• 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!

White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thunder said:
the more money you make, the higher a percentage of your income you should pay in taxes. why?

because the more money you make, the more you can afford to pay in taxes.

its simple logic. its common sense.
Click to expand...

Thunder, I got a thread ban on a post to you made on another thread. This isn't the first ban I got from a post to you therefore this will be my last post to you EVER. I don't have a lot of use for liberals who cannot stand to be challenged.
 
pbrauer said:
Why shouldn't the rich pay the FIT at the same rate as the middle class does?
Click to expand...
they do, the top one percent pay the highest effective rate and many in the middle class don't pay any income tax

Like many you are ignorant of the fact that the richest taxpayers PAY THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE RATES ON LIKE INCOME
 
Thunder said:
because the whiny wealthy deserve to be treated special.

i mean honestly, they didn't get rich so that they would be treated like everyone else, right?

;)
Click to expand...

that's rather dim DO you understand that some types of income are taxed at different rates than others?
 
Fishstyx said:
He didn't only try to raise the top rate. He tried to raise it on everyone making $200k or more. This hardly billionare hedge fund managers that jet set around the globe in private jets. This is considered upper middle class in some cities in this country.
Click to expand...

Obumble loves bashing billionaires and screwing over those in the upper middle class.

He's a lying POS
 
Thunder said:
the more money you make, the higher a percentage of your income you should pay in taxes. why?

because the more money you make, the more you can afford to pay in taxes.

its simple logic. its common sense.
Click to expand...

I agree with you partially. This is generally true, yes. I don't think it's a matter of income, it's a matter of affordability. If someone who makes a million bucks a year but has $999,000 a year in expenses is gonna have a hard time paying taxes. I think we should tax the rich a lot more than we do now, but only the ones who don't spend their money hiring people or investing in other companies.
 
haymarket said:
And therein lies the basic problem.
Click to expand...

Edify us to why Long term capital gains where inflation can severely impact "profits" should be taxed the same as salary income or why dividends-that are often taxed at the corporate level should be subjected to 35% tax rates TWICE?

and its not a rational answer to whine that because the top 500 people in the country have only these lower taxed (LOL in the cases of dividends) income that is a sound argument to jack up the rates for everyone
 
Snevert said:
I agree with you partially. This is generally true, yes. I don't think it's a matter of income, it's a matter of affordability. If someone who makes a million bucks a year but has $999,000 a year in expenses is gonna have a hard time paying taxes. I think we should tax the rich a lot more than we do now, but only the ones who don't spend their money hiring people or investing in other companies.
Click to expand...

im more than confident that folks who make $1 million a year but have $999,000 in yearly-expenses, have some pretty decent deductions they can make in their FIT.
 
TurtleDude said:
Edify us to why Long term capital gains where inflation can severely impact "profits" should be taxed the same as salary income or why dividends-that are often taxed at the corporate level should be subjected to 35% tax rates TWICE?

and its not a rational answer to whine that because the top 500 people in the country have only these lower taxed (LOL in the cases of dividends) income that is a sound argument to jack up the rates for everyone
Click to expand...

we have been through the fallacy of double taxation ad nauseum and that has been smashed and trashed into oblivion.

All INCOME going into a persons pocket regardless of the source should be taxed as INCOME. BIG Government should get out of the business of playing god and deciding which type of income is to be rewarded with more favorable and discriminatory rates. Any true conservative who wants to diminish the role of government in our lives should urge them to stop playing god with this part of the tax code.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
we have been through the fallacy of double taxation ad nauseum and that has been smashed and trashed into oblivion.

All INCOME going into a persons pocket regardless of the source should be taxed as INCOME. BIG Government should get out of the business of playing god and deciding which type of income is to be rewarded with more favorable and discriminatory rates.
Click to expand...

utter hypocrisy. You love the government playing god and punishing the successful with higher rates. If you really want even treatment there should be a flat rate on all income and all earners

I can live with that-how about you?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The rest of the article can be found here

The effective tax rate is at least 3% less than it was during 2000, when we had a balanced budget. Conversely, tax revenue as a percentage of total income (using the income approach to national output) is at its lowest level since 1950, when tax revenues made up 14.4% of GDP (FWIW, they were 20.6% in 2000). No credible long term deficit reduction can occur without restoring a competent policy. The starve the beast mentality does not take into account fluctuations in the business cycle, and is now taking its toll on our politicians ability to not only fund itself (ala August 2nd), but to enact the necessary fiscal policy to combat the persistently high unemployment rate.
Click to expand...

Good! They NEED to pay more. They are under paying right now.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
Good! They NEED to pay more. They are under paying right now.
Click to expand...

another faux libertarian. GIve the government more money is a socialist or statist attitude
 
Councilman said:
Still say we need a flat on all income levels above the slightly the poverty line and allow no deductions.

Put a similar flat tax on all business without any loopholes. Singling out the people who start up the new businesses and create the jobs sounds great until you inhibit growth with taxes and over regulations.

It's a dumb idea that flies in the face of what has gone before and failed.

What's a fair share?

We have 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax, is that fair?
Click to expand...

Perhaps the Libertarian candidate will be for a flat tax, since they are the party that likes regressive taxes. Who is he anyway?
 
TurtleDude said:
another faux libertarian. GIve the government more money is a socialist or statist attitude
Click to expand...

No it's not. It needs more revenues and more spending cuts. I'm not a socialist, I don't think socialism works.
 
Catawba said:
Perhaps the Libertarian candidate will be for a flat tax, since they are the party that likes regressive taxes. Who is he anyway?
Click to expand...

a flat tax is not regressive. the rich pay more than the poor.
 
Snevert said:
No it's not. It needs more revenues and more spending cuts. I'm not a socialist, I don't think socialism works.
Click to expand...

I wasn't replying to you, try again, you don't pretend to be a libertarian
 
TurtleDude said:
utter hypocrisy. You love the government playing god and punishing the successful with higher rates. If you really want even treatment there should be a flat rate on all income and all earners

I can live with that-how about you?
Click to expand...

I would greatly appreciate it if you DID NOT speak for me. If you want to tell me what I believe, have the courtesy to reproduce my views as they were written.

As far as punishing the successful - explain how those who are fortunate enough to inherit wealth simply because the accident of birth constitute THE SUCCESSFUL - let alone the idea that they are going to be punished by taxing their income the same way we tax all forms of income.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
I would greatly appreciate it if you DID NOT speak for me. If you want to tell me what I believe, have the courtesy to reproduce my views as they were written.

As far as punishing the successful - explain how those who are fortunate enough to inherit wealth simply because the accident of birth constitute THE SUCCESSFUL - let alone the idea that they are going to be punished by taxing their income the same way we tax all forms of income.
Click to expand...

you claim treating LTCG or dividends (which are taxed twice before the shareholder gets them) at different rates is the Government playing God but it doesn't do that when it taxes those of us who pay most of the income taxes at higher rates than those who tend to live off the government
 
TurtleDude said:
a flat tax is not regressive. the rich pay more than the poor.
Click to expand...

You are badly misusing the term PROGRESSIVE. It has nothing to do with the gross amount one pays. It has everything to do with the percentage one pays - progressive meaning that as you progress up the income ladder, so does the percentage rate that you pay.

By its very nature, a FLAT tax is the opposite of Progressive taxation.
 
TurtleDude said:
utter hypocrisy. You love the government playing god and punishing the successful with higher rates. If you really want even treatment there should be a flat rate on all income and all earners

I can live with that-how about you?
Click to expand...

its just a bit dishonest for you to put words in people's mouths. how about you just quote what they say and respond to it?
 
TurtleDude said:
You utterly failed. please try again
Click to expand...

Explain. I disagree with you because I believe government needs more revenues, and I'm not a socialist. I'm not a statist either, I'm much more libertarian than statist. Because of that, your claim is incorrect. Need more proof? Look at the white house. Obama isn't a socialist and he wants a tax hike. If he was a socialist he wouldn't have made it to Iowa. Your claim is just simply wrong and over-generalized.
 
haymarket said:
You are badly misusing the term PROGRESSIVE. It has nothing to do with the gross amount one pays. It has everything to do with the percentage one pays - progressive meaning that as you progress up the income ladder, so does the percentage rate that you pay.

By its very nature, a FLAT tax is the opposite of Progressive taxation.
Click to expand...

wrong. a flat fee would be the opposite of a progressive taxation scheme. LIke everyone paying 1000 dollars. a flat tax is progressive in terms of actual dollars and neutral in terms of actual rates
 
jamesrage said:
I think the if the republicans were smart they would offer a reverse Buffett Rule where everybody pays the same percentage Buffett alleges to pays. I think most people would be more happy only paying 17.4 percent instead of the 36 percent rate that Buffett alleges that his secretary pays.


I though you had to make almost $200,000 a year to pay that percentage not $60,000, something is not right about his claim. 2011-2012 Tax Rates – Federal Income 2011-2012 Tax Brackets
Click to expand...

He's including FICA tax.

And I think republicans don't want to cut everyone's taxes to 17.4 percent because at those rates they couldn't afford the government spending they want. I don't think either major political party could fund their desired government off 17.4%. OTOH, a third party like the libertarian party probably could, since they favor much reduced government over the two big ones.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom