• 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.
If you want to live in a 100% free market society you better go start one somewhere, because there's no such thing on this earth. Nor would it last long if there was.

I guess the question is why so many of those like you want to turn the USA into another eurosocialist welfare paradise
 
Interesting. And how much of that money did you EARN, as opposed to inheriting? As a wise man once said, "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".

Again, this is America. If somebody's family decides to leave them money, how is that any of your concern? The fact still remains that he paid more than 10x in taxes than a family that makes 100k a year and has 1 child.
 
so what? they sure don't use as much

You keep forgetting that the from each according to their ability nonsense doesn't work

and its a tax on income and the rich pay a far higher share of the income tax than their share of the income while the bottom 50% pay a far lower share of the income tax than their share of the income

the bottom 50% use far more,

If they cannot pay more for what they use than they ought to use less and they certainly should not be voting for higher rates for others

It doesn't work? Really? Because it sure seemed to work better when we had more of it between WWII and the late 1960s -- the golden age of this country in many ways.

But your idea of the poor paying more because they need more is pure brilliance.
 
I guess the question is why so many of those like you want to turn the USA into another eurosocialist welfare paradise

I can't speak for others but I would just like to return the USA to the policies of those welfare socialists like Harry Truman and Ike Eisenhower.
 
You are missing the point, Liberals are calling for the rich to pay more and that brings into play the numbers that aren't paying anything. How can anyone claim that the rich need to pay their fair share when they are paying 38% of the taxes now and 47% of the income earners aren't paying any FIT. Apparently their fair share is zero, right?

Republicans don't believe we have a revenue problem but instead a spending problem. If you really want more revenue then get it from those not paying any FIT.

Taxing poor people and the elderly is not a valid solution in order to bring in more revenue. Only 1% of nontaxpaying households are nonelderly with incomes over $20,000. Most people who pay no federal income are poor and old. However, there are a few exceptions, like the 1,500 millionaires who didn't pay any income taxes in 2009.
 
It doesn't work? Really? Because it sure seemed to work better when we had more of it between WWII and the late 1960s -- the golden age of this country in many ways.

But your idea of the poor paying more because they need more is pure brilliance.

so tell me

what is more likely to support big spending politicians

those who pay taxes and see them increase when government spends more

or those who don't get tax hikes when the government spends more
 
If you want to live in a 100% free market society you better go start one somewhere, because there's no such thing on this earth. Nor would it last long if there was.

Splitting hairs to support your rubbish isn't going to solve the problem either. You have the right to make your money the way you see fit in America and sniveling little whiners don't have the right to just take it because they don't wnat to work harder. If you want more luxury, work harder. Period.
 
Again, this is America. If somebody's family decides to leave them money, how is that any of your concern? The fact still remains that he paid more than 10x in taxes than a family that makes 100k a year and has 1 child.

Now that's strange. I thought you had a problem with people who are "subsidized" complaining? You mean to say that we should castigate people who receive assistance to maintain a poverty-level income, but praise those who receive unearned millions? What's the logic behind that?
 
Taxing poor people and the elderly is not a valid solution in order to bring in more revenue. Only 1% of nontaxpaying households are nonelderly with incomes over $20,000. Most people who pay no federal income are poor and old. However, there are a few exceptions, like the 1,500 millionaires who didn't pay any income taxes in 2009.

its a valid solution to keep them from supporting more spending

and what income did those 1,500 millionaires have?

and their losses.

I suspect there is more to that story than the tax hikers want to tell us
 
I guess the question is why so many of those like you want to turn the USA into another eurosocialist welfare paradise

Why the extremes? There are many positive aspects of socialism we can incorporate into a market framework; the key however is the adequate protection of property rights. In advance; asking for 3.5% more of GDP does not lead to socialism.
 
Splitting hairs to support your rubbish isn't going to solve the problem either. You have the right to make your money the way you see fit in America and sniveling little whiners don't have the right to just take it because they don't wnat to work harder. If you want more luxury, work harder. Period.

That's how I'd like it to be. So, I'm going to choose to make my money by being born to a billionaire. It is my choice, after all, how I make my money.
 
Now that's strange. I thought you had a problem with people who are "subsidized" complaining? You mean to say that we should castigate people who receive assistance to maintain a poverty-level income, but praise those who receive unearned millions? What's the logic behind that?

parasites cost me money. rich heirs do not. I don't praise heirs but they don't cost me
 
Splitting hairs to support your rubbish isn't going to solve the problem either. You have the right to make your money the way you see fit in America and sniveling little whiners don't have the right to just take it because they don't wnat to work harder. If you want more luxury, work harder. Period.

It's hardly splitting hairs. This country hasn't been anything like a pure free market since the 1920s. How did that work out?
 
who is Buffett envious of?

who are all of these millionaires, who support higher-taxes on millionaires, envious of?

Patriotic Millionaires For Fiscal Strength

They are laughing their butts off. "Yeah, Obama is going to raise taxes on income and we are going to say how great that is, even though most of our money is made through capital gains that we will make sure aren't touched".

So basically this new tax on the income of those making over $1 mill won't even touch Buffett as his income is reported $100,000. All of his money is made through capital gains. When I see Obama addressing this, I'll take him seriously. Until then, he's a fraud.
 
parasites cost me money. rich heirs do not. I don't praise heirs but they don't cost me

Heirs are parasites, of course, and they cost us all money by hoarding unearned wealth.
 
That's how I'd like it to be. So, I'm going to choose to make my money by being born to a billionaire. It is my choice, after all, how I make my money.

you seem to forget that the right is with the person who owned and earned the money. You have no right to an inheritance but once it is bequeathed others have no right to whine about what an earner chose to give you
 
Heirs are parasites, of course, and they cost us all money by hoarding unearned wealth.

that is just pathetic and it oozes envy. you appear to be mad that you didn't have industrious or productive parents. You have no right to the wealth no matter how much you try to justify it. You didn't earn it, so quit whining
 
I love this attitude. If you don't like the status quo with wealth distribution, you are communist. Myself, I feel that one's wealth should be based on one's skills/ability, and the effort they expend. That is to say, you should earn it. If you are better at something compared to someone else, you should earn more money than that person. If you work harder than someone else, all else equal, you should also make more money. Yet, somehow, this makes me a communist? (It is true, I don't think wealth or success should be a birthright. If that makes me a communist, a communist I am.)

So what you are saying then is that if your rich mother dies, that the rest of the world should get everything that she worked for? You are sitting on the fence arguing one point from one side and another point from the other side. There are people that work hard, and there are people that inherit from people that work hard. If I want to give what I earn to my children that is my right and it is not your right to make things difficult for them simply because you are jealous.
 
you seem to forget that the right is with the person who owned and earned the money. You have no right to an inheritance but once it is bequeathed others have no right to whine about what an earner chose to give you

others have no right to whine about what an earner chose to give you...

Wow.

Isn't there, like, an amendment or something...
 
you seem to forget that the right is with the person who owned and earned the money.

Why? Because you say so? I could as easily say the the right is with population as a whole.
 
It doesn't work? Really? Because it sure seemed to work better when we had more of it between WWII and the late 1960s -- the golden age of this country in many ways.

But your idea of the poor paying more because they need more is pure brilliance.

Why don't you go ahead and tell us what the population was in the late 1960s compared to what it is now. And then when you are done with that, you should also fill us all in on the percentage of immigrants and illegal immigrants there are now in the US compared to the late 1960's. I bet you find an answer to our economic woes in there somewhere, and it has nothing to do with shaking down rich people I gurantee it.
 
that is just pathetic and it oozes envy. you appear to be mad that you didn't have industrious or productive parents. You have no right to the wealth no matter how much you try to justify it. You didn't earn it, so quit whining

What a stupidly weak response. That fact that someone's parents or grandparents were industrious does not give them a right to unearned income.
 
Why? Because you say so? I could as easily say the the right is with population as a whole.

those who want to take others' wealth go to great lengths to justify it. bottom line you are just envious that others had more industrious parents than you do

do you have any children Adam?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom