• 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!

U.S.: In state of denial over taxes?

TBone said:
I love this. thanks for enlightening the "TP Patriots". Does the GOP really beleive that they are fiscally responsible? Remember Iraq, the current cash cow?
Click to expand...

Yes and I remember how bush* and the repubs refused to put it on the budget. They kept passing "emergency spending bills" to pay for it. Year after year of emergencies for a war of choice that was supposed to last "weeks, not months"
 
nijato said:
One of the big disconnects I see is conservatives arguing about high corporate and personal tax rates, while liberals point to low effective tax rates, especially for the wealthy and corporations. Here's an idea: why don't we stop using the tax code as a way to incentivize or reward certain behaviors and start using it as a tool to equitably collect revenue for appropriate government functions? Yes, we'll all fight about what's "appropriate," but let's agree that we need a tax code overhaul that simplifies everything. I hate having to play games with FSAs, IRAs, and whatever other alphabet soup I can to avoid taxes. Let's just let people spend their money how they want, without massive tax implications.
Click to expand...

Repubs hate any talk of eliminating tax breaks and subsidies and then they turn around and complain about the EITC's

And welcome to DP!!!
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
That would be too much like actual liberty and the Libbos just can't have that. The quickest way to control any given citizenry is through their pocket book. You can tyrranyze a civilization that is totally independent of the government for it's day-to-day neccessities.
Click to expand...

This is a good theory, but you enjoy freedom, and in order to be free, we have to be the strongest one on the block, and that cost money.
 
TBone said:
This is a good theory, but you enjoy freedom, and in order to be free, we have to be the strongest one on the block, and that cost money.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that confiscation of private wealth is going to achieve that goal.
 
sangha said:
Repubs hate any talk of eliminating tax breaks and subsidies and then they turn around and complain about the EITC's

And welcome to DP!!!
Click to expand...

Which ones are you referring to?

Please, be specific, don't give us the usual, lame ass, "oil company subsidies", line of crapola.
 
mpg said:
fiscally conservative = low taxes + low spending

fiscally liberal = high taxes + high spending

There are many exceptions, but for the most part, the Republicans are usually more fiscally conservative than Democrats.
Click to expand...

That would be true if you're only talking about rhetoric. But if you're talking about REALITY, it's quite a different picture.
 
AdamT said:
That would be true if you're only talking about rhetoric. But if you're talking about REALITY, it's quite a different picture.
Click to expand...
Which part are you disputing?
 
mpg said:
There's a lot of truth in that, but it's all relative. For the most part, Republicans are more fiscally conservative than Democrats. Even when Republicans increase spending, the Democrats usually want more.
Click to expand...


I have seen no evidence or that in the last 30 years, all I have seen is different spending priorities. It was the GOP majority vote that created the biggest part of our recent debt, the optional war in Iraq.
 
mpg said:
Which part are you disputing?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that people who claim to be fiscally conservative in argument are frequently not fiscally conservative in practice.
 
sangha said:
Yes and I remember how bush* and the repubs refused to put it on the budget. They kept passing "emergency spending bills" to pay for it. Year after year of emergencies for a war of choice that was supposed to last "weeks, not months"
Click to expand...

that is correct. and perfect evidence that neither party can be trusted, which is why a Balanced Budget Amendment is needed :)
 
PzKfW IVe said:
$2.6T surplus? As accumulated in the SS trust fund?
It doesn't exist. The SSTF is full of IOUs that will be repaid thru borrowing - thus running up the deficits and adding to the debt.
Click to expand...

The surplus is guaranteed though the full failt and credit of the US. The FICA cap will need to be raised to repay the SS funds for general fund uses so tax cuts could be provided to the wealthy.
 
TBone said:
This is a good theory, but you enjoy freedom, and in order to be free, we have to be the strongest one on the block, and that cost money.
Click to expand...

I thought we were born with inalienable rights.

Also, I think we could cut military spending just a tad before we have to begin worrying about an invasion.
 
AdamT said:
I'm saying that people who claim to be fiscally conservative in argument are frequently not fiscally conservative in practice.
Click to expand...
I never said otherwise.
 
Catawba said:
The surplus is guaranteed though the full failt and credit of the US.
Click to expand...

that is not true. the special notes issued to the Trust Fund are guaranteed only by the Word of Congress (you are free to decide for yourself how much that is worth), not the Full Faith and Credit of the United States.

The FICA cap will need to be raised to repay the SS funds for general fund uses so tax cuts could be provided to the wealthy.
Click to expand...

even the AARP now agrees that popping the cap won't get you enough to fund SS. benefits will have to be reduced :shrug:

because a surplus isn't coming.
 
nijato said:
I thought we were born with inalienable rights.

Also, I think we could cut military spending just a tad before we have to begin worrying about an invasion.
Click to expand...


invasion? certainly.

collapse of the world trade system followed by the immediate collapse of the US Economy??? :shrug:
 
apdst said:
Who is throwing old folks under the bus?
Click to expand...

Have you somehow missed all the Republican proposals to cut benefits to seniors through SS and Medicare in order to continue the tax breaks for the wealthy???
 
sangha said:
Yes and I remember how bush* and the repubs refused to put it on the budget. They kept passing "emergency spending bills" to pay for it. Year after year of emergencies for a war of choice that was supposed to last "weeks, not months"
Click to expand...

But we had all those SS trust funds just sitting there and seniors would never need that money in the future, right?
 
mpg said:
MediaMatters claims that our rates are well above those of the UK and France.
Quick Fact: MacCallum, Angle ignore effective corporate tax rate to claim U.S. has the "second highest rate" in industrialized world | Media Matters for America
Click to expand...

I guess it was actually the World Bank who said that, but I suppose there must be some interpretation involved in comparing effective, as opposed to statutory, tax rates. In any case, it's clear that our effective (i.e., real) corporate tax rate is on the low end of industrialized countries. What we should do is make that effective rate the statutory rate and then eliminate all loopholes. That would clarify the situation, reduce accounting expenses and distortions from tax avoidance, and it would probably improve the employment situation a (very) little bit.
 
Catawba said:
Have you somehow missed all the Republican proposals to cut benefits to seniors through SS and Medicare in order to continue the tax breaks for the wealthy???
Click to expand...

Do you mean the cuts in the Health Care Act? Maybe you missed those.
 
AdamT said:
I guess it was actually the World Bank who said that, but I suppose there must be some interpretation involved in comparing effective, as opposed to statutory, tax rates. In any case, it's clear that our effective (i.e., real) corporate tax rate is on the low end of industrialized countries. What we should do is make that effective rate the statutory rate and then eliminate all loopholes. That would clarify the situation, reduce accounting expenses and distortions from tax avoidance, and it would probably improve the employment situation a (very) little bit.
Click to expand...
I'm all in favor of getting rid of the loopholes, as long as the statutory rate is brought down to compensate for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom