Home | News | Forums | Turf Map | Screenshots | Play Turf Wars Now!

😃Friendly Debate😃

• ནཝཇངᎯངᎿཔᎦ༽༨རསཁྭ Mar 6, 2012

  So I haven't seen much debating recently (if there has been sorry I must be blind then) so I decided to make this thread. Rules are as follows:

  •No trolling
  •Keep it clean
  •Do not wipe out another player because you do not believe what they say

  The topic will be your stance on taxes.

  My personal opinion is that a government can't pay without money so if you lower taxes your not helping the government. I think there should be a rich tax such as for every $100 million dollars you make in a year you have to pay $10-25 Million. If you're making that much then you can survive off that income easily.

  Your thoughts?
• TheNewfieBullet Mar 6, 2012

  I'd say, everyone pays the same, relative to a pourcent age of their income. For example if tax was for say 20% then 100mil a year would pay 20mil, 100$ per year would pay 20$. Obviously those are unrealistic #s but it's just an example.
• ᎠяᏚuηshιηε Mar 6, 2012

  I agree. There are some millionaires right now who pay a lower tax percentage than their secretaries. I believe that the rich should pay more, not the poor.
• Get✯SomeⒼ₡❸ Mar 6, 2012

  There is no solution. No matter what, the rich will evade taxes. Selfish pricks.
• Get✯SomeⒼ₡❸ Mar 6, 2012

  Mr. Sunshine 12 wrote:

  I agree. There are some millionaires right now who pay a lower tax percentage than their secretaries. I believe that the rich should pay more, not the poor.
  

  buffet
• TheNewfieBullet Mar 6, 2012

  ནཝཇངᎯངᎿཔᎦ༽༨རསཁྭ wrote:

  TheNewfieBullet wrote:

  I'd say, everyone pays the same, relative to a pourcent age of their income. For example if tax was for say 20% then 100mil a year would pay 20mil, 100$ per year would pay 20$. Obviously those are unrealistic #s but it's just an example.
  

  The problem with this is that you have to set it to a point so that everyone will pay taxes including the poor. So the % would be fairly low and the rich would be able to save more money. Theyre saving money makes it harder for everyone else to get money. 1% of the USA holds 80% of our money

  I'm canadian, but i see your point. However If the rich that ( from what I understand) control America aren't happy, your country could be ruined. Equal taxes are fair, more for some less for others could potienially ruin the us' economy.
• ནཝཇངᎯངᎿཔᎦ༽༨རསཁྭ Mar 6, 2012

  TheNewfieBullet wrote:

  I'd say, everyone pays the same, relative to a pourcent age of their income. For example if tax was for say 20% then 100mil a year would pay 20mil, 100$ per year would pay 20$. Obviously those are unrealistic #s but it's just an example.
  

  Problem with that is they would have to set it low so everyone would pay taxes. Set it too high and the people who make less income wouldnt pay taxes because they won't be able to. If you tax the rich more then you also have more money in circulation. The more money rich people hoard the less money common people can get. 1% of America's population holds 80% of our money
• 🔥SirTalkALot🔥 Mar 6, 2012

  Here is the way to think of it.
  (first of all take out the facts of international loans)
  All the money for this country is some where.
  All the rich people have it. The rich people are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
  So to help balance out the scale rich people should pay a higher tax.
• 🔥SirTalkALot🔥 Mar 6, 2012

  YOU wrote:

  YOU wrote:

  Here is the way to think of it.
  (first of all take out the facts of international loans)
  All the money for this country is some where.
  All the rich people have it. The rich people are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
  So to help balance out the scale rich people should pay a higher tax.
  

  The money of America is not gone its just in the pockets of selfish rich people.
• Ian ℳoone Mar 6, 2012

  All this talk about taxing the rich more is BS. If I or you were rich you wouldn't want to be taxed more. They have a great job and make great money, why punish them? They won the lottery of life. Good for them. There needs to be a flat tax. Don't hate the have's.
• Ꮶ͜иιɢн͡т Mar 6, 2012

  Diving into the realm of taxes is a very cloudy area to say the least. There are thousands upon thousands of factors which dictate the various levels and types of taxation.

  It's easy for us as the general public to argue we pay too much. Try if you can to put yourself in the mindset of government finance advisors/ministers etc...

  Mega rich people may use loopholes to avoid paying extreme taxes but imagine if all mega rich people or corporations moved all their money to offshore accounts. How many billions would be lost from the economy? Investments, markets, hedgefunds.

  Governments need these people. We would all pay far more in tax as working class people, to fund the loss.
• Ꮶ͜иιɢн͡т Mar 6, 2012

  opus wrote:

  Income taxes are a sham. There was no such thing until prohibition. The government realized they'd be losing a good chunk of change when the bill to make alcohol illegal passed. So to compensate for that income they passed the income tax. So in my opinion the income tax should've been over when they legalized alcohol. But the government is too greedy, so like I said income taxes are a sham.
  

  This all makes a lot of sense. If I remember correctly, the british introduced an income tax to fund going to war with the Spanish. The problem is that governments of many years gone by have made the taxation system so damn complex it would be practically impossible to change it that much, without having monumental negative effects.
• ᎠяᏚuηshιηε Mar 6, 2012

  Get✯SomeⒼ₡❸ wrote:

  Mr. Sunshine 12 wrote:

  I agree. There are some millionaires right now who pay a lower tax percentage than their secretaries. I believe that the rich should pay more, not the poor.
  

  buffet

  That's his name! Warren Buffet! It was on the tip of my tongue!
• ✯МяBэαиs✯ Mar 6, 2012

  I say there should be a %100 tax on everything except or the basic necessities such as food, public transportation, etc. It may seen harsh, but it would work. Also, nobody but labor unions are to be exempt.
• Ꮶ͜иιɢн͡т Mar 6, 2012

  opus

  
  
  

  I recall reading or seeing that somewhere recently. I think it was a loose change kind of video!?

  I have often had discussions with my friends and family regarding 'theory' of new world order etc. Although I'm not sold on the whole conspiracy theories out there, I do believe that so called democracy of the modern age is guilty of dumbing down its pupulation.

  If ever there was a time for us in the west to rise against all the corruption it would be now, yet we as a society are too soft. We would rather keep our heads down and stay out of trouble. We could learn much from middle eastern society.
• Ꮶ͜иιɢн͡т Mar 6, 2012

  Damn quote fail! Apologies.
• ནཝཇངᎯངᎿཔᎦ༽༨རསཁྭ Mar 6, 2012

  opus wrote:

  📡Ǥadցet ѵ2📡 wrote:

  opus wrote:

  But there is a solution all together. See thomas Jefferson knew that a government will always become power and money hungry, which is why he put the right to bear arms in the constitution. He felt that if our government ever became so corrupt that it no longer worked FOR the people, the people should have the right and the means to stand up and overthrow the gov't. write a new constitution and rebuild a better nation. But they don't teach that in school because the government doesn't want the masses to know how much power they actually have.

  They taught us that last week in civics. It's stated in the constitution and mentioned in the Declaration of Independence
• ✙Baron✙ Mar 6, 2012

  📡Ǥadցet ѵ2📡 wrote:

  opus wrote:

  Income taxes are a sham. There was no such thing until prohibition. The government realized they'd be losing a good chunk of change when the bill to make alcohol illegal passed. So to compensate for that income they passed the income tax. So in my opinion the income tax should've been over when they legalized alcohol. But the government is too greedy, so like I said income taxes are a sham.
  

  This all makes a lot of sense. If I remember correctly, the british introduced an income tax to fund going to war with the Spanish. The problem is that governments of many years gone by have made the taxation system so damn complex it would be practically impossible to change it that much, without having monumental negative effects.

  I think the civil war was the beginning of the income tax.
• ~REVENGE~ Mar 6, 2012

  The first piece is to curb gov't spending. The second is to roll back the federal gov't to what the constitution defined it to be. That's 90% of our spending right there. Then, the taxes need only fund the constitutional spending. Be careful penalizing the rich to give to those who do not produce. Socialism is not the answer. But, the rich shouldn't buy the laws, either.
• Ꮶ͜иιɢн͡т Mar 6, 2012

  Dino Marchetti wrote:

  The first piece is to curb gov't spending. The second is to roll back the federal gov't to what the constitution defined it to be. That's 90% of our spending right there. Then, the taxes need only fund the constitutional spending.
  

  If only it could be so simple. The repercussions would far outweigh the benefits to society. Governments would quite literally need to strip the country as a whole, back to nothing. If you think the global economy is bad now, imagine if the world had to 'shut down' for a transitiional period.
• ray100 Mar 6, 2012

  I think that everyone should have the same amount of taxes. Just because some one is rich does not mean they should pay more, and they most likely worked hard to get rich too
• Ꮶ͜иιɢн͡т Mar 6, 2012

  ray100 wrote:

  I think that everyone should have the same amount of taxes. Just because some one is rich does not mean they should pay more, and they most likely worked hard to get rich too
  

  Hmm, tax is applied to to interest gained from 'invested' money. If I were to pay the same amount of tax as someone with 100 million in the bank, I'd soon be very much in the red!! 😊
• Add ZINGG Mar 6, 2012

  All we need to do is start manufacturing more items in America, and stop going to war. Notice how everythings made in china/Taiwan? And their economy's BOOMING. if we could export as many items as them, we wouldn't even have a need for taxes, because America would be doing great. But no, we'll just keep going to war and spending money we don't have until we are known as a third world country and noone will no why.
• Ꮶ͜иιɢн͡т Mar 6, 2012

  🍀Add ZINGG🍀 wrote:

  All we need to do is start manufacturing more items in America, and stop going to war. Notice how everythings made in china/Taiwan? And their economy's BOOMING. if we could export as many items as them, we wouldn't even have a need for taxes, because America would be doing great. But no, we'll just keep going to war and spending money we don't have until we are known as a third world country and noone will no why.
  

  In order to achieve this you would first need to kill minimum wage. Also, what about the billions brought in by import and export companies based in your country? And countless other areas. Always consider the consequences!

  This is why there is no real solution. No matter what, there would be dramatic negatives for many millions of people.
• ☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ Mar 6, 2012

  Rich people should get tax breaks, I know it's not fair to regular people but it gives them incentives to keep their business in the US and not ship it overseas.
• ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ Mar 6, 2012

  I wish that my millionaire boss paid no tax. The more money he has, the more he is able to hire. The more people he hires the more money paid in taxes by us. How many poor people have hired u to do something?
• ~REVENGE~ Mar 6, 2012

  📡Ǥadցet ѵ2📡 wrote:

  Dino Marchetti wrote:

  The first piece is to curb gov't spending. The second is to roll back the federal gov't to what the constitution defined it to be. That's 90% of our spending right there. Then, the taxes need only fund the constitutional spending.
  

  If only it could be so simple. The repercussions would far outweigh the benefits to society. Governments would quite literally need to strip the country as a whole, back to nothing. If you think the global economy is bad now, imagine if the world had to 'shut down' for a transitiional period.

  Good. I'd rather see corrective pains than implosion pains. It really is that simple. Don't let them fool you. 50% of our people pay no taxes and 40% receive some form of welfare. End the madness. End the nanny state. Invoke liberty. People must accept responsibility for their actions or lack thereof.
• ~REVENGE~ Mar 6, 2012

  🍀Add ZINGG🍀 wrote:

  All we need to do is start manufacturing more items in America, and stop going to war. Notice how everythings made in china/Taiwan? And their economy's BOOMING. if we could export as many items as them, we wouldn't even have a need for taxes, because America would be doing great. But no, we'll just keep going to war and spending money we don't have until we are known as a third world country and noone will no why.
  

  Corporate loopholes are responsible for overseas production. It's more profitable to not have jobs here in America.
• ~REVENGE~ Mar 6, 2012

  🎸₩℣ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸 wrote:

  Rich people should get tax breaks, I know it's not fair to regular people but it gives them incentives to keep their business in the US and not ship it overseas.
  

  Problem is until certain loopholes are closed, tax breaks would just mean more profit on international production. End NAFTA and the similar trade agreements and institute real free trade. Let the free market work as intended.
• glman Mar 6, 2012

  The rich pay more % taxes than the "poor"
• Ꮶ͜иιɢн͡т Mar 6, 2012

  Dino Marchetti wrote:

  📡Ǥadցet ѵ2📡 wrote:

  Dino Marchetti wrote:

  Good. I'd rather see corrective pains than implosion pains. It really is that simple. Don't let them fool you. 50% of our people pay no taxes and 40% receive some form of welfare. End the madness. End the nanny state. Invoke liberty. People must accept responsibility for their actions or lack thereof.

  While I dream of this eutopian civilisation you speak of, I honestly don't believe much of civilisation would survive such radical reform. Again it comes back to thinking of consequence.

  Liberty is one thing, survival of the stongest is another. It would be a massacre! Should we sacrifice one mans liberty for another?

Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC