• 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.
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.

I don't care what you are, giving the government more wealth is anathema to true libertarians. Since you don't claim to be a libertarian your rant really has no relevance to my critique of someone who claims to be a libertarian but wants more class warfare based tax increases
 
I don't care what you are, giving the government more wealth is anathema to true libertarians. Since you don't claim to be a libertarian your rant really has no relevance to my critique of someone who claims to be a libertarian but wants more class warfare based tax increases

this phrase is becoming a cliche'.
 
this phrase is becoming a cliche'.

No more so than the 'tard in chief saying the rich need to pay their fair share

not only is that a cliche its a blatant lie he spews to pander to the weak minded and the envious
 
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.

Why does the govt. need more revenue? Seems to me that you are justifying the size of the govt. as it is? Here are the line items in the budget, how many are duplicated at the state level thus not needed at the Federal Level? I believe we have a spending problem not a revenue problem. Too many ignore that it is the income earner's money first and doesn't belong to the govt.

Expenses

Defense 696.1
International Affairs 45.2
Gen. Science, Space 30.9
Energy 11.5
Natural resources/env 41,6
Agriculture 23.2
Commerce -82.9
Transportation 92.5
Community Dev 24.9
Education/Train/Social 125.1
Health 369.0
Medicare 451.6
Income Security 624.0
Social Security 706.7
Veterans Benefits 108.4
Justice 55.2
General Govt. 18.1
Net Interest 196.9


Total 3496.4


First thing that has to be done is take SS and Medicare out of the budget completely and apply FICA taxes to those items. that reduces the amount of revenue needed down to 2.3 trillion from income taxes, corporate taxes, and excise taxes.. then cut out the categories duplicated at the state level, education, energy, environmental, commerce, agriculture, etc and you have a budget of about 1.5 trillion dollars. Put 25 million people back to work paying taxes and the reduce foreign aid for illegal immigration health care.
 
No more so than the 'tard in chief saying the rich need to pay their fair share

Some cliche'. This is the first time I've seen such a statement.


not only is that a cliche its a blatant lie he spews to pander to the weak minded and the envious

accusing folks who want to raise the tax-rate on the wealthy to pre-Bush levels, of being "envious", is also becoming a bit of a cliche'.
 
Why does the govt. need more revenue? Seems to me that you are justifying the size of the govt. as it is? Here are the line items in the budget, how many are duplicated at the state level thus not needed at the Federal Level? I believe we have a spending problem not a revenue problem. Too many ignore that it is the income earner's money first and doesn't belong to the govt.

Expenses

Defense 696.1
International Affairs 45.2
Gen. Science, Space 30.9
Energy 11.5
Natural resources/env 41,6
Agriculture 23.2
Commerce -82.9
Transportation 92.5
Community Dev 24.9
Education/Train/Social 125.1
Health 369.0
Medicare 451.6
Income Security 624.0
Social Security 706.7
Veterans Benefits 108.4
Justice 55.2
General Govt. 18.1
Net Interest 196.9


Total 3496.4


First thing that has to be done is take SS and Medicare out of the budget completely and apply FICA taxes to those items. that reduces the amount of revenue needed down to 2.3 trillion from income taxes, corporate taxes, and excise taxes.. then cut out the categories duplicated at the state level, education, energy, environmental, commerce, agriculture, etc and you have a budget of about 1.5 trillion dollars. Put 25 million people back to work paying taxes and the reduce foreign aid for illegal immigration health care.

the dems need more money to buy the votes of their constituents. that is why they want tax hikes. So they can tell their voters that all the goodies the voters want will be paid for by the rich

that is why

its why the ass in chief cannot just agree to spending cuts. REAL COMPROMISE means the GOP agrees to a trillion of cuts to the programs they like such as the military and the dems agree to a trillion cuts of the stuff they like such as handouts to unions and their voters
 
Some cliche'. This is the first time I've seen such a statement.




accusing folks who want to raise the tax-rate on the wealthy to pre-Bush levels, of being "envious", is also becoming a bit of a cliche'.

I really don't care if I use the same term over and over as long as it is accurate and it is
 
I don't care what you are, giving the government more wealth is anathema to true libertarians. Since you don't claim to be a libertarian your rant really has no relevance to my critique of someone who claims to be a libertarian but wants more class warfare based tax increases

Sorry TD, we simply cannot pass the buck any longer. Starve the beast failed when we ran consistent deficits during periods of economic growth; now is time to pay the piper. Hindering economic activity will not solve the problem.
 
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

You are confusing several different issues and attempting to use one to justify the others which is fallacious.

1) Capital gains rates have nothing at all to do with anyone living off the government. They are two separate things and one is irrelevant to the merits of the other.
2) Corporations are persons under the law. As such they pay taxes. Individual human beings are persons under the law. As such they pay taxes. Those are two different things and not double taxation from the same payer.
3) Who pays most of the taxes and at what rates is irrelevant to the fact that all income should be taxed as what it actuall is - income and the government should not play god and decide which source of income should be given discriminatory treatment with more favorable rates.
 
Sorry TD, we simply cannot pass the buck any longer. Starve the beast failed when we ran consistent deficits during periods of economic growth; now is time to pay the piper. Hindering economic activity will not solve the problem.

its easy to say that when its only a few percentage points of the citizens who are expected to pay the buck

Its time for those who have been subsidized by others to either give up all the goodies they expect from others, or step up and start paying for what they demand
 
You are confusing several different issues and attempting to use one to justify the others which is fallacious.

1) Capital gains rates have nothing at all to do with anyone living off the government. They are two separate things and one is irrelevant to the merits of the other.
2) Corporations are persons under the law. As such they pay taxes. Individual human beings are persons under the law. As such they pay taxes. Those are two different things and not double taxation from the same payer.
3) Who pays most of the taxes and at what rates is irrelevant to the fact that all income should be taxed as what it actuall is - income and the government should not play god and decide which source of income should be given discriminatory treatment with more favorable rates.

the only confusion is your inability to understand or concede that there are sound economic reasons for having lower rates on LTCG or dividends. Your whining that the richest 1/100th of one percent have mostly those types of income is not a sound basis for increasing the rates so you can slake your dislike of the uber rich
 
a flat tax is not regressive. the rich pay more than the poor.


" * Flat rate taxes are no longer progressive (at least as far as the 'marginal' rates are concerned) and so the distribution of income will become more unequal – certainly in the short and medium term.

* Flat rate taxes tend to favour the wealthy at the expense of the poor because the wealthy are no longer taxed at high rates on their savings, their dividend incomes and their inheritance wealth.

* Flat taxes can form part of a “race to the bottom” with governments competing with each other to offer the lowest rates of tax to entice inward investment and skilled workers. The result is a widening gap between the wealthy and the poor and less revenue for the government to commit to social welfare spending.

* There is no guarantee that people will look to work more if tax rates are lower, indeed some people may choose to work less because they can earn the same income from working fewer hours.

* There is no guarantee that businesses will engage in more investment and R&D if company taxes are lower – they may simply offer more in the way of dividends to their shareholders!

* Tax reforms such as flat taxes are not the only key factor in determining flows of foreign investment around the world economy. John Chambers CEO of Cisco Systems has been quoted as saying that “Jobs are going to go where the best-educated workforce is with the most competitive infrastructure and environment for creativity and supportive government.” In addition people living in those respective countries do not want to see a reduction in spending on their services at the benefit of reduced taxation."

"Examples of countries that have moved towards flat rate tax systems include Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Lithuania, Russia, Slovakia and most recently, Hungary."
http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/a2-macro-direct-indirect-taxation.html

Edit: corrected link
 
Last edited:
the only confusion is your inability to understand or concede that there are sound economic reasons for having lower rates on LTCG or dividends. Your whining that the richest 1/100th of one percent have mostly those types of income is not a sound basis for increasing the rates so you can slake your dislike of the uber rich

Why do you have to insult me by claiming that I do not understand? A person can fully understand but yet disagree with your stance on these matters.

Secondly, your repeated use of the term WHINING is an insult. You should stop it.
 
its easy to say that when its only a few percentage points of the citizens who are expected to pay the buck

No, it is simply good economics.

Its time for those who have been subsidized by others to either give up all the goodies they expect from others, or step up and start paying for what they demand

This has been addressed previously; hindering economic activity (at this stage) is simply not an option. You are about 11 years too late to be calling for such policies.
 
I find it rather disingenuous that some claim that the government should not "pick" winners or losers by having different tax treatment of different sources of income yet they oppose a flat tax on all income or a consumption tax-both of which would prevent the government engaging in class warfare or pitting one group against another.

What is obvious is many people try to justify higher rates on dividend or Capital gains income PURELY because a few thousand people have lower taxes than some highly salaried individuals because those few thousand have only investment income and that somehow upsets the class warriors who are mad that a billionaire only paid 18% of his billion dollar income while someone making 200K a year might have paid 20%. (Buffet's secretary would have to be making over 150K for him to come close to being honest and he still paid 35% rate on his 100K salary)

They ignore that the billionaire paid more actual dollars than 70+ million americans combined but they ignore the fact that 47% of Americans have exactly the same rights as a billionaire but pay less income taxes COMBINED than that one billionaire.

They are indignant over "unequal tax rates" except when it allows people to have full citizenship rights without paying the dues
 
..Your whining that the richest 1/100th of one percent have mostly those types of income is not a sound basis for increasing the rates so you can slake your dislike of the uber rich

#1. he's not the one whining about taxes being too high.

#2. there is no evidence that he dislikes rich people.
 
Its a FACT. They are under paying Mr. Turtle.

That is horse poop

they pay more of the income tax than their share of the income. THose who are paying no income tax are underpaying

Your understanding of a fact is pathetic and that is a FACT
 
the only confusion is your inability to understand or concede that there are sound economic reasons for having lower rates on LTCG or dividends. Your whining that the richest 1/100th of one percent have mostly those types of income is not a sound basis for increasing the rates so you can slake your dislike of the uber rich

ohhhhhh COME ON! Youre afraid. Youre afraid of paying more.

Turtle if we cut from the bottom (which we should) then we need to raise more from the top.
 
No, it is simply good economics.



This has been addressed previously; hindering economic activity (at this stage) is simply not an option. You are about 11 years too late to be calling for such policies.

obumble's scheme is good politics, lousy economics and he wants to tax the rich poor so he can claim it will pay for him buying more votes with more idiotic spending
 
ohhhhhh COME ON! Youre afraid. Youre afraid of paying more.

Turtle is we cut from the bottom (which we should) then we need to raise more from the top.

I pay over 300k a year in income taxes. I'll tell you what, when you pay as much as I do you will have room to talk. I suspect I pay more in a year than you have in your life
 
Why does the govt. need more revenue? Seems to me that you are justifying the size of the govt. as it is? Here are the line items in the budget, how many are duplicated at the state level thus not needed at the Federal Level? I believe we have a spending problem not a revenue problem. Too many ignore that it is the income earner's money first and doesn't belong to the govt.

Are you aware of the massive deficit the US government has? It's both a spending problem AND a revenue problem. We spend too much and take in too little. If we're going to be serious about getting rid of our deficit we need a revenue increase ALONG with the spending cuts.
 
I find it rather disingenuous that some claim that the government should not "pick" winners or losers by having different tax treatment of different sources of income yet they oppose a flat tax on all income or a consumption tax-both of which would prevent the government engaging in class warfare or pitting one group against another.

What is obvious is many people try to justify higher rates on dividend or Capital gains income PURELY because a few thousand people have lower taxes than some highly salaried individuals because those few thousand have only investment income and that somehow upsets the class warriors who are mad that a billionaire only paid 18% of his billion dollar income while someone making 200K a year might have paid 20%. (Buffet's secretary would have to be making over 150K for him to come close to being honest and he still paid 35% rate on his 100K salary)

They ignore that the billionaire paid more actual dollars than 70+ million americans combined but they ignore the fact that 47% of Americans have exactly the same rights as a billionaire but pay less income taxes COMBINED than that one billionaire.

They are indignant over "unequal tax rates" except when it allows people to have full citizenship rights without paying the dues

its very simple: the more money you make, the more you can afford to pay in taxes, therefore the more you should pay in taxes.

its common sense. its logical. its rational. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand it.
 
no loopholes save one : give them a preferential tax rate if they directly create jobs with the money. that's one main argument i've seen against "raising" the tax rate on the very wealthy; so let them deliver on the job creation promise.

problem solved.

Maybe you are not familiar with the concept of a free market but in the United States we are not in the business of dictating how people spend money, other than taxes. The reason these businesses are not hiring is because their businesses are not growing. Even the rich want to make more money so if they had the opportunity to do so by expanding their business (and hiring more employees to operate said expanded business) are you saying they would not? It is utterly pathetic that people seriously sit there and believe that we should tax the rich and force them to hire people. Start your own business and run it however you want to. That is the beauty of America. What is mine is not yours so take your pathetic whining to someplace that cares...like nowhere.

The problem here is the half of Americans that don't pay taxes and they still sit there whining like they are being treated unfairly by people who paid more taxes in a year than you will in your life. Get an education, that will solve all of your problems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom