• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

BREAKING: President Obama Addresses the Nation Tonight at 9

tessaesque said:
Did you not read the first quote in the post I made? Payroll taxes are viewed as the federal withholdings on income earned, plus taxes for FICA (employer and employee), SS (employer and employee), and unemployment insurance (employer) as well as any state/local taxes.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make payroll taxes "income taxes" as you fallaciously claimed. Nor does it remove the fact that payroll taxes are a regressive tax that allows the rich to avoid paying their fair share
 
sangha said:
So you wont admit that you were wrong when you said that payroll taxes are income taxes? Asking questions won't make me forget about your mistatements of fact.

And additional mistatements of fact wont do it either. Even the rich collect SS and use Medicare.
Click to expand...

And that's my mistake, I must have misunderstood something I read.

But at least I can admit my foibles. You're so wrapped up in making them over and over again that you can't even accept that you're wrong about 95% of the time.
 
sangha said:
The rich think they are entitled to lower rates for money they did not work to earn. Their sense of self entitlement is matched only by their lack of compassion
Click to expand...

What makes you think they didn't earn it?
 
Any side largely talking about "revenue increases" and pretty much not touching entitlements is delusional and ignorant. Any side largely talking about cuts to discretionary spending and government programs is largely delusional and ignorant.

75% of our spending roughly is spent on entitlements and defense. With entitlements making up the large majority of that. If we cut every bit of defense spending we'd still need to raise I believe 32% or so more revenue to balance the budget. Without SIGNIFICANT reform to entitlements and slightly less done to defense then all the politicians are doing is pissing on our leg and telling us it's raining.
 
AdamT said:
Actually, it isn't just anyone making $50k. You're talking about a family of four making $50k that probably pays not FIT. IOW, two working people making $25k each, raising two children.
Click to expand...

You miss the point, I really don't care how much someone else pays in taxes or who doesn't pay any taxes. I am more concerned over a 3.7 trillion dollar budget promoting out of control spending. If you are concerned about income taxes then promote the elimination of the 24 million unemployed or under employed Americans and then collect something from the millions who don't pay any FIT now. Think the rich can fund the liberal spending appetite? They don't have that kind of money.
 
AdamT said:
The rich collect SS just like everyone else.
Click to expand...

Because they pay into it. It's their money. They should be allowed to get it back once they reach retirement age.
 
apdst said:
Because they pay into it. It's their money. They should be allowed to get it back once they reach retirement age.
Click to expand...

i have no problem with that...let's just take away the cap on income.
 
tessaesque said:
And that's my mistake, I must have misunderstood something I read.

But at least I can admit my foibles. You're so wrapped up in making them over and over again that you can't even accept that you're wrong about 95% of the time.
Click to expand...

Thank you, and when you can prive that I've been mistaken, I will do the same. However, just claiming that I'm wrong is not sufficient
 
Zyphlin said:
Any side largely talking about "revenue increases" and pretty much not touching entitlements is delusional and ignorant. Any side largely talking about cuts to discretionary spending and government programs is largely delusional and ignorant.

75% of our spending roughly is spent on entitlements and defense. With entitlements making up the large majority of that. If we cut every bit of defense spending we'd still need to raise I believe 32% or so more revenue to balance the budget. Without SIGNIFICANT reform to entitlements and slightly less done to defense then all the politicians are doing is pissing on our leg and telling us it's raining.
Click to expand...

Defense cost more than the entitlement programs. Our entitlement programs are running a surplus. SS contributes billions towards reducing the deficit and the program is fully funded for years to come.

Defense is another matter. We need to stop being the worlds policemen. We don't need bases in nations with little likelihood of invasion. I dont think Germany needs protection from invasion from the now non-existent USSR
 
Food for thought.

Crap, mis-calculated. let me try that again and repost.
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
Defense cost more than the entitlement programs. Our entitlement programs are running a surplus. SS contributes billions towards reducing the deficit and the program is fully funded for years to come.

Defense is another matter. We need to stop being the worlds policemen. We don't need bases in nations with little likelihood of invasion. I dont think Germany needs protection from invasion from the now non-existent USSR
Click to expand...

There's no way that the defence budget is the only reason we're running a deficit.
 
sangha said:
Defense cost more than the entitlement programs. Our entitlement programs are running a surplus. SS contributes billions towards reducing the deficit and the program is fully funded for years to come.

Defense is another matter. We need to stop being the worlds policemen. We don't need bases in nations with little likelihood of invasion. I dont think Germany needs protection from invasion from the now non-existent USSR
Click to expand...

Where do you get your misinformation? Defense is 700 billion and SS/Medicare is almost double that
 
Conservative said:
You miss the point, I really don't care how much someone else pays in taxes or who doesn't pay any taxes. I am more concerned over a 3.7 trillion dollar budget promoting out of control spending. If you are concerned about income taxes then promote the elimination of the 24 million unemployed or under employed Americans and then collect something from the millions who don't pay any FIT now. Think the rich can fund the liberal spending appetite? They don't have that kind of money.
Click to expand...

If you don't care, then why did you mention it several times in your posts?

And funny how the right only worries about spending when there's a democrat in the white house. They had no concern about spending when the republicans held the white house, the senate and the house and spent like drunken sailors on leave (except that those sailors are spending their own money).

And funny how, in spite of your lack of concern for those who pay no FIT, you are once again using them in support of the rightwings desire to redistribute wealth. And once again, you focus on FIT to the exclusion of all else.

The rich can afford the lefts spending better than they can afford the republicans spending sprees, which account for the large majority of this nations debt

Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg
 
sangha said:
If you don't care, then why did you mention it several times in your posts?

And funny how the right only worries about spending when there's a democrat in the white house. They had no concern about spending when the republicans held the white house, the senate and the house and spent like drunken sailors on leave (except that those sailors are spending their own money).

And funny how, in spite of your lack of concern for those who pay no FIT, you are once again using them in support of the rightwings desire to redistribute wealth. And once again, you focus on FIT to the exclusion of all else.

The rich can afford the lefts spending better than they can afford the republicans spending sprees, which account for the large majority of this nations debt

Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg
Click to expand...

Look it! The graph stops before Obama became prez. :lamo
 
apdst said:
Because they pay into it. It's their money. They should be allowed to get it back once they reach retirement age.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but the post you were responding wasn't arguing that the rich should not receive SS. You are arguing a straw man. No one has argued that the rich should not collect SS
 
tessaesque said:
Food for thought.

At 250K in earned income every year for 35 years (age 30 to 65), you and your employer will have put in $108,500 to SS. That will pay for 5 years worth of benefits for that recipient if they are 66 at retirement.

At 40k in earned income every year for 35 years, you and your employer will have put in $17,640.00. That will pay for 14 months of benefits at the current payout if you are 66 at retirement.

At 70K in earned income every year for 35 years, you and your employer will have put in 30,870.00. That will pay for 17 months of benefits at the current payout if you are 66 at retirement.

(These are rough figures based the SS calculator and current withholdings rates from the IRS website).
Click to expand...

Those figures have nothing to do with how SS works. The money doesn't go into a savings acct.
 
sangha said:
If you don't care, then why did you mention it several times in your posts?

And funny how the right only worries about spending when there's a democrat in the white house. They had no concern about spending when the republicans held the white house, the senate and the house and spent like drunken sailors on leave (except that those sailors are spending their own money).

And funny how, in spite of your lack of concern for those who pay no FIT, you are once again using them in support of the rightwings desire to redistribute wealth. And once again, you focus on FIT to the exclusion of all else.

The rich can afford the lefts spending better than they can afford the republicans spending sprees, which account for the large majority of this nations debt

Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg
Click to expand...

You keep posting meaningless charts that you don't even understand. Where do you get your misinformation? Interesting how the charts only go to 2008. Wonder why? could it be the 4 trillion "your" President has added to the debt?

Then there is a very simple question, did Bill Clinton sign budgets more or less than Congress sent him?
 
Conservative said:
Where do you get your misinformation? Defense is 700 billion and SS/Medicare is almost double that
Click to expand...

Defense is completely funded by the govt with money from the general funds. SS and medicare are funded with dedicated funds.

Defending Germany from invasion by the non-existent USSR produces nothing of value. SS and Medicare are productive
 
Conservative said:
You are the one talking about reducting payroll taxes and don't even know what payroll taxes fund. Amazing how people making 50,000 in your world cannot pay anything in FIT.
Click to expand...

Do you have proof people making $50K/YR pay no taxes? People who have an AGI of $50K do in fact pay taxes.
 
sangha said:
Defense is completely funded by the govt with money from the general funds. SS and medicare are funded with dedicated funds.

Defending Germany from invasion by the non-existent USSR produces nothing of value. SS and Medicare are productive
Click to expand...

Yes, and then put on budget to be wasted. Why is SS on budget?
 
This is my first post here and I could not resist responding to this. I would agree that he is our President but I will not support the notion that he is a leader. That has been proven not only in this "crisis" but others as well.
 
Conservative said:
You keep posting meaningless charts that you don't even understand. Where do you get your misinformation? Interesting how the charts only go to 2008. Wonder why? could it be the 4 trillion "your" President has added to the debt?

Then there is a very simple question, did Bill Clinton sign budgets more or less than Congress sent him?
Click to expand...

You have yet to show that I don't understand these charts, but you have mistated what at least one chart was saying.

And the 4T in debt is the result of

1) servicing the debt produced by reagan ghwb and bush*
2)paying for Medicare D
3) reduced GDP thanks to rightwing economic policies of bush*
4) bloated pork ridden spending on Farm, Energy and Transportation bills
5) TARP

all passed under bush*. Obama has to pay for the out of control spending under bush and the republicans
 
pbrauer said:
Do you have proof people making $50K/YR pay no taxes? People who have an AGI of $50K do in fact pay taxes.
Click to expand...

Never said they pay no taxes, they pay zero in FIT, there is a difference. Just like you ignore that the rich pay a lot more than FIT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom