• 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.
There is a price to run the govt. and that is the budget of the United States. Right now the price being paid by 47% to fund that govt. is ZERO. Is that what you call paying their fair share?



Why do you slide over the fact that individual income taxes make up only 44 percent of federal revenues, and payroll taxes make up 42 percent?

If you were honest you would have stated that the effective fed tax rate on the top percent fell 6 points, while there income jumped 12 percentage points.

Sure cant say that about the so-called 47 percent that you’re running around saying that they don’t pay taxes; like the top percent are carrying them on their backs.:roll:

Historical Tables | The White House
 
If pointing out your fallacies is trolling so be it:shrug:

My fallacies? You don't think there is a cost to be a citizen of this country? Great, glad to hear that you don't support the 3.7 trillion dollar govt. that we have today.
 
Why do you slide over the fact that individual income taxes make up only 44 percent of federal revenues, and payroll taxes make up 42 percent?

If you were honest you would have stated that the effective fed tax rate on the top percent fell 6 points, while there income jumped 12 percentage points.

Sure cant say that about the so-called 47 percent that you’re running around saying that they don’t pay taxes; like the top percent are carrying them on their backs.:roll:

Historical Tables | The White House

Now we don't want to be honest, do we, how much of that 3.7 trillion dollars is SS/Medicare? We certainly don't want honesty here especially from a liberal. Why do you support Medicare and SS being on budget and revenue going on budget?

My point remains and you haven't addressed it, what is the effective tax rate of the 47% that don't pay any FIT? You are like far too many, don't have a clue as to the line item expenses of the Federal Govt. and what FIT funds or is supposed to fund.
 
Do you know how much our GDP is and was? think about it. The actual dollars collected means so much more than the percentage of GDP. No one spends percentage change at the grocery store but instead spends actual dollars just like debt service is actual dollars not percentage. Liberals always use percentage change to argue for taking more of your income.

First of all, Liberals are talking about taxing themselves as well. This whole identity politics crap about Liberals living on the dole and conservatives paying taxes is crap. Based on Demographics Obama voters were on average more affluent and more educated than McCain voters. It's a differing view on the role of government "liberals wanna take your money". Second of all...% is used because it's the correct thing to use. When population grows, GDP grows, when goods become more expensive, GDP grows, and of course, when the economy grows...thereby more government resources needed, GDP has grown.

Tax cuts mean more take home pay for the American worker. Reagan tax cuts doubled GDP and double tax revenue. Reagan had a Democrat House and Tip ONeil that had no problem spending money. Reagan set a record for vetoes but also signed legislation that had riders attached to defense legislation that was required to destroy the Soviet Union. Reagan had a 1.7 trillion dollar debt over 8 years. Obama exceeded that in about a year and two months and has addded 4 trillion in less than 3 years showing again that we have a spending problem not a revenue problem.

Dems controlled the House and Senate for virtually 40 years and never ran up the debts Reagan did. Dem's controlling Congress was nothing new. As for the Soviet Union bit, we know, Defense never "counts" on the budget, which is why Bush didn't worry about paying for them. If you want to spend on more wars at least pay for em.
The deficit when Reagan walked into office was like 600 billion or so. He increased it by by 300%. That's the problem with using real numbers over percentages. You make Reagan look like a fiscal hawk even though he's been the largest deficit spender in the modern era National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obama's biggest increase was a 600 billion dollar stimulus that included 1/3rd of that stimulus as tax cuts. He has cut government spending, his 2010 spending was less than Bush's last budget (see wiki article). Basically your misinformed I'm sorry.
 
What policies does Obama support that didn't build our country, SS and health care helped build the strongest middle class in our history. Taxes used to be lot more for the people at the top, higher than anything being proposed by Obama.

You act as if eliminating some of the temporary tax breaks given to the wealthy to help reduce our debt is some kind of foreign scheme, rather than the tried and true method used to build a middle class after the Great Depression.

Class warfare and individual wealth redistribution. Do you collect SS? Apparently not because SS doesnt build a strong middle class because SS revenue isn't enough to do that. As I posted, what line items in the budget benefits the middle class more than the lower classes?

Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service

It would help a lot if you actually looked at the budget for at least once in your life and then you wouldn't be making such foolish statements.

Still no answer, why would you support sending more money to D.C. when they helped create a 14.6 trillion dollar debt? Apparently you either work for the govt. or just don't have a clue, maybe both.
 
EXCEPT Reagan who had to raise SS taxes to get the fund solvent again.

Reagan pointed a comission to make reccomendations. He used the money as well. He did raise SS taxes but of course, had no problem raising taxes that the poorest Americans pay while lowering the taxes of the richest.

Here is the link to the line items in the budget so explain to me how the rich benefit more from these line items than anyone else?

Anybody that does the best in a system (in our system judged by wealth) by default benefits the most from the system. This isn't Atlas Shrugged, drop the Koch bros or Warren Buffet in a country other the US or other countries that pay at or higher taxes and that leaves 3rd World Countries were they are toast.
 
Now we don't want to be honest, do we, how much of that 3.7 trillion dollars is SS/Medicare? We certainly don't want honesty here especially from a liberal. Why do you support Medicare and SS being on budget and revenue going on budget?

My point remains and you haven't addressed it, what is the effective tax rate of the 47% that don't pay any FIT? You are like far too many, don't have a clue as to the line item expenses of the Federal Govt. and what FIT funds or is supposed to fund.


you did post this in post #1196 didn't you?Note the bolded part.

There is a price to run the govt. and that is the budget of the United States. Right now the price being paid by 47% to fund that govt. is ZERO. Is that what you call paying their fair share?


So if anyone that didn't have a clue(a dittohead perhaps) were to look at your post, they would more than likely believe the **** your shoveling.Just trying to get some truth squeezed in between your BS post.:2wave:
 
iliveonramen;1059845397]First of all, Liberals are talking about taxing themselves as well. This whole identity politics crap about Liberals living on the dole and conservatives paying taxes is crap. Based on Demographics Obama voters were on average more affluent and more educated than McCain voters. It's a differing view on the role of government "liberals wanna take your money". Second of all...% is used because it's the correct thing to use. When population grows, GDP grows, when goods become more expensive, GDP grows, and of course, when the economy grows...thereby more government resources needed, GDP has grown.

Still waiting for an answer, do you believe 47% not paying any FIT means they are paying their fair share? Liberals supporting the class warfare are doing so mostly to keep their power and support for a large central govt. You seem to have this fixation with govt. revenue and the need for more money at the Federal level and the question is why? You think raising taxes raises GDP? What do you think will happen to state tax revenue when FIT taxes go up on the rich?


Dems controlled the House and Senate for virtually 40 years and never ran up the debts Reagan did. Dem's controlling Congress was nothing new. As for the Soviet Union bit, we know, Defense never "counts" on the budget, which is why Bush didn't worry about paying for them. If you want to spend on more wars at least pay for em.
The deficit when Reagan walked into office was like 600 billion or so. He increased it by by 300%. That's the problem with using real numbers over percentages. You make Reagan look like a fiscal hawk even though he's been the largest deficit spender in the modern era National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please tell me how a President spends money without Congressional approval and I hope you don't believe that Congress doesn't spend money? 5 trillion dollars has been added to the debt since 2007. Who controlled the purse strings during that period of time?

Reagan took over with a 900 billion debt and left it at 2.6 trillion. Obama took office with a 10.6 trillion debt and it is 14.6 trillion now. Bush and Congress added 4.9 trillion to the debt in 8 YEARS and Obama will exceed that in four.

Obama's biggest increase was a 600 billion dollar stimulus that included 1/3rd of that stimulus as tax cuts. He has cut government spending, his 2010 spending was less than Bush's last budget (see wiki article). Basically your misinformed I'm sorry.

Obama stimulus was 842 billion and he was left 350 billion of TARP, a program that he voted for. the 2009 budget was passed by a Democrat Congress with Democrat votes of which Obama was one. Obama then put the Department heads in place to spend that budet. Those tax cuts were targeted and were worthless. You got a rebate check if you worked and once it was spent it was gone. Suggest you learn exactly what those tax cuts were. Seems to me you are out of your league here and you are the one misinformed.

Tax cuts for individuals

Total: $237 billion
• $116 billion: New tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phase out begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.[29]
• $70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.[29]
• $15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes).
• $14 billion: Expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.
• $6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.[41]
• $4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
• $4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit — which provides money to low income workers — for families with at least three children.
• $4.3 billion: Home energy credit to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.
• $1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.
 
you did post this in post #1196 didn't you?Note the bolded part.

There is a price to run the govt. and that is the budget of the United States. Right now the price being paid by 47% to fund that govt. is ZERO. Is that what you call paying their fair share?


So if anyone that didn't have a clue(a dittohead perhaps) were to look at your post, they would more than likely believe the **** your shoveling.Just trying to get some truth squeezed in between your BS post.:2wave:

Yep, SS and Medicare aren't costs to RUN The govt. Suggest you learn the line items to run the govt.
 
ahemm US citizens

View attachment 67116369

Wadda ya gonna charge 'em?

There are 310 million Americans and if you were paying attention which I doubt you would know that I posted the 140 million income earners and thus the 65 plus million that aren't paying their fair share unless their fair share is zero.
 
How is 47% paying zero in FIT their fair share?
Because the wealth is concentrated into the top 10% of Americans.

inequality-page25_therichest280.png
It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones

Which gets back to my point about corporations and individuals. Sure, maybe a corporate officer here and there doesn't make much income, but when they're money is tied up in stocks, they make a pretty penny off the capital (money and labor) supplied by the working class when they cash out. That's why the 15% capital gains rate is a joke to begin with. [insert Warren Buffet paying more than secretary diatribe here]

And also, yes, corporations and the wealthy should pay higher taxes because of the benefits (direct and indirect) they receive(d) from all the line items of the federal budget as a collective whole.

Reagan took over with a 900 billion debt and left it at 2.6 trillion. Obama took office with a 10.6 trillion debt and it is 14.6 trillion now. Bush and Congress added 4.9 trillion to the debt in 8 YEARS and Obama will exceed that in four.
You are really oversimplifying economics here.
 
Last edited:
Because the wealth is concentrated into the top 10% of Americans.

View attachment 67116368
It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones

Which gets back to my point about corporations and individuals. Sure, maybe a corporate officer here and there doesn't make much income, but when they're money is tied up in stocks, they make a pretty penny off the capital (money and labor) supplied by the working class when they cash out. That's why the 15% capital gains rate is a joke to begin with. [insert Warren Buffet paying more than secretary diatribe here]

And also, yes, corporations and the wealthy should pay higher taxes because of the benefits (direct and indirect) they receive from all the line items of the federal budget as a collective whole.

The wealth isnt a fixed amount, it continues to grow or at least used to. Why aren't you working to get a share of that growing wealth? Keep raising those taxes and watch people flock from NY. Why has Coumo proposed lower taxes? Who do you think pays corporate taxes?
 
let them keep the lower 2000s rate if they use what they would have paid in taxes to hire people domestically. the claim is that the lower rate creates jobs; let's see it in action.

otherwise, roll it back to the 1990s rate. the economy did quite well when the top rate was 39 percent.
 
let them keep the lower 2000s rate if they use what they would have paid in taxes to hire people domestically. the claim is that the lower rate creates jobs; let's see it in action.

otherwise, roll it back to the 1990s rate. the economy did quite well when the top rate was 39 percent.

Why do you think there is so much passion on the part of liberals to increase taxes?
 
The wealth isnt a fixed amount, it continues to grow or at least used to.
And that changes what about that chart? Percentages work with proportions, my friend, they're entirely flexible to a change in quantity.

Why aren't you working to get a share of that growing wealth?
Too busy correcting people on the internet.

Keep raising those taxes and watch people flock from NY. Why has Coumo proposed lower taxes? Who do you think pays corporate taxes?
That's a great story, but I'd rather we just stick with what I said and not turn this into who's got the bigger propaganda.
 
muRda;1059845463]And that changes what about that chart? Percentages work with proportions, my friend, they're entirely flexible to a change in quantity.

Percentage change is worthless, the higher the base the lower the percentage change. Example Reagan added 1.7 trillion to the debt which is a much higher percentage than the 4 trillion Obama added as the Reagan base was 900 billion and the Obama base 10.6 trillion. Reagan's percentage was going to be higher but which do you want to pay debt service on, 1.7 trillion or 4.0 trillion?

Too busy correcting people on the internet.

Not doing a very good job at it. Better try something else.

That's a great story, but I'd rather we just stick with what I said and not turn this into who's got the bigger propaganda.

No problem, like the story but like more the taxpayers that are moving to TX from NY because TX has no state income taxes.
 
Why do you think there is so much passion on the part of liberals to increase taxes?

Because liberals are not willing to sacrifice senior's benefits to continue tax breaks for the wealthy.

Why do you think there is so little passion on the part of conservatives to protect seniors benefits?
 
Because liberals are not willing to sacrifice senior's benefits to continue tax breaks for the wealthy.

Why do you think there is so little passion on the part of conservatives to protect seniors benefits?

How does sending more FIT to the Federal Govt. affect Senior benefits? You don't understand FICA do you?

I am a senior and know that sending more to the govt. doesn't change my benefits at all.
 
Yep, SS and Medicare aren't costs to RUN The govt. Suggest you learn the line items to run the govt.

What pot does the “payroll tax” go in, and what percent of their income does “payroll tax” represent to the 47 percenters that pay no FIT, compared to someone making $300 K per year?

No way in hell can you spin this BS"Right now the price being paid by 47% to fund that govt. is ZERO. Is that what you call paying their fair share" and make it smell like anything but the bull**** it is.:2wave:
 
Why is it so bad to tax the wealthiest of the wealthy at this point? It's absolutely ridiculous to see people consider that class warfare. First of all, it's not warfare. We're not going out and putting guns to the heads of these people and making them pay more taxes. What kind of a planet are you living on to think that it has escalated to that level. It's not war! Second of all, most of them aren't really job creators, okay? Their companies are the real creators. Companies hire people.

Taxes are a sacrifice that everyone has to make. Whatever my taxes are, they can take what they want (a reasonable amount, not asking for 75% of my income going to the government). They're not going to fix or build bridges, roads, and schools if they don't have taxes. If we keep lowering taxes (especially on the wealthiest) the actual citizens are going to have to do that stuff themselves. Quite frankly, I don't want to be woken up at 6 am by a phone call from the government saying "Hey, the bridge 3 blocks from you is down. Get over here and bring a shovel." That is why we pay taxes.

Taxes are a service. We've been doing it ever since we became a country. And don't give me that "well that's socialism/communism/(insert radical left wing ideology)" It's not! For crying out loud, their asking for 3%. That's 1 more than 2%. What's so hard to understand?

I know that taxes affect prices, but is that increase really going to affect us that much? Geez. I'd spend another dollar on whatever product I'm buying if it's being made by an American instead of someone in a sweatshop or whatever in another country. It really isn't that hard. Seriously, why can't a company like Wal-Mart make a 2% profit or whatever it is on goods? According to them if they can't make 3% apparently it's a tragedy of biblical proportions. Just get a grip on it!
 
Because the wealth is concentrated into the top 10% of Americans.

View attachment 67116368
It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones

Which gets back to my point about corporations and individuals. Sure, maybe a corporate officer here and there doesn't make much income, but when they're money is tied up in stocks, they make a pretty penny off the capital (money and labor) supplied by the working class when they cash out. That's why the 15% capital gains rate is a joke to begin with. [insert Warren Buffet paying more than secretary diatribe here]

And also, yes, corporations and the wealthy should pay higher taxes because of the benefits (direct and indirect) they receive(d) from all the line items of the federal budget as a collective whole.


You are really oversimplifying economics here.

being rich doesn't make others poor

being smart doesn't make others stupid

being fast doesn't make others slow

being graceful doesn't make others klutzy

if people aren't making any money its not the fault of those who do
 
Percentage change is worthless, the higher the base the lower the percentage change.
No, not at all. Do you realize what that chart means? It's not a comparison over time, it's static.

Example Reagan added 1.7 trillion to the debt which is a much higher percentage than the 4 trillion Obama added as the Reagan base was 900 billion and the Obama base 10.6 trillion. Reagan's percentage was going to be higher but which do you want to pay debt service on, 1.7 trillion or 4.0 trillion?
Really? You think one man has everything to do with government debt and the economy?


Not doing a very good job at it. Better try something else.
All you've done is regurgitate conservative talking points without addressing specifically anything I've brought up (or when you have, you were misunderstanding what I actually said instead of how you read it). How does me posting a chart about wealth distribution in this country and concerns about corporations lead you to start talking about Governor Cuomo? Stick to the topic and points I make, not everything has to be degraded into some tangent on what you hold dear. See below.


No problem, like the story but like more the taxpayers that are moving to TX from NY because TX has no state income taxes.

being rich doesn't make others poor

being smart doesn't make others stupid

being fast doesn't make others slow

being graceful doesn't make others klutzy

if people aren't making any money its not the fault of those who do
Is that the lullaby that was sung to you at night? How about actually making a point instead of worthless platitudes?
 
Last edited:
What pot does the “payroll tax” go in, and what percent of their income does “payroll tax” represent to the 47 percenters that pay no FIT, compared to someone making $300 K per year?

No way in hell can you spin this BS"Right now the price being paid by 47% to fund that govt. is ZERO. Is that what you call paying their fair share" and make it smell like anything but the bull**** it is.:2wave:

What does it matter, FICA funds SS and Medicare not the Federal Govt. Pretty simple concept to understand for most, why not you?
 
No, not at all. Do you realize what that chart means? It's not a comparison over time, it's static.

Really? You think one man has everything to do with government debt and the economy?

All you've done is regurgitate conservative talking points without addressing specifically anything I've brought up (or when you have, you were misunderstanding what I actually said instead of how you read it). How does me posting a chart about wealth distribution in this country and concerns about corporations lead you to start talking about Governor Cuomo? Stick to the topic and points I make, not everything has to be degraded into some tangent on what you hold dear. See below.


Is that the lullaby that was sung to you at night? How about actually making a point instead of worthless platitudes?

Sorry but bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury refute your rhetoric and that is all that matters. Those aren't conservative talking points, those are facts. Please explain why there is such passion for raising taxes?

You see, I don't give a damn how much you or anyone else makes nor how much wealth you accumulate. Don't care who controls what part of the nation's wealth because I know that I have an opportunity to accumulate wealth just like anyone else. Corporations employ people and corporations pay dividends to shareholders as well as taxes. No corporations and millions would have to live off SS income, hardly enough to benefit anyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom