• 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.
It took both taxing too little and spending too much to create our debt, it is going to take the opposite to pay it down. One or the other isn't going to be sufficient.

Still waiting for you to define my "fair share" in real dollars for Federal, State, and Local Taxes? You keep running.
 
This is the best you got after all your claims were proven lies?
Ehh i guess alright...

Love the liberal and in your case socialist talking points. Define FAIR SHARE by putting a number on it?
I didnt put a number on it... I just provided facts about taxation during Reagan's presidency....
I mean Reagan called for "the rich paying their fair share"... Was he using liberal and "socialist talking points"?

How much should I pay in Federal, State, and Local Taxes?
Well apparently REagan had an idea...
How much do you make?

I have seen no evidence that you have a clue. Love kids of today who are experts on every issue yet have never held a real job.
:doh
No apparently you just dont like factual information..
 
Still waiting for you to define my "fair share" in real dollars for Federal, State, and Local Taxes? You keep running.

What is your total annual income from all sources?
 
This is the best you got after all your claims were proven lies?
Ehh i guess alright...


I didnt put a number on it... I just provided facts about taxation during Reagan's presidency....
I mean Reagan called for "the rich paying their fair share"... Was he using liberal and "socialist talking points"?


Well apparently REagan had an idea...
How much do you make?


:doh
No apparently you just dont like factual information..

How old were you during the Reagan Term? You don't have a clue, the top marginal rate after the Reagan Tax cuts were implemented was 28%. He eliminated loopholes and I have no problem with that on ALL Taxpayers, how about you? Lower the rates and eliminate the loopholes. Think socialists are going to do that? No way, they need people dependent.
 
What is your total annual income from all sources?

Why does that matter? What is my fair share of Federal, State,and Local taxes in total dollars? All you want is class warfare and all you have is class envy. I believe it is more like jealousy and envy thus you want to penalize people like me who worked hard and achieved a lot. Now you want a cut of what I have made and don't believe I spend my money properly even though you don't know how much I make, how much I give to charity and the social work that I do yearly. Like all liberals you believe my money should go to a politician in D.C. so they can decide where to spend it thus bypassing many truly in need.
 
How old were you during the Reagan Term?
Wasnt born.

You don't have a clue,
Ohhh so i gotcha. So history is just one big lie right? Analyzing historical sources just doesn't count right?
If you wanna play the card of "you werent born then/you never been there so therefore you dont have a clue" card then that is just idiotic and complacent.

the top marginal rate after the Reagan Tax cuts were implemented was 28%.
Uhh I agreed with you on that one...
But he called on the rich to "pay their fair share"....

He eliminated loopholes and I have no problem with that on ALL Taxpayers, how about you?
Neither do i.
I believe that we should simplify that tax code and eliminate loopholes as well...
But he really didnt eliminate loopholes...

Lower the rates and eliminate the loopholes.
Yea but he raised the bottom rates...

Think socialists are going to do that?
Uhh noo.

No way, they need people dependent.
My whole point is that the right and i believe people like you are calling Obama a tax warrior because he is asking the rich to pay their fair share and get rid of more loopholes. But the thing is that Reagan did the exact same thing and he was never called a tax warrior and hell Reagan raised taxes on the bottom percent!
 
TheDemSocialist;1059849801]Wasnt born.

Thanks for your honesty because that is exactly what I figured. What then makes you an expert on Reagan vs. someone that lived and worked during that time frame. Reagan has popularity today much higher than the textbooks you have read would have indicated. Any idea why?

Ohhh so i gotcha. So history is just one big lie right? Analyzing historical sources just doesn't count right?
If you wanna play the card of "you werent born then/you never been there so therefore you dont have a clue" card then that is just idiotic and complacent.

Every hear of the misery index? What was it when Reagan took office and why was it so high? What was the unemployment rate when he took office vs. when he left? how many jobs were created from 1981-1989 after losing jobs in 81-82? What was the Reagan economic plan? Get the facts about what was going on when Reagan took office and the saying then will resonate in 2012, "Are better off today than you were four years ago?"

Uhh I agreed with you on that one...
But he called on the rich to "pay their fair share"....

He called for the elimination of loopholes and he believed the rich fair share was a lower tax rate which encouraged individual wealth creation and that is why he lowered taxes over three years.


Neither do i.
I believe that we should simplify that tax code and eliminate loopholes as well...
But he really didnt eliminate loopholes...

Yes, he sure did and tax revenue doubled during the Reagan years as did economic growth(GDP)

Yea but he raised the bottom rates...

No, he cut all tax rates so that all taxpayers got a tax reduction thus more take home pay. Reagan never increased FIT rates, that was left to Clinton


My whole point is that the right and i believe people like you are calling Obama a tax warrior because he is asking the rich to pay their fair share and get rid of more loopholes. But the thing is that Reagan did the exact same thing and he was never called a tax warrior and hell Reagan raised taxes on the bottom percent!

I am asking you one more time, what is my fair share? Put a number to it. Obama is full of rhetoric and never defines it either. How about you since paying 38% of all the FIT isn't the fair share for the rich?
 
Why does that matter? What is my fair share of Federal, State,and Local taxes in total dollars?

You are the one that asked the question! How can I determine your fair share of Federal, State and Local taxes in "total dollars," if I do not know what your total annual income is from all sources?


All you want is class warfare and all you have is class envy. I believe it is more like jealousy and envy thus you want to penalize people like me who worked hard and achieved a lot. Now you want a cut of what I have made and don't believe I spend my money properly even though you don't know how much I make, how much I give to charity and the social work that I do yearly. Like all liberals you believe my money should go to a politician in D.C. so they can decide where to spend it thus bypassing many truly in need.

Now you are off on another rant that has absolutely nothing to do with my point that our economy can no longer afford to continue the temporary tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.
 
Thanks for your honesty because that is exactly what I figured. What then makes you an expert on Reagan vs. someone that lived and worked during that time frame.
Never said that i was an expert i was just pointing out a fact........
You never rebutted on these facts either... You just cried "your not an expert... You werent born!"
Never claimed i was an expert i just pulled up some talking points on Reagan about the "rich paying their fair share"...

Reagan has popularity today much higher than the textbooks you have read would have indicated. Any idea why?
Uhhh actually "my textbooks" point out that he was popular and that he is popular... I have no idea why he was popular saying that we carried his "reaganomics" over today and we can see how that lead us... Not very well...



Every hear of the misery index?
Yes...

What was it when Reagan took office and why was it so high? What was the unemployment rate when he took office vs. when he left? how many jobs were created from 1981-1989 after losing jobs in 81-82? What was the Reagan economic plan? Get the facts about what was going on when Reagan took office and the saying then will resonate in 2012, "Are better off today than you were four years ago?"
Uhhh im not attacking Reagan's job performance while he was a president...
Why are you bringing up these points?
All i said was several talking points Reagan used......



He called for the elimination of loopholes
Yea i agree...

and he believed the rich fair share was a lower tax rate which encouraged individual wealth creation and that is why he lowered taxes over three years.
He called that the riches taxes are not going to go lower than what he called for and he claimed they should not go lower than what he stated which was 25% percent i believe and he claimed that they should not go lower because 25% was there "fair share"...





Yes, he sure did and tax revenue doubled during the Reagan years as did economic growth(GDP)
Ok...
Why are you bringing this up...
See above



No, he cut all tax rates so that all taxpayers got a tax reduction thus more take home pay. Reagan never increased FIT rates, that was left to Clinton
Uhhh federal statistics would disagree...
1986 14% 18% 38% 45% 50%
1988 15% 15% 28% 28% 28%




I am asking you one more time, what is my fair share?
It depends how much you make...
And i asked and i never got an answer.

Put a number to it. Obama is full of rhetoric and never defines it either. How about you since paying 38% of all the FIT isn't the fair share for the rich?
How much do you make?
 
That was the case following the Great Depression and it appears to be what is happening now following the Great Recession. The majority are fulfilling their civic duty to stand up against failed policy like the 30 years of trickle down economics that has lowered the standard of living for the middle class, pushing many into poverty.

Lol. The failed policy was in the inaction of GOVERNMENT to identify and lessen the risks that were obvious in the financial sector ever SINCE the great depression. And the S&L crisis. And other similar crisis around the world.

It had nothing to do with trickle down economics!!

I can assure you that even if people had been making say, 10% more due to draconian liberal wealth redistribution, that:
1. the bust would still have occured
2. those making less, would still be hurt the most
 
OK, so no one seems bent on trying to answer my question, so I'll try asking it a different way....


What exactly do you think will happen when all of a sudden the wealthier class in amerca have their income taxed more? Anyone care to answer this, please?
 
Why does that matter? What is my fair share of Federal, State,and Local taxes in total dollars? All you want is class warfare and all you have is class envy. I believe it is more like jealousy and envy thus you want to penalize people like me who worked hard and achieved a lot. Now you want a cut of what I have made and don't believe I spend my money properly even though you don't know how much I make, how much I give to charity and the social work that I do yearly. Like all liberals you believe my money should go to a politician in D.C. so they can decide where to spend it thus bypassing many truly in need.
You "Fair share", in absolute terms, and per tax entity (household etc), no corporate receipts, converting the Budget to just Individual/Per Person 'Fair share"

me said:
...Let's look at some rough numbers.

El Simplo/Simplest:
Budget ::::: $3 Trillion ÷ 300 million citizens = $10,000 each.
It doesn't get any easier or "Fairer" than that!!!!
That's EVERYONE of course, child, old, handicapped etc.

Warren Bufett + wife taxes.... $20,000
Single Welfare mother of six... $70,000
Walmart employee/family of 4. $40,000
92 year retiree on SS ............ $10,000

More workable? Second "fairest".

$3 Trillion ÷ 120,000,000 households/Same Current income tax entities = $25,000 each household (Single or Married couple filing jointly, etc)
Walmart worker who makes $25,000 (that is their avg pay), pays 100% of his salary before any other deductions in tax, but owes more for SS etc.
He's in the Hole and of course not eating, housed, transported, or working any more.

Obviously everyone can't pay "their fair share" which IS about 25k.
That's basically what you (and others) are asking for.
Splash the two fairest. Or double/triple everyone else's burden and open Debtor prisons.

From these two examples, one hopes you can see that ONLY a Progressive income tax is do-able.
'Possible' trumps 'fair'.
REWIND:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/90108-truth-can-afford-pay-taxes.html
That 25K per household is a little high because there are now about 140M entities not 120 mil. But then again the budget is over 3 Tril now.
And that number is putting it all on Individual/per-person basis, instead of with corp receipts now.
(might 'only' be 40% that without corp tax/excise taxes etc.. Call it $10k if you like in income taxes.)
Just wanted to give you rough numbers to get a handle on the situation.

That does NOT include "fair share" of State or Local Taxes.

So the question is.. how do we get a "fair share" out of a Walmart worker?
 
Last edited:
Why do people think that if someone makes more money a year, that they have a higher debt to pay, as a "fair share"? How about simply making ALL employed, of age americans pay 1000 a year, in taxes? I'm quite certain that would end up being more than the extra couple percent form the wealthy 1%.
 
Catawba;1059849843]You are the one that asked the question! How can I determine your fair share of Federal, State and Local taxes in "total dollars," if I do not know what your total annual income is from all sources?

Do you want to tell me my financial obligations as well? How about the money I give to charity and to the church? Why does it matter how much I make, how much should my tax rate be in Federal, State, and Local Taxes since I am sure you want zero deductions so what percentage should I pay in all my taxes?


Now you are off on another rant that has absolutely nothing to do with my point that our economy can no longer afford to continue the temporary tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans

No tangent at all as you seem to know what my financial situation is and how much my obligations are. Temporary tax breaks? Again, so much passion for how much revenue goes to the Federal Govt! Do you realize what a fool liberalism is making out of you?
 
OK, so no one seems bent on trying to answer my question, so I'll try asking it a different way....


What exactly do you think will happen when all of a sudden the wealthier class in amerca have their income taxed more? Anyone care to answer this, please?

Depends on how much more? Thought the wealthier class in America gets mosts of their dollars from capital gains, stocks, etc, which is taxed at a different rate than "income" (salary). What we here most about is increasing "income" tax for those making 250K or more per year in income. May be splitting hairs, but unless Congress clarifies on what tax increase on what type of money, the results may be the richest don't pay anymore than they are now. If you tax to hard on the capital dollars, it just means the individual would have less to invest in companies.
 
Why does that matter? What is my fair share of Federal, State,and Local taxes in total dollars? All you want is class warfare and all you have is class envy. I believe it is more like jealousy and envy thus you want to penalize people like me who worked hard and achieved a lot. Now you want a cut of what I have made and don't believe I spend my money properly even though you don't know how much I make, how much I give to charity and the social work that I do yearly. Like all liberals you believe my money should go to a politician in D.C. so they can decide where to spend it thus bypassing many truly in need.
you were asked a valid question....how about answering it? you asked what your fair share should be, you were asked for info that would allow him to give you an answer. no one here is jealous of you, and no gives a rats ass how much you give to charity, how much social work you do...it doesnt matter in the context of what is being discussed.
 
Drastic spending cuts need to take place, not taxing the rich more so that more of their money can be sucked into a government that wastes billions of dollars and passes spending bills that do no good. The answer is not to tax and spend, the answer is to spend less and reform the tax code to prevent tax loopholes from being abused.

I entirely agree that we need to cut spending and close many of the tax loopholes. However it is also necessary to raise taxes in order to get the debt under control, I believe all of the tax brackets need to be raised slightly, however I believe that the rich need to bear the greatest part of the burden. It's not just about spending but revenue as well. Besides the idea that the government is going to recklessly spend money gained from increasing the tax rates on the rich doesn't make a lot of sense. If they're going to spend the money, whether or not they actually have the money, they are going to spend the money. I think the last eleven years(Both Bush and Obama) has proved politicians are not worried about a "little" debt.
 
you were asked a valid question....how about answering it? you asked what your fair share should be, you were asked for info that would allow him to give you an answer. no one here is jealous of you, and no gives a rats ass how much you give to charity, how much social work you do...it doesnt matter in the context of what is being discussed.

It's a hard question to answer. And it's likely to vary from person to person, regardless of income. In my opinion, my fair share is exactly what I'm already paying, which is very little, really. When I HAD a fulltime job, I made around 46,000 a year. My wife makes 40,000. We have a house, and 2 kids. So we don't actually pay much in the way of taxes.

I'll counter this question with a question, if that's OK. Why should a person who makes 250,000 a year be held accountable for more of the tax burden in this country than a person who makes 50,000 a year? Because he/she can better afford to, in people's opinion?
 
I entirely agree that we need to cut spending and close many of the tax loopholes. However it is also necessary to raise taxes in order to get the debt under control, I believe all of the tax brackets need to be raised slightly, however I believe that the rich need to bear the greatest part of the burden. It's not just about spending but revenue as well. Besides the idea that the government is going to recklessly spend money gained from increasing the tax rates on the rich doesn't make a lot of sense. If they're going to spend the money, whether or not they actually have the money, they are going to spend the money. I think the last eleven years(Both Bush and Obama) has proved politicians are not worried about a "little" debt.

The rich already shoulder the lion's share of the tax burden. Why do you feel they should take on more?
 
The rich already shoulder the lion's share of the tax burden. Why do you feel they should take on more?
and the rich have the lion's share of the money...my opinion, make more pay more....
 
The rich already shoulder the lion's share of the tax burden. Why do you feel they should take on more?

Actually that is wrong:

In North Carolina, poor people now pay more of their incomes in state and local taxes than do the richest 1% of households. Add to this the tuition, toll and fee hikes that have been imposed on a huge number of core services and the situation is even worse than it appears.

Trickle-up tax policy | NC Policy Watch with Fitzsimon & Schofield

The PDF is in the link
 
Lol. The failed policy was in the inaction of GOVERNMENT to identify and lessen the risks that were obvious in the financial sector ever SINCE the great depression. And the S&L crisis. And other similar crisis around the world.


They did identify and lessen the risks ever since the Great Depression in the form of the Glass Steagall Act, until its repeal in 1999.

It had nothing to do with trickle down economics!!

I can assure you that even if people had been making say, 10% more due to draconian liberal wealth redistribution, that:
1. the bust would still have occured
2. those making less, would still be hurt the most

"The Great Depression was the worst economic slump ever in U.S. history, and one which spread to virtually all of the industrialized world. The depression began in late 1929 and lasted for about a decade. Many factors played a role in bringing about the depression; however, the main cause for the Great Depression was the combination of the greatly unequal distribution of wealth throughout the 1920's, and the extensive stock market speculation that took place during the latter part that same decade. The maldistribution of wealth in the 1920's existed on many levels. Money was distributed disparately between the rich and the middle-class, between industry and agriculture within the United States, and between the U.S. and Europe. This imbalance of wealth created an unstable economy. The excessive speculation in the late 1920's kept the stock market artificially high, but eventually lead to large market crashes. These market crashes, combined with the maldistribution of wealth, caused the American economy to capsize."
The Main Causes of the Great Depression

"And as I have previously noted, radical concentration of wealth actually destroys capitalism, turning it instead into socialism for the rich.

Is There a Causal Connection Between Extreme Inequality and Economic Crises?

More to the point, most mainstream economists do not believe there is a causal connectionbetween inequality and severe downturns.


But recent studies by Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty are waking up more and more economists to the possibility that there may be a connection.
Specifically, economics professors Saez (UC Berkeley) and Piketty (Paris School of Economics) show that the percentage of wealth held by the richest 1% of Americans peaked in 1928 and 2007 - right before each crash."

Extreme Inequality Helped Cause Both the Great Depression and the Current Economic Crisis → Washingtons Blog
 
Actually that is wrong:

In North Carolina, poor people now pay more of their incomes in state and local taxes than do the richest 1% of households. Add to this the tuition, toll and fee hikes that have been imposed on a huge number of core services and the situation is even worse than it appears.

Trickle-up tax policy | NC Policy Watch with Fitzsimon & Schofield

The PDF is in the link


They pay a higher PERCENT of their income. 35% of 60,000 is LESS than 15% of 500,000.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom