• 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.
The Republican party is less popular than the President. If anything people are fed up with Washington focusing more on Medical Care or defunding Planned Parenthood and NPR than actually doing something about the economy. If anything that "ass whipping" you mentioned has reminded Americans why they voted our Republicans in the first place.

The Republican Party isn't on the ballot, Obama will be and that includes his record. There is no reason to re-elect Obama and the best job creator would be him losing his.
 
The Return of the Tax Fairy

"We have already seen the return of the Tax Fairy, the absurd belief, depressingly widespread in Republican circles, that cutting taxes increases revenue. Even Greg Mankiw, chair of George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, called those who believe this fiction “charlatans and cranks.” But it has become almost doctrine within the GOP. "

"Back when the cuts were enacted, the administration and its allies in Congress spent a lot of time talking about how there were cuts for everyone (or at least everyone who pays income taxes, a crucial distinction they weren’t at pains to make). They were less comfortable talking about the fact that people of modest means got a few hundred dollars, while millionaires were showered with tens or even hundreds of thousands. It wasn’t just the cuts in the top rates—the administration pushed for a series of cuts, on stock dividends and inheritances, among other things, targeted squarely at the wealthy.

When the tax cuts were passed, the prevailing assumption was that when the 10 years expired, Congress would make them permanent, no matter which party was in charge or who was president. After all, who wants to vote for a tax increase? But now, the Obama administration has put Republicans in a difficult spot. President Barack Obama’s proposal is to make the cuts permanent—but only for Americans making less than $250,000 a year, in keeping with a promise he made during the 2008 campaign. This forces Republicans to explicitly argue against a tax cut for the wealthy—and only for the wealthy.

And whatever else Americans think about taxes, they emphatically believe the wealthy get off easy; polls consistently show around 60 percent saying the rich don’t pay their fair share. If you’re a conservative, how do you deal with that? The justifications shift to whatever focus groups are saying is most effective at a given moment, but the goal is always the same: Make sure that the wealthy pay as little as possible. "

The Return of the Tax Fairy
 
The Return of the Tax Fairy

"We have already seen the return of the Tax Fairy, the absurd belief, depressingly widespread in Republican circles, that cutting taxes increases revenue. Even Greg Mankiw, chair of George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, called those who believe this fiction “charlatans and cranks.” But it has become almost doctrine within the GOP. "

"Back when the cuts were enacted, the administration and its allies in Congress spent a lot of time talking about how there were cuts for everyone (or at least everyone who pays income taxes, a crucial distinction they weren’t at pains to make). They were less comfortable talking about the fact that people of modest means got a few hundred dollars, while millionaires were showered with tens or even hundreds of thousands. It wasn’t just the cuts in the top rates—the administration pushed for a series of cuts, on stock dividends and inheritances, among other things, targeted squarely at the wealthy.

When the tax cuts were passed, the prevailing assumption was that when the 10 years expired, Congress would make them permanent, no matter which party was in charge or who was president. After all, who wants to vote for a tax increase? But now, the Obama administration has put Republicans in a difficult spot. President Barack Obama’s proposal is to make the cuts permanent—but only for Americans making less than $250,000 a year, in keeping with a promise he made during the 2008 campaign. This forces Republicans to explicitly argue against a tax cut for the wealthy—and only for the wealthy.

And whatever else Americans think about taxes, they emphatically believe the wealthy get off easy; polls consistently show around 60 percent saying the rich don’t pay their fair share. If you’re a conservative, how do you deal with that? The justifications shift to whatever focus groups are saying is most effective at a given moment, but the goal is always the same: Make sure that the wealthy pay as little as possible. "

The Return of the Tax Fairy

How much extra are you sending in to the Federal Govt. to fund the 3.7 trillion dollar budget? I don't see liberals ever putting their money where their mouth is. Never have I seen so much passion for taking more money from the taxpayer and send that money to the D.C. Politicians who participated in the creation of the 14.6 trillion dollar debt. Please explain that passion?
 
How much extra are you sending in to the Federal Govt. to fund the 3.7 trillion dollar budget? I don't see liberals ever putting their money where their mouth is. Never have I seen so much passion for taking more money from the taxpayer and send that money to the D.C. Politicians who participated in the creation of the 14.6 trillion dollar debt. Please explain that passion?

Tax policy is something that applies to all the citizens of a nation as an duty of citizenship and the price we pay for living in this civilized society. It is not something which is subject to a voluntary contribution depending on how much you can find under the sofa cushions. What a public policy discussion on the subject is comes down to what that price is going to be.... and that does not involve depending on the extra money the right wing keeps hauling out in the pockets of their favorite strawman.
 
Tax policy is something that applies to all the citizens of a nation as an duty of citizenship and the price we pay for living in this civilized society. It is not something which is subject to a voluntary contribution depending on how much you can find under the sofa cushions. What a public policy discussion on the subject is comes down to what that price is going to be.... and that does not involve depending on the extra money the right wing keeps hauling out in the pockets of their favorite strawman.

Right,and right now 47% of the people pay zero in FIT which funds the price of citizenship. so in the liberal world their "fair share" is zero.
 
Right,and right now 47% of the people pay zero in FIT which funds the price of citizenship. so in the liberal world their "fair share" is zero.

Is that price for citizenship in the Constitution?
 
Is that price for citizenship in the Constitution?

You believe out Constitution established a policy of 53% of the taxpayers paying for the other 47%? Notice how liberals never really address the issue. The only "fair" policy is a flat tax and then watch liberals screaming.
 
The Republican Party isn't on the ballot, Obama will be and that includes his record. There is no reason to re-elect Obama and the best job creator would be him losing his.
For the most part I agree, but I think you're wrong in pretending that the conservative platform or Republican platform is popular, that 2010 was anything except people disenfranchised with Washington, or that a Republican is a sure in to beat the President.
 
You believe out Constitution established a policy of 53% of the taxpayers paying for the other 47%? Notice how liberals never really address the issue. The only "fair" policy is a flat tax and then watch liberals screaming.
Jefferson was always for a progressive tax structure and any time an income tax has been levied it's been progressive. In fact the Civil War was paid by an income tax only levied against the top income earners in the North.
 
For the most part I agree, but I think you're wrong in pretending that the conservative platform or Republican platform is popular, that 2010 was anything except people disenfranchised with Washington, or that a Republican is a sure in to beat the President.

The class warfare rhetoric is damaging to the country and no jobs are ever going to be created by pitting one class against another. This country wasn't built on the policies that Obama supports and has proposed. You can never build a strong economy by tearing down a major segment of that economy.
 
Jefferson was always for a progressive tax structure and any time an income tax has been levied it's been progressive. In fact the Civil War was paid by an income tax only levied against the top income earners in the North.

If you want true economic growth and major job creation then the progressive tax system has to go. No country can ever tax its way to prosperity or have 53% of the income earners funding the entire govt. There are over 140 million income earners in this country and 65 plus million aren't paying any FIT. Add that to the 25 plus million unemployed and under employed and hopefully you can see the extent of the problem.

After the Civil War ths country didn't have 140 million working Americans and a labor force of 154 million nor did it have a 3.7 TRILLION dollar yearly budget. There is no justification for that big of a Federal govt. nor 47% paying zero in FIT and the President calling for the top 1% to pay their fair share. How is 47% paying zero in FIT their fair share?
 
The class warfare rhetoric is damaging to the country and no jobs are ever going to be created by pitting one class against another. This country wasn't built on the policies that Obama supports and has proposed. You can never build a strong economy by tearing down a major segment of that economy.
I disagree, our country was built on the policies that Obama supports. The "Golden Age" of America had very high tax rates on the wealthiest Americans which paid for college for a lot of returning GI's, the Interstate Road system, a world class public education system and world class University system, made that Universty system extremly affordable for all middle class Americans, not to mention we had the higher income equality in the history of the country.

Not to mention...we didn't start seeing massive budget deficits during that time period. I would also like to point out that even in the 1700's Americans made better wages than their counterparts in the UK. Go figure, the time period (Gilded Age) that practice conservative policies that Republican champion now and looked a lot like it does now (massive income equality) was the worst time for most Americans to live in and also contually has massive economic failures due to unregulated capital markets.
 
If you want true economic growth and major job creation then the progressive tax system has to go. No country can ever tax its way to prosperity or have 53% of the income earners funding the entire govt. There are over 140 million income earners in this country and 65 plus million aren't paying any FIT. Add that to the 25 plus million unemployed and under employed and hopefully you can see the extent of the problem.
No, i agree, you can't tax your way to economic growth, but you need a government capable of building infrastructure, an affordable good education system for all, and domestic markets capable of consuming the goods they create (you can't depend on exports forever). All of those are take money, and apparently the Republican plan is to tax the 47% of Americans that make either less than 20k a year or are retired in order to pay for it. It's not going to happen.

After the Civil War ths country didn't have 140 million working Americans and a labor force of 154 million nor did it have a 3.7 TRILLION dollar yearly budget. There is no justification for that big of a Federal govt. nor 47% paying zero in FIT and the President calling for the top 1% to pay their fair share. How is 47% paying zero in FIT their fair share?
In the 60's almost all Americans paid income taxes...almost all Americans were in the middle class. Why don't you ask why 47% of Americans don't pay taxes instead of just jumping to the conclusion they should.
 
iliveonramen;1059845197]I disagree, our country was built on the policies that Obama supports. The "Golden Age" of America had very high tax rates on the wealthiest Americans which paid for college for a lot of returning GI's, the Interstate Road system, a world class public education system and world class University system, made that Universty system extremly affordable for all middle class Americans, not to mention we had the higher income equality in the history of the country.

Wrong, tax rates are irrelevant, deductions and what people actually pay are what really matters. Never in our history has more revene in the form of tax revenue been going to the Federal govt. with lower rates. Deductions have been eliminated especially for the higher income earners and deductions increased for the lower income earners making the rich pay more and 47% paying nothing.

Not to mention...we didn't start seeing massive budget deficits during that time period. I would also like to point out that even in the 1700's Americans made better wages than their counterparts in the UK. Go figure, the time period (Gilded Age) that practice conservative policies that Republican champion now and looked a lot like it does now (massive income equality) was the worst time for most Americans to live in and also contually has massive economic failures due to unregulated capital markets.

Massive budget deficits came from too much spending, not from tax cuts. Tax revenue according to the U.S. Treasury increased dramatically after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts but not enough to offset the massive Congressional spending
 
iliveonramen;1059845204]No, i agree, you can't tax your way to economic growth, but you need a government capable of building infrastructure, an affordable good education system for all, and domestic markets capable of consuming the goods they create (you can't depend on exports forever). All of those are take money, and apparently the Republican plan is to tax the 47% of Americans that make either less than 20k a year or are retired in order to pay for it. It's not going to happen.

The problem is most people have no idea what the line items are for the budget and the role of the Federal Govt. Infrastructure is funded by excise taxes on gasoline, not FIT and yet excise taxes like SS taxes have been put on budget and used for everything other than infrastructure. that is a fact that liberals will never talk about.


In the 60's almost all Americans paid income taxes...almost all Americans were in the middle class. Why don't you ask why 47% of Americans don't pay taxes instead of just jumping to the conclusion they should.

In the 60's there were deductions for everything but that was ok since the budget was about 250 billion dollars, not 3.7 trllion. The point is I really don't care about the 47% that don't pay taxes because I know we have a spending problem not a revenue problem. If you want more money to the bloated Federal Govt. then I showed you where you can get it. Why are liberals talking about the top 1% paying their fair share when they pay 38% of all income taxes collected now. Why aren't liberals talking about the 47% that aren't paying any FIT to pay their fair share or is their fair share ZERO?
 
Wrong, tax rates are irrelevant, deductions and what people actually pay are what really matters. Never in our history has more revene in the form of tax revenue been going to the Federal govt. with lower rates. Deductions have been eliminated especially for the higher income earners and deductions increased for the lower income earners making the rich pay more and 47% paying nothing.
Really, under what metric. As of now we tax 14ish% of our GDP which is the lowest % since the 1920's. The highest income earners in America in the 50's paid "real rates" of 50% of their income. The highest wage earner now pay around 15ish%. Under what metric are people taxed higher than they were in the 30's-80's?

Massive budget deficits came from too much spending, not from tax cuts. Tax revenue according to the U.S. Treasury increased dramatically after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts but not enough to offset the massive Congressional spending

So if it wasn't for the Reagan tax cuts we would have the same GDP as we did in 1980's (since revenue is based on GDP growth). So deficits just magically occured at the same time that Reaganomics did, even though we've technically had a "big government" since the 40's.
 
The problem is most people have no idea what the line items are for the budget and the role of the Federal Govt. Infrastructure is funded by excise taxes on gasoline, not FIT and yet excise taxes like SS taxes have been put on budget and used for everything other than infrastructure. that is a fact that liberals will never talk about.
Gas taxes are not even covering the cost of our current roads and bridges. Why is it liberals never talk about it. i remember people making fun of Gore's "Lock box" when he said SS should be separate. It was also very bi-partisan. It's not some liberal thing, it's a political thing where parties are more than willing to hide budget shortfalls by using surpluses in other areas.

In the 60's there were deductions for everything but that was ok since the budget was about 250 billion dollars, not 3.7 trllion. The point is I really don't care about the 47% that don't pay taxes because I know we have a spending problem not a revenue problem. If you want more money to the bloated Federal Govt. then I showed you where you can get it. Why are liberals talking about the top 1% paying their fair share when they pay 38% of all income taxes collected now. Why aren't liberals talking about the 47% that aren't paying any FIT to pay their fair share or is their fair share ZERO?

Because the people that benefit the most from our system should pay the most.
 
iliveonramen;1059845234]Really, under what metric. As of now we tax 14ish% of our GDP which is the lowest % since the 1920's. The highest income earners in America in the 50's paid "real rates" of 50% of their income. The highest wage earner now pay around 15ish%. Under what metric are people taxed higher than they were in the 30's-80's?

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.

So if it wasn't for the Reagan tax cuts we would have the same GDP as we did in 1980's (since revenue is based on GDP growth). So deficits just magically occured at the same time that Reaganomics did, even though we've technically had a "big government" since the 40's.

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.
 
iliveonramen;1059845258]Gas taxes are not even covering the cost of our current roads and bridges. Why is it liberals never talk about it. i remember people making fun of Gore's "Lock box" when he said SS should be separate. It was also very bi-partisan. It's not some liberal thing, it's a political thing where parties are more than willing to hide budget shortfalls by using surpluses in other areas.

How do you know we don't get enough money from gas taxes to fund infrastructure? That so called lockbox was busted in the 60's when LBJ put SS on budget. You are right though SS money has been used by all Presidents EXCEPT Reagan who had to raise SS taxes to get the fund solvent again.


Because the people that benefit the most from our system should pay the most.

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?

Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service
 
You believe out Constitution established a policy of 53% of the taxpayers paying for the other 47%? Notice how liberals never really address the issue. The only "fair" policy is a flat tax and then watch liberals screaming.

And you believe there is a price for citizenship? like you indicated here:

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Conservative

Right,and right now 47% of the people pay zero in FIT which funds the price of citizenship. so in the liberal world their "fair share" is zero.
 
And you believe there is a price for citizenship? like you indicated here:

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?
 
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?

You're pretty lame at the backstroke:2wave:
 
The class warfare rhetoric is damaging to the country and no jobs are ever going to be created by pitting one class against another. This country wasn't built on the policies that Obama supports and has proposed. You can never build a strong economy by tearing down a major segment of that economy.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom