• 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!

GOP may OK tax increase that Obama hopes to block

Misterveritis said:
Time will tell, won't it?

Successful revolutions require active participation of about 5% of the populace with another 20-25% providing some marginal assistance.
Click to expand...

LOL! If we don't let you less-than-1%ers win elections, what makes you think we would let you take over the country by Revolution? This is your best option -

Libertarian Island

Screen-shot-2011-08-16-at-9.39.48-AM.png
 
Misterveritis said:
Well, Okay. I pay in federal income taxes about what one of them earns. Are you arguing that the bottom half of wage earners would shoulder as much of the burden as I do if they were taxed 10%? Are you arguing that their 5,000 dollar federal income tax load is the same as my $40,000?
Click to expand...

Uh, no, I'm obviously not arguing either of those things. I'm arguing that the wealthy control most of the wealth, so they have to shoulder more of the tax burden.
 
AdamT said:
Uh, no, I'm obviously not arguing either of those things. I'm arguing that the wealthy control most of the wealth, so they have to shoulder more of the tax burden.
Click to expand...
Which we already do.

Are you arguing that more of the burden means all of the burden? Why can't half of the wage earners pay anything, in your view?
 
Misterveritis said:
Which we already do.

Are you arguing that more of the burden means all of the burden? Why can't half of the wage earners pay anything, in your view?
Click to expand...

They can and do pay something: state taxes, FICA taxes, fees, etc. The bottom 50% can't afford to pay a whole lot more because they only control TWO PERCENT of the country's wealth. If you took half of everything they own -- not income, but half of ALL THEIR WORLDLY POSSESSIONS, it would equal almost exactly the same revenue you could collect by repealing the top Bush tax cut over a ten year period. Sound reasonable?
 
Catawba said:
LOL! If we don't let you less-than-1%ers win elections, what makes you think we would let you take over the country by Revolution? This is your best option -

Libertarian Island

Screen-shot-2011-08-16-at-9.39.48-AM.png
Click to expand...
Awesome...fun with pictures. Welcome to "Entitlement Island"
croydon-fire-in-london-riots-pic-getty-767599016.jpg

london+Student-protests-A-demons-006.jpg

Riots-break-out-in-north--007.jpg

Future so bright you have to wear shades. And a hoodie.
 
AdamT said:
They can and do pay something: state taxes, FICA taxes, fees, etc. The bottom 50% can't afford to pay a whole lot more because they only control TWO PERCENT of the country's wealth. If you took half of everything they own -- not income, but half of ALL THEIR WORLDLY POSSESSIONS, it would equal almost exactly the same revenue you could collect by repealing the top Bush tax cut over a ten year period. Sound reasonable?
Click to expand...
Is your argument that if one pays a tax then one need not pay some other tax? Given that I pay a huge amount in federal taxes may I please be excused from paying the state taxes, the FICA taxes, fees, etc...? No? If not why not? If the logic is great for one group why not for other groups?
 
Misterveritis said:
Is your argument that if one pays a tax then one need not pay some other tax? Given that I pay a huge amount in federal taxes may I please be excused from paying the state taxes, the FICA taxes, fees, etc...? No? If not why not? If the logic is great for one group why not for other groups?
Click to expand...

You seem to be missing the big picture, which is that the bottom 50% doesn't have much more to give. Don't get so tied up in which tax counts for what. Even the poorest Americans pay an effective tax rate of around 16%. As a percentage of *disposable* income that comes to what? 100%

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf
 
AdamT said:
You seem to be missing the big picture, which is that the bottom 50% doesn't have much more to give. Don't get so tied up in which tax counts for what. Even the poorest Americans pay an effective tax rate of around 16%. As a percentage of *disposable* income that comes to what? 100%
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are missing the big picture. They perceive that the federal government programs cost them nothing. So, of course, they want more.

There you go. Big picture.
 
Misterveritis said:
Perhaps you are missing the big picture. They perceive that the federal government programs cost them nothing. So, of course, they want more.

There you go. Big picture.
Click to expand...

Is that right? Half the country doesn't understand that government programs cost money? I guess we need to spend more on education. :)
 
AdamT said:
Is that right? Half the country doesn't understand that government programs cost money? I guess we need to spend more on education. :)
Click to expand...

Too bad we already overspend... I guess we have to have higher expectations of our educational system. Hell, didn't you see all the video's and posts here on DP about how how education and all sorts of other stuff should be "FREE". :lamo
 
AdamT said:
Is that right? Half the country doesn't understand that government programs cost money? I guess we need to spend more on education. :)
Click to expand...
...beginning with your own.

Tragedy of the commons...
 
Catawba said:
Class wars can get ugly when the underclasses are trampled on too much.
Click to expand...
It can get even nastier when they spend their lives expecting people to take care of them and suddenly the government realizes they have gone broke in the process.
 
donsutherland1 said:
The temporary reduction in the payroll tax has reduced cash inflows to Social Security. It has had an actuarial impact on the program's long-term imbalances. Moreover, the Social Security Disability Insurance program is nearing insolvency. Unless some offset is found to focus on Social Security's long-term future, which is vital given the importance of the program, I don't necessarily disagree with allowing the temporary tax reduction to expire. This, in my opinion, is a clear example where the long-term should take precedence over the short-term.
Click to expand...

Please, the SS system is no where near insolvency. In fact, relatively speaking, its the best funded program in Washington. With no change in SS, the system can pay full benefits for another 26 years. What other federal program can make that claim? The federal government has been using payroll tax receipts for years to mask declining federal income tax revenue (in fact, to pay for tax cuts). Using this as an economic stimulus is probably one of the most effective tools going as its borrowing on a program that, comparatively speaking, is reasonably funded and giving it, generally, to lower wage works; people that live more hand to mouth, and will put the money immediately back into the economy. Sorry, buy if you are for the Bush tax cuts but believe this tax should expire, you a nothing short of a hypocrite (or just ignorant about economics).
 

Attachments

  • Numbers_Figure-2_What-are-federal-govt-sources-of-revenue_1.jpg
    Numbers_Figure-2_What-are-federal-govt-sources-of-revenue_1.jpg
    12.4 KB · Views: 53
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
I believe it is extra-constitutional. For the good of the nation it needs to be phased out.
Click to expand...

Then the government had better give me my goddamned money back that I have paid into it for more than 40 years....... Oh, that's right. I'm not Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley gets the government handout, at MY expense, and my own money gets ripped off. You scream about redistribution of wealth, and here you support it. It's only bad if corporations lose, but if regular Americans (real persons, not artificial ones) lose, you are all for it.
 
danarhea said:
Then the government had better give me my goddamned money back that I have paid into it for more than 40 years....... Oh, that's right. I'm not Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley gets the government handout, at MY expense, and my own money gets ripped off. You scream about redistribution of wealth, and here you support it. It's only bad if corporations lose, but if regular Americans (real persons, not artificial ones) lose, you are all for it.
Click to expand...

the only way ss gets taken away is if WE allow it.
 
VanceMack said:
It can get even nastier when they spend their lives expecting people to take care of them and suddenly the government realizes they have gone broke in the process.
Click to expand...

historically, that is indeed the cause of the more violent revolutions. an under-referenced factor in this Arab Spring phenomena is that Arab Governments have spent a lot of the last two decades buying off their people - the ME is basically rentier states with the exception of Israel. In particular, the Arab states made the same error on higher-education that many in this country make today - assuming that Just Sending Everyone To College would magically create those higher paying positions that college graduates had previously attained. So the government basically subsidized an entire generation into college degrees, promised them it would get them great jobs, but then neglected the kinds of market reforms that would actually produce those jobs.

Disillusioned Entitlement Seekers = Rebellion
 
liblady said:
the only way ss gets taken away is if WE allow it.
Click to expand...

this is incorrect. SS will either be reformed and reduced over time because we choose to do so, or it will be dramatically reduced suddenly because the US Government has declared bankruptcy and no longer has the ability to get the money.
 
So the GOP wants to raise taxes on the poor, and continue tax breaks on the rich?
 
danarhea said:
Then the government had better give me my goddamned money back that I have paid into it for more than 40 years....... Oh, that's right. I'm not Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley gets the government handout, at MY expense, and my own money gets ripped off. You scream about redistribution of wealth, and here you support it. It's only bad if corporations lose, but if regular Americans (real persons, not artificial ones) lose, you are all for it.
Click to expand...

that money is called "taxes". you pay them, and you have no right whatsoever to ever get them back. that is why you have no actual 'right' to a social security benefit. the notion that "you have money in the system" is a pleasant artificiality that we like to tell ourselves; but in reality that money went to the "Congressman John C Smith Turnpike", and it's not coming back.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
Youre right! And the wealthy should pay for it with a 10% tax increase. They can afford it. Im tired of selfish people. Im also tired of shelfish people.

(BTW there are selfish liberals too that are in poverty and CAN help it. Im not dismissing them. But THEY dont have any money to help)
Click to expand...

demanding OTHERS pay more taxes is the epitome of selfishness
 
upsideguy said:
Please, the SS system is no where near insolvency.
Click to expand...

in fact it is, though to be specific Medicare will be dragging it down (along with everything else).

In fact, relatively speaking, its the best funded program in Washington
Click to expand...

:lamo the hilarious thing is, that might actually be right :lol:

With no change in SS, the system can pay full benefits for another 26 years.
Click to expand...

this is incorrect. for this to occur, the government would have to be able to fully pay back the "trust fund" for all the money it has taken out of it for the past couple of decades. PROBLEM: this would require that the general fund currently be running a surplus. The general fund is instead currently running around a $1.5 Trillion deficit, and even under the Ryan Plan doesn't begin to run a surplus for decades. Realistically speaking, there is only one way to pay back the Social Security Trust Fund - and that is to gut Medicare. Aren't Choices Fun?!?

What other federal program can make that claim? The federal government has been using payroll tax receipts for years to mask declining federal income tax revenue (in fact, to pay for tax cuts). Using this as an economic stimulus is probably one of the most effective tools going as its borrowing on a program that, comparatively speaking, is reasonably funded and giving it, generally, to lower wage works; people that live more hand to mouth, and will put the money immediately back into the economy. Sorry, buy if you are for the Bush tax cuts but believe this tax should expire, you a nothing short of a hypocrite (or just ignorant about economics).
Click to expand...

hilarious how you say "ignorant about economics", but what you mean is "not a believer in Keynesian Witch-Doctor-ism"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom