax cuts than another bracket, you are

a super rich person who gets a tax cut saves himself millions of dollars, while a poor person who gets the same tax cut would only save a couple hundred dollars... How does that fit into your definition of 'fairness'?

Picking winners and losers is not fair. Taxing one group more because they make more is not fair. Grouping people in to tax brackets is not fair.

Now you just sound like a whining little kid at this point...

No you sound like a wining little kid,

what a great way to counter argue such a claim.... (thats called sarcasm in case you missed it)

with your misuse of the word "fair". When you pick winners, and assign tax brackets, you are arbitrarily favoring one group over another.

Its not arbitrary once you factor in the well being of the different groups of people after they pay taxes, which you are failing to take into account

No. You are saying liberals support arbitrarily raising taxes on those who make more, simply because they make more, thus favoring those who make less.

Again idiot, its only arbitrary if you dont look at the big picture... There is a good reason to levy taxes differently to different people, and that reason is that those who have too little to give shouldnt be taxed to death while those who are getting by fabulously dont need to be given a boost.

On the other hand, conservatives want an impartial tax code, where the government does not arbitrarily assign brackets to tax segments of the population differently.

Yet everyone of them has so far....

I'm not the one using semantics, you are. In order to draw emotional support, you are creating a semantic shift, where "fair" no longer means "fair". If the resolution was "the sky is pink", and you argued that the the term "pink", not "blue", means a primary color between green and violet, you are using semantics support your illogical argument.

Im not using semantics im just blowing holes in your claims, theres a difference.

Please provide a definition of what you deem "fair", so when you use it I can understand what you intend.

Fairness (in the term of levying taxes on people) to me is levying taxes in a way so that those who have very, very little to give in the first place arent taxed until they cannot sustain themselves anymore; while still taxing those who can sustain themselves, but still only taxing them at rates that will not tax them to death either....

Now dont do that thing you normally do where you take one word in a definition absurdly out of context and try to dismiss the whole argument.
DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

12/14/14 to 1/1/15 = VP of DDO
8/4/18 to 8/6/18 = Start of the Worst Spam Attack in DDO History (61 Hours, 21 Minutes, and 37 seconds... Estimated 63,175 Spam Posts during the main attack)

Be Today's Hero and Tomorrow's Hero
The trash from yesterday will still be trash from every day onwards
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 7:07:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/25/2013 1:56:49 PM, imabench wrote:
At 3/25/2013 12:17:17 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/25/2013 7:36:52 AM, imabench wrote:

The picture does not say "fairness" it says "equality". Relying on the picture alone, liberals are imbeciles who think 2=1 given the context. The picture makes no reference to "fairness" and your interpretation of t picture makes no reference to "equality". Once again equality =/= fairness.

I know fairness =/= equality retard, the picture was meant for a different argument in a different context. Im simply using it because it also has relevance to levying taxes.

Now try to focus

I can't see any relevance in that picture to taxation.
If they were tax cuts the conservative cuts would be both fair and equal, and the liberal cuts would be neither.

opinion

Not true. If you give one bracket more tax cuts than another bracket, you are

a super rich person who gets a tax cut saves himself millions of dollars, while a poor person who gets the same tax cut would only save a couple hundred dollars... How does that fit into your definition of 'fairness'?

The poor person didn't earn millions of dollars to get back. The rich man is still paying more than the poor man in taxes. Tax cuts is the reduction of taxes; it's not an outlay, it's a reduction of the tax receipts.
The poor still manage to get back more than they earned in tax credits. Underthe current tax code, taxation on the poor brings a negative number of receipts. It would be more fiscally sound to not tax the poor.

In 2013 I will earn an annual revenue of ~$900 (1099-misc), with $2,000 of school tax credits, $1,000 of which are refundable. As a result I would make $900 a year, pay nothing in taxes, and receive $1,000 back from the government. I ask you, how is that fair?

Picking winners and losers is not fair. Taxing one group more because they make more is not fair. Grouping people in to tax brackets is not fair.

Now you just sound like a whining little kid at this point...

No you sound like a wining little kid,

what a great way to counter argue such a claim.... (thats called sarcasm in case you missed it)

look at the full sentence. You asserted that I sound like a wining kid, with no explanation to support the assertion. I explained why you more appropriately sounded like a wining kid. I thought it was funny you said that I sounded like a wining kid, when that's what I thought you sounded like from post 1.
You were just the first one to degrade yourself to ad hominem attacks; nice job by the way.
with your misuse of the word "fair". When you pick winners, and assign tax brackets, you are arbitrarily favoring one group over another.

Its not arbitrary once you factor in the well being of the different groups of people after they pay taxes, which you are failing to take into account

No I'm taking it into account. It's still subject to individual discretion or preference.
No. You are saying liberals support arbitrarily raising taxes on those who make more, simply because they make more, thus favoring those who make less.

Again idiot,
Again with the ad hominem attacks
its only arbitrary if you dont look at the big picture...
no, it's still arbitrary.

arbitrary - based on or subject to individual discretion or preference or sometimes impulse or caprice
Antonyms: nonarbitrary, unarbitrary, prescribed
http://www.wordnet-online.com...

nonarbitrary, unarbitrary - not subject to individual determination
http://www.wordnet-online.com...

There is a good reason to levy taxes differently to different people, and that reason is that those who have too little to give shouldnt be taxed to death while those who are getting by fabulously dont need to be given a boost.

So you ideal tax system would result in everyone having an equal discretionary income?
On the other hand, conservatives want an impartial tax code, where the government does not arbitrarily assign brackets to tax segments of the population differently.

Yet everyone of them has so far....

By your definition conservatives want a flat tax.
I'm not the one using semantics, you are. In order to draw emotional support, you are creating a semantic shift, where "fair" no longer means "fair". If the resolution was "the sky is pink", and you argued that the the term "pink", not "blue", means a primary color between green and violet, you are using semantics support your illogical argument.

Im not using semantics im just blowing holes in your claims, theres a difference.

So changing the definition to prove/disprove an argument is not semantics it's "blowing holes in a claim"? That's a new one.
Please provide a definition of what you deem "fair", so when you use it I can understand what you intend.

Fairness (in the term of levying taxes on people) to me is levying taxes in a way so that those who have very, very little to give in the first place arent taxed until they cannot sustain themselves anymore; while still taxing those who can sustain themselves, but still only taxing them at rates that will not tax them to death either....

If a flat tax is taxing the poor that much, than direct taxes should be reduced across the board. That means either;
a.) reducing spending
or
b.) replacing direct taxation with indirect taxation (I consider indirect taxation preferable).

Now dont do that thing you normally do where you take one word in a definition absurdly out of context and try to dismiss the whole argument.

???????????????

I have never done that.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 7:28:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/24/2013 11:27:36 PM, imabench wrote:
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

Also, they necessarily can't be considered discriminatory because they are set before you make the income. The tax doesn't know what you'll make that year, AND THEN determine its rate. Its rate is determined before you make it.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 11:27:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/25/2013 7:28:15 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/24/2013 11:27:36 PM, imabench wrote:
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

Also, they necessarily can't be considered discriminatory because they are set before you make the income. The tax doesn't know what you'll make that year, AND THEN determine its rate. Its rate is determined before you make it.

Sooo what if I make a discriminatory law against gays? The law was there before you told me you were gay.
No one normal accomplished anything meaningful in this world.
imabench
Posts: 20,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 1:34:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/25/2013 7:07:45 PM, DanT wrote:

I can't see any relevance in that picture to taxation.

Of course you wouldnt... Dont worry though next time I tell myself that you'll be able to see the relevance in evidence i'll remind myself that you wont be able to see it and save everyone a lot of time.

The poor person didn't earn millions of dollars to get back. The rich man is still paying more than the poor man in taxes. Tax cuts is the reduction of taxes; it's not an outlay, it's a reduction of the tax receipts. The poor still manage to get back more than they earned in tax credits. Underthe current tax code, taxation on the poor brings a negative number of receipts. It would be more fiscally sound to not tax the poor.

Its more fiscally sound to not tax the poor but thats exactly what a flat tax does....

In 2013 I will earn an annual revenue of ~$900 (1099-misc), with $2,000 of school tax credits, $1,000 of which are refundable. As a result I would make $900 a year, pay nothing in taxes, and receive $1,000 back from the government. I ask you, how is that fair?

Im guessing youre still a student who doesnt have a full time job and is still dependent on somebody else, and if you are choosing to refund your school tax credits that im guessing you earned in the first place, then you are simply taking advantage of the current system to get by in life.... I dont see whats not fair

Picking winners and losers is not fair. Taxing one group more because they make more is not fair. Grouping people in to tax brackets is not fair.

Now you just sound like a whining little kid at this point...

No you sound like a wining little kid,

what a great way to counter argue such a claim.... (thats called sarcasm in case you missed it)

look at the full sentence. You asserted that I sound like a wining kid, with no explanation to support the assertion. I explained why you more appropriately sounded like a wining kid. I thought it was funny you said that I sounded like a wining kid, when that's what I thought you sounded like from post 1.

Youre counter argument to mine was to simply assert your own opinions by complaining about what is or isnt fair, which is exactly what a whining little kid would do. I pointed it out and then, once again like a whiny little kid would, you accused me of being one and that you didnt do anything wrong.

You were just the first one to degrade yourself to ad hominem attacks; nice job by the way.

Seeing as how you cant even figure out how the picture could relate to taxation in the first place, it would make sense that you would also fail to see other things which are blatantly obvious to everyone else.... Ill let it go though for the sake of th argument.

There is a good reason to levy taxes differently to different people, and that reason is that those who have too little to give shouldnt be taxed to death while those who are getting by fabulously dont need to be given a boost.

So your ideal tax system would result in everyone having an equal discretionary income?

My ideal tax system would be to spare the poor from taxes that would otherwise cause them to not have enough to live, while taxing those who can spare money to taxes and still get by in life, taking more from those who have much, much more to give until the government doesnt need anymore

On the other hand, conservatives want an impartial tax code, where the government does not arbitrarily assign brackets to tax segments of the population differently.

Yet everyone of them has so far....

By your definition conservatives want a flat tax.

Based on the arguments given, it was being implied that a flat tax is something that most conservatives want, or at least SAY that they want.... I was simply pointing out that even though conservatives preach something, they almost always produce the exact opposite when they become president.... Like smaller government

Please provide a definition of what you deem "fair", so when you use it I can understand what you intend.

Fairness (in the term of levying taxes on people) to me is levying taxes in a way so that those who have very, very little to give in the first place arent taxed until they cannot sustain themselves anymore; while still taxing those who can sustain themselves, but still only taxing them at rates that will not tax them to death either....

If a flat tax is taxing the poor that much, than direct taxes should be reduced across the board. That means either;
a.) reducing spending
or
b.) replacing direct taxation with indirect taxation (I consider indirect taxation preferable).

Just because you prefer it though it doesnt automatically means it will be implemented, it just means you have an opinion.
DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

12/14/14 to 1/1/15 = VP of DDO
8/4/18 to 8/6/18 = Start of the Worst Spam Attack in DDO History (61 Hours, 21 Minutes, and 37 seconds... Estimated 63,175 Spam Posts during the main attack)

Be Today's Hero and Tomorrow's Hero
The trash from yesterday will still be trash from every day onwards
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 7:22:45 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/26/2013 1:34:56 AM, imabench wrote:
At 3/25/2013 7:07:45 PM, DanT wrote:

I can't see any relevance in that picture to taxation.

Of course you wouldnt... Dont worry though next time I tell myself that you'll be able to see the relevance in evidence i'll remind myself that you wont be able to see it and save everyone a lot of time.

The picture has no relevance to taxation. It is a false analogy.
A.) they are giving stools, not taking them away
B.) the stools were not earned, whereas taxable income is earned
C.) if height + stools = income than a flat tax rate would take away stools proportionate to their height; the tallest would have less stools than the shortest.

The poor person didn't earn millions of dollars to get back. The rich man is still paying more than the poor man in taxes. Tax cuts is the reduction of taxes; it's not an outlay, it's a reduction of the tax receipts. The poor still manage to get back more than they earned in tax credits. Underthe current tax code, taxation on the poor brings a negative number of receipts. It would be more fiscally sound to not tax the poor.

Its more fiscally sound to not tax the poor but thats exactly what a flat tax does....

It's more fiscally sound to not tax the poor under the current progressive tax code. Please stop taking what I say out of context.
In 2013 I will earn an annual revenue of ~$900 (1099-misc), with $2,000 of school tax credits, $1,000 of which are refundable. As a result I would make $900 a year, pay nothing in taxes, and receive $1,000 back from the government. I ask you, how is that fair?

Im guessing youre still a student who doesnt have a full time job
I graduated with my AS. I'm going for my BS. The job market sucks so I can't find work. I'm currently self employed, hence the 1099-misc.

and is still dependent on somebody else, and if you are choosing to refund your school tax credits that im guessing you earned in the first place, then you are simply taking advantage of the current system to get by in life....
Reporting income =/= taking advantage of the system
I don't see whats not fair

You don't see a negative tax as unfair? You just said it gives me an "advantage"; would you not agree this advantage is arbitrary?

Picking winners and losers is not fair. Taxing one group more because they make more is not fair. Grouping people in to tax brackets is not fair.

Now you just sound like a whining little kid at this point...

No you sound like a wining little kid,

what a great way to counter argue such a claim.... (thats called sarcasm in case you missed it)

look at the full sentence. You asserted that I sound like a wining kid, with no explanation to support the assertion. I explained why you more appropriately sounded like a wining kid. I thought it was funny you said that I sounded like a wining kid, when that's what I thought you sounded like from post 1.

Youre counter argument to mine was to simply assert your own opinions by complaining about what is or isnt fair,
No I was giving examples of the proper use of the term "fair"

which is exactly what a whining little kid would do. I pointed it out and then, once again like a whiny little kid would, you accused me of being one and that you didnt do anything wrong.

No, I pointed out the analogy better fits you, because you misuse the term in order to invoke an emotional response.
You were just the first one to degrade yourself to ad hominem attacks; nice job by the way.

Seeing as how you cant even figure out how the picture could relate to taxation in the first place, it would make sense that you would also fail to see other things which are blatantly obvious to everyone else.... Ill let it go though for the sake of th argument.

I can see how it can be falsely associated with taxation, but it is irrelevant as it is a false analogy.
There is a good reason to levy taxes differently to different people, and that reason is that those who have too little to give shouldnt be taxed to death while those who are getting by fabulously dont need to be given a boost.

So your ideal tax system would result in everyone having an equal discretionary income?

My ideal tax system would be to spare the poor from taxes that would otherwise cause them to not have enough to live, while taxing those who can spare money to taxes and still get by in life, taking more from those who have much, much more to give until the government doesnt need anymore

So I'm right?
On the other hand, conservatives want an impartial tax code, where the government does not arbitrarily assign brackets to tax segments of the population differently.

Yet everyone of them has so far....

By your definition conservatives want a flat tax.

Based on the arguments given, it was being implied that a flat tax is something that most conservatives want, or at least SAY that they want.... I was simply pointing out that even though conservatives preach something, they almost always produce the exact opposite when they become president.... Like smaller government

The president does not create the tax rates.
Please provide a definition of what you deem "fair", so when you use it I can understand what you intend.

Fairness (in the term of levying taxes on people) to me is levying taxes in a way so that those who have very, very little to give in the first place arent taxed until they cannot sustain themselves anymore; while still taxing those who can sustain themselves, but still only taxing them at rates that will not tax them to death either....

If a flat tax is taxing the poor that much, than direct taxes should be reduced across the board. That means either;
a.) reducing spending
or
b.) replacing direct taxation with indirect taxation (I consider indirect taxation preferable).

Just because you prefer it though it doesnt automatically means it will be implemented, it just means you have an opinion.
Irrelevant
That neither proves nor disproves my point
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
imabench
Posts: 20,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 10:57:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/26/2013 7:22:45 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/26/2013 1:34:56 AM, imabench wrote:
At 3/25/2013 7:07:45 PM, DanT wrote:

I went ahead and deleted the parts of the conversation where you dont address the point to save us some time.

I don't see whats not fair

You don't see a negative tax as unfair? You just said it gives me an "advantage"; would you not agree this advantage is arbitrary?

I dont think that its arbitrary since you find yourself in the same situation that a lot of other people find themselves in, where a student is in a tough job market and is still dependent on somebody else to get by.

There is a good reason to levy taxes differently to different people, and that reason is that those who have too little to give shouldnt be taxed to death while those who are getting by fabulously dont need to be given a boost.

So your ideal tax system would result in everyone having an equal discretionary income?

My ideal tax system would be to spare the poor from taxes that would otherwise cause them to not have enough to live, while taxing those who can spare money to taxes and still get by in life, taking more from those who have much, much more to give until the government doesnt need anymore

So I'm right?

No dumba**, im not saying that everyone should have equal discretionary income, im saying that everyone should be able to have discretionary income.

For someone whose obsessed with defining words you sure do miss a lot of them.

By your definition conservatives want a flat tax.

Based on the arguments given, it was being implied that a flat tax is something that most conservatives want, or at least SAY that they want.... I was simply pointing out that even though conservatives preach something, they almost always produce the exact opposite when they become president.... Like smaller government

The president does not create the tax rates.

The president isnt in control of a lot of stuff but that sure as hell doesnt stop you or 99% of other conservatives for still blaming Obama over the matter....

Fairness (in the term of levying taxes on people) to me is levying taxes in a way so that those who have very, very little to give in the first place arent taxed until they cannot sustain themselves anymore; while still taxing those who can sustain themselves, but still only taxing them at rates that will not tax them to death either....

If a flat tax is taxing the poor that much, than direct taxes should be reduced across the board. That means either;
a.) reducing spending
or
b.) replacing direct taxation with indirect taxation (I consider indirect taxation preferable).

Just because you prefer it though it doesnt automatically means it will be implemented, it just means you have an opinion.

Irrelevant that neither proves nor disproves my point

It kind of does since you once again are refusing to take in the full picture and instead just substitute your own opinion/political bias as fact or as the definite solution rather then take into account the reality of the situation....
DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

12/14/14 to 1/1/15 = VP of DDO
8/4/18 to 8/6/18 = Start of the Worst Spam Attack in DDO History (61 Hours, 21 Minutes, and 37 seconds... Estimated 63,175 Spam Posts during the main attack)

Be Today's Hero and Tomorrow's Hero
The trash from yesterday will still be trash from every day onwards
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 11:25:57 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Imabench's picture is based on amounts rather then percents, which makes the picture inaccurate for both sides.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 3:49:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/26/2013 10:57:13 AM, imabench wrote:
At 3/26/2013 7:22:45 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/26/2013 1:34:56 AM, imabench wrote:
At 3/25/2013 7:07:45 PM, DanT wrote:

I went ahead and deleted the parts of the conversation where you dont address the point to save us some time.

I adressed all your points. You deleted my response. If you are wrong admit it, don't try to cover it up.
I don't see whats not fair

You don't see a negative tax as unfair? You just said it gives me an "advantage"; would you not agree this advantage is arbitrary?

I dont think that its arbitrary
Its by definition an arbitrary credit. The decision regarding what to give tax credits for, and how much to give, is completely arbitrary.
If there was no tax credits, and everyone was taxed the same rate (notice I said rate, not amount) it would not be arbitrary as the rate would depend on the need, and there would be no arbitrary classifications and segmentation.

since you find yourself in the same situation that a lot of other people find themselves in, where a student is in a tough job market and is still dependent on somebody else to get by.

Eliminate minimum wage, and I will be able to find a job.

Just because there is a moral justification, does not make it any less subjective.

There is a good reason to levy taxes differently to different people, and that reason is that those who have too little to give shouldnt be taxed to death while those who are getting by fabulously dont need to be given a boost.

So your ideal tax system would result in everyone having an equal discretionary income?

My ideal tax system would be to spare the poor from taxes that would otherwise cause them to not have enough to live, while taxing those who can spare money to taxes and still get by in life, taking more from those who have much, much more to give until the government doesnt need anymore

So I'm right?

No dumba**, im not saying that everyone should have equal discretionary income, im saying that everyone should be able to have discretionary income.

Even if it is unearned? That's called theft.
For someone whose obsessed with defining words you sure do miss a lot of them.

I'm not obsessed with defining words, I'm obsessed with eradicating ignorance in all its forms. The eradication of ignorance includes, but is not limitted to, the misuse of words to semanticly prove a point; like what you are doing.
By your definition conservatives want a flat tax.

Based on the arguments given, it was being implied that a flat tax is something that most conservatives want, or at least SAY that they want.... I was simply pointing out that even though conservatives preach something, they almost always produce the exact opposite when they become president.... Like smaller government

The president does not create the tax rates.

The president isnt in control of a lot of stuff but that sure as hell doesnt stop you or 99% of other conservatives for still blaming Obama over the matter....

The president is responsible for signing bills into law. The president has an obligation to veto unconstitutional bills. If the president vetoes a proposed progressive tax system without congress passing a tax code he does approve of, the entire budget for that fiscal year turns into one big deficit. When the president endorses a bill, he is also responsible for that endorsement.

Fairness (in the term of levying taxes on people) to me is levying taxes in a way so that those who have very, very little to give in the first place arent taxed until they cannot sustain themselves anymore; while still taxing those who can sustain themselves, but still only taxing them at rates that will not tax them to death either....

If a flat tax is taxing the poor that much, than direct taxes should be reduced across the board. That means either;
a.) reducing spending
or
b.) replacing direct taxation with indirect taxation (I consider indirect taxation preferable).

Just because you prefer it though it doesnt automatically means it will be implemented, it just means you have an opinion.

Irrelevant that neither proves nor disproves my point

It kind of does since you once again are refusing to take in the full picture and instead just substitute your own opinion/political bias as fact or as the definite solution rather then take into account the reality of the situation....
Nice ad hominem.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
imabench
Posts: 20,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 11:07:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/26/2013 3:49:38 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/26/2013 10:57:13 AM, imabench wrote:
At 3/26/2013 7:22:45 AM, DanT wrote:

I adressed all your points. You deleted my response. If you are wrong admit it, don't try to cover it up.

Clinging to your opinions as your entire arguments isnt addressing the points, its missing them, and you do that very frequently.

Once again I went ahead and deleted the parts of the conversation where you dont address the point to save us time.

I dont think that its arbitrary

Its by definition an arbitrary credit. The decision regarding what to give tax credits for, and how much to give, is completely arbitrary.

Is it possible that maybe there is a reason and you just dont know it?

If there was no tax credits, and everyone was taxed the same rate (notice I said rate, not amount) it would not be arbitrary as the rate would depend on the need, and there would be no arbitrary classifications and segmentation.

Just because classifications and segmentation exist based on possibly arbitrary standards, that doesnt mean that do not serve any kind of purpose

The president does not create the tax rates.

The president isnt in control of a lot of stuff but that sure as hell doesnt stop you or 99% of other conservatives for still blaming Obama over the matter....

The president is responsible for signing bills into law. The president has an obligation to veto unconstitutional bills. If the president vetoes a proposed progressive tax system without congress passing a tax code he does approve of, the entire budget for that fiscal year turns into one big deficit. When the president endorses a bill, he is also responsible for that endorsement.

Thats a retarded claim to make. There is such a thing called 'picking the lesser of two evils' where if someone makes a decision where they have to pick one of two options that both have some negative weight to them, then its preferred to go with the one that carries lesser evil. Just because you pick the lesser of the two evils though doesnt mean you endorse it, thats just idiotic to claim.
DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

12/14/14 to 1/1/15 = VP of DDO
8/4/18 to 8/6/18 = Start of the Worst Spam Attack in DDO History (61 Hours, 21 Minutes, and 37 seconds... Estimated 63,175 Spam Posts during the main attack)

Be Today's Hero and Tomorrow's Hero
The trash from yesterday will still be trash from every day onwards
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 12:20:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/26/2013 11:07:27 PM, imabench wrote:
At 3/26/2013 3:49:38 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/26/2013 10:57:13 AM, imabench wrote:
At 3/26/2013 7:22:45 AM, DanT wrote:

I adressed all your points. You deleted my response. If you are wrong admit it, don't try to cover it up.

Clinging to your opinions as your entire arguments isnt addressing the points, its missing them, and you do that very frequently.

And dismissing arguments as opinions is not a rebuttal
I'm not just giving opinions. You on the other hand.
Once again I went ahead and deleted the parts of the conversation where you dont address the point to save us time.

I did adress the points, you dropped them.
I dont think that its arbitrary

Its by definition an arbitrary credit. The decision regarding what to give tax credits for, and how much to give, is completely arbitrary.

Is it possible that maybe there is a reason and you just dont know it?

The numbers and topics chosen are arbitrary. nice argument from ignorance by the way.
If there was no tax credits, and everyone was taxed the same rate (notice I said rate, not amount) it would not be arbitrary as the rate would depend on the need, and there would be no arbitrary classifications and segmentation.

Just because classifications and segmentation exist based on possibly arbitrary standards, that doesnt mean that do not serve any kind of purpose

No, but it does mean they are unfair. Serving a purpose =/= fair

The president does not create the tax rates.

The president isnt in control of a lot of stuff but that sure as hell doesnt stop you or 99% of other conservatives for still blaming Obama over the matter....

The president is responsible for signing bills into law. The president has an obligation to veto unconstitutional bills. If the president vetoes a proposed progressive tax system without congress passing a tax code he does approve of, the entire budget for that fiscal year turns into one big deficit. When the president endorses a bill, he is also responsible for that endorsement.

Thats a retarded claim to make.
Nice Ad hominem
There is such a thing called 'picking the lesser of two evils' where if someone makes a decision where they have to pick one of two options that both have some negative weight to them, then its preferred to go with the one that carries lesser evil.

Hence conservative presidents with progressive tax codes. When it comes to other legislation, like healthcare reform, the lesser of two evils does not apply.

Way to support my point.

Just because you pick the lesser of the two evils though doesnt mean you endorse it, thats just idiotic to claim.
Didn't say that. I said "endorsing a bill", not endorsing a law. If he signs the bill it becomes a law. How did you pass highschool government?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
imabench
Posts: 20,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 11:21:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Once again I went ahead and deleted the parts of the conversation where you dont address the point to save us time.

I did adress the points, you dropped them.

Giving an unsubstantiated opinion as an excuse to a question isnt addressing the points.

Is it possible that maybe there is a reason and you just dont know it?

The numbers and topics chosen are arbitrary. nice argument from ignorance by the way.

^ See, thats the kind of 'arguments' youve been giving this whole time. You state your opinion and then dont even bother answering the question. Allow me to proceed on deleting every other argument youve dropped because of your inability to give a half decent answer that didnt center around your political bias

The president is responsible for signing bills into law. The president has an obligation to veto unconstitutional bills. If the president vetoes a proposed progressive tax system without congress passing a tax code he does approve of, the entire budget for that fiscal year turns into one big deficit. When the president endorses a bill, he is also responsible for that endorsement.

There is such a thing called 'picking the lesser of two evils' where if someone makes a decision where they have to pick one of two options that both have some negative weight to them, then its preferred to go with the one that carries lesser evil.

Hence conservative presidents with progressive tax codes. When it comes to other legislation, like healthcare reform, the lesser of two evils does not apply.

Way to support my point.

Healthcare reform isnt even what we're talking about... My god its a miracle you actually have a degree in anything.
DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

12/14/14 to 1/1/15 = VP of DDO
8/4/18 to 8/6/18 = Start of the Worst Spam Attack in DDO History (61 Hours, 21 Minutes, and 37 seconds... Estimated 63,175 Spam Posts during the main attack)

Be Today's Hero and Tomorrow's Hero
The trash from yesterday will still be trash from every day onwards

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.