• 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?

Catawba said:
Because they have much more income than they have had for 20 years. However, they are paying less than they would without the tax breaks given to them.
Click to expand...
No, It is adjusted with inflation and total GDP... the reason is because of the economic growth.
Catawba said:
That is becuase taxes have little to do with growth of the GDP. The annual growth rate was much higher after the Clinton tax increases, so your point is moot.
Click to expand...
WHAT? this demonstrates that taxes DO have an effect with the growth of the GDP. After the tax cuts the GDP grew by a lot... this happend in the Reagan years as well.

Catawba said:
Its a strecth to even call it a recession as there we didn't have 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth.
Click to expand...
It was enough to trigger a response by the president to do an economic plan, similar to obama's stimulus, but only comprising of cutting taxes.
Catawba said:
Tax cuts were supposed to create jobs and increase revenues beyond the norm but they didn't. That and too much spending created $5 trillion in debt weakening the dollar and the economy which contributed to the Great Recession.
Click to expand...
"beyond the norm" is your key words... it wasn't meant to increase growth above the average amount but to continue the same amount of growth, because the fear of a minor recession.
The $5 trillion in debt was to fund the wars that was greatly supported by most of the american people and all of the presidents intel and our allies intel, and your current president is still continuing the war in Afghanistan and helped out with a brand new one.
But that debt was not the reason for the recession... not at all... probably didn't help but you should research more on that.

Catawba said:
If you define no new jobs as 3 million jobs.

Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs - USATODAY.com
Click to expand...
Those jobs made no impact on the unemployment rate... the government can't create jobs with any efficiency but only create the atmosphere for the people to create jobs.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Here is some history for you. Historically its like ice skating uphill to get revenue past 17% of GDP. Raising taxes simply raises the amount of money people will put into avoidance and judge their ROI via risk by locating elsewhere or not expanding when its an option. Its not just taxes anymore, its also regulatory burden, legislative red tape, and uncertainty.

Raise GDP and you will raise federal revenue. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

The US is a low tax nation, so I dont see the point of their moving elsewhere. In addition, if they want access to our markets, then they have to do business here.

However, I do agree with you when you suggest increasing GDP to increase revenues. It is the most effective way to do that. However, it's not the only way.
 
PeteEU said:
On paper yes as in "Here is the corporate tax rate number".. then yes. But in reality the tax burden is one of the lowest in the world due to loopholes, subsidies and so on.
Click to expand...

And of course the US is the only country with loopholes. The rest of the world is as honest as the Virgin Mary.

:roll:
 
American said:
And of course the US is the only country with loopholes. The rest of the world is as honest as the Virgin Mary.

:roll:
Click to expand...

The fact is that we have the second lowest effective corporate tax rate (that means taking loopholes into consideration) in the industrialized world. Only Iceland is lower.
 
sangha said:
The US is a low tax nation, so I dont see the point of their moving elsewhere. In addition, if they want access to our markets, then they have to do business here.

However, I do agree with you when you suggest increasing GDP to increase revenues. It is the most effective way to do that. However, it's not the only way.
Click to expand...

You come from the false premise that we should be comparable to other countries. That's wrong, we're not about how much tax the govt can get; we about how little it needs to function.
 
AdamT said:
The fact is that we have the second lowest effective corporate tax rate (that means taking loopholes into consideration) in the industrialized world. Only Iceland is lower.
Click to expand...

Good, let's lower down to Iceland's level. But you missed my point nonetheless.
 
American said:
Good, let's lower down to Iceland's level.
Click to expand...

Right, then we'll capture all of those corporations who are flocking to Iceland.
 
American said:
And of course the US is the only country with loopholes. The rest of the world is as honest as the Virgin Mary.

:roll:
Click to expand...

Sure they have loopholes, but as the charts in the OP show, in the end they pay less than in other countries.

The point is to not focus on the top marginal rates, and instead look at what they are really paying, as demonstrated in the OP.
 
American said:
You come from the false premise that we should be comparable to other countries. That's wrong, we're not about how much tax the govt can get; we about how little it needs to function.
Click to expand...

We can compare our tax rates to other countries. What makes you think we can't?

And comparing our effective tax rates to those of other nations does not mean that we can't talk about what is needed to function.
 
sangha said:
We can compare our tax rates to other countries. What makes you think we can't?

And comparing our effective tax rates to those of other nations does not mean that we can't talk about what is needed to function.
Click to expand...

Read my post, I didn't say that.
 
American said:
Read my post, I didn't say that.
Click to expand...

Here's what you said

American said:
You come from the false premise that we should be comparable to other countries. That's wrong, we're not about how much tax the govt can get; we about how little it needs to function.
Click to expand...

There's nothing false about thinking we should compare our tax systems.

But I guess the question I asked should have been "What makes you think we shouldn't?
 
VanceMack said:
Well...considering that since the country's beginning to current we have not had socialized health care and maintained as low a fed profile as possible, I would suggest that at least until recently, the dependent class that desires greater socialization and higher taxes of those that succeed in this country to support those that dont has been in the minority.
Click to expand...

Correction: We have not had socialized health care for the nation, but we have had such for certain parts of the population, i.e., Medicaid for the poor (to include the elderly who are poor), Medicare, VA benefits. These three health care programs alone covery tens of millions of Americans. The only segments of the population who aren't on some type of federally sponsored health care system are the wealthy (some of whom do take advantage of Medicaid to a degree) and the middle-class who receive their health care largely via their employers; others via the use of employer-backed HSAs.

Truth be told, America's alot closer to providing socialize health care than alot of people think and that was before ObamaCare. But as I've said, the only way to get there is if the citizenry agree to pay a health care tax akin to Social Security. Until then, socialized health care won't happen for a long time. And before you say it, despite the mandate in ObamaCare the health care system, even when made part of state-sponsored health insurance exchanges, will still be managed by state health care commissions. Private insurance will remain the primary source both employers and some within the working class obtain their insurace, i.e., HSAs. The health insurance industry as a whole may take recommendations from the Dept. of HHS occasionally, such as this issue with free birth control to women (which again was a recommendation initiated by the Institute of Medicine, not the fed itself), but health insurance will remain largely in the control of the private sector.

(Personal Note: Sorry for hijacking the thread; just had to set the record straight and reply to the above. Carry on...)
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
the dependent class that desires greater socialization and higher taxes of those that succeed in this country to support those that dont has been in the minority.
Click to expand...

I'd say that the "dependant class" are the wealthy whose wealth depends on the labor of the poor and the middle class, and they don't favor higher taxes, though they sure love their socialistic bailouts and subsidies.
 
Catawba said:
Like most, I care about future generations just as I do my own. I prefer cutting wasteful government spending and eliminating tax breaks for the rich that are not creating jobs.
Click to expand...

Its better to invest your money than to rely on others to pay your bills.

lpast said:
As usual you dont have a clue what your talking about...no ones telling anyone what to do with their money...they are telling me what they do with tax cuts and thats the bs story
Click to expand...

What are tax cuts brilliant? More money in your pocket. Therefore they are telling you do what with you plan?? Jesus dude..
 
Does this include ALL taxes? Not just federal income taxes, but also state income, sales taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, local fees and taxes?
 
Catawba said:
We've had a decade of the Bush tax cuts, where are the jobs?
Click to expand...

The jobs left when the Libbos took over the government. Remember the 5% unemployment rate, back when we had a government that understood that it couldn't create jobs?

You falsely assume that every rich person that gets more of a tax break greater than the median income of 90% of the country, is not going to do what they have been doing for the last decade, investing that money in other countries rather than the country that gave them the tax break to begin with.
Click to expand...

If we didn't have a government that was hell bent on wealth redistribution, they wouldn't move that money out of the country.
 
Government wastes money, period. When I worked for the Government, I once had a boss who spent official funds lavishly, and when asked about it, would say, "It's on the Government's dime. Who cares?"
 
apdst said:
The jobs left when the Libbos took over the government. Remember the 5% unemployment rate, back when we had a government that understood that it couldn't create jobs?



If we didn't have a government that was hell bent on wealth redistribution, they wouldn't move that money out of the country.
Click to expand...

Right, the job losses had nothing to do with the recession. :rolleyes:
 
ElCid said:
Government wastes money, period. When I worked for the Government, I once had a boss who spent official funds lavishly, and when asked about it, would say, "It's on the Government's dime. Who cares?"
Click to expand...

And you don't think the same thing happens in private corporations?

I've never seen a government worker screw up so bad that he nearly brought the government to its knees, and then be rewarded with a $100 million retirement package.
 
AdamT said:
The fact is that we have the second lowest effective corporate tax rate (that means taking loopholes into consideration) in the industrialized world. Only Iceland is lower.
Click to expand...
link please
 
sangha said:
And you don't seem to understand what a straw man is. It does not mean "an argument I do not like"
Click to expand...
I know what a straw man is and I don't recall ever seeing a single person saying that the US's tax rates are high by OECD standards.
 
AdamT said:
And you don't think the same thing happens in private corporations?

I've never seen a government worker screw up so bad that he nearly brought the government to its knees, and then be rewarded with a $100 million retirement package.
Click to expand...
A private corporation needs to make a profit or at least break even to survive, unless the government is stupid enough to bail them out. OTOH, the government can (and does) lose as much money as it wants to and the taxpayers bail them out every day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom