• 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!

Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

nijato said:
The proposal seems to be good politics for Obama. Instead of begining with a reasonable comprimise as he did with the debt-ceiling fiasco, this proposal is farther left. If this process is correctly viewed as a negotiation, it only makes sense to propose a partisan plan, and then walk back to the middle. Looks like it took the centerist administration 3 years to figure out a rational way to deal with a center-right congress. Say what you want of the plan, but it is something the Dems can get behind.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that it's a good plan. I also agree somewhat with J-mac in that this plan is very similar to what President Obama proposed to Boehner and Cantor during the buget talks AND the debt limit debates. Even more interesting is that some of the ideas proposed by the President's Debt Commission are once again part of the President's Deficit Reduction plan. But more on that in a minute...

I think what's gotten so many Republicans in an uproar is this from the President's Deficit Reduction plan:

Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires. That’s pretty straightforward. It’s hard to argue against that. Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it.

It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million. Anybody who says we can’t change the tax code to correct that, anyone who has signed some pledge to protect every single tax loophole so long as they live, they should be called out. They should have to defend that unfairness -- explain why somebody who's making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying more than that -- paying a higher rate.
Click to expand...

It's that part in bold that's the kicker - "explain why somebody who's making $50 million a year in the financial markets..." - in other words investors. It's not the marginal tax rate that the President is proposing to increase...atleast not immediately. It's the capital gains tax on investment income that's in question. Now, why is this important? Paraphrasing from the book, "Bad Money," by Kevin Phillips:

In 1988, finance became the chosen sector of the U.S. economy. Product innovation, the ultimate paper entrepreneural opportunity, followed an economic policy that aimed to achieve growth by wealth creation. By 2007, the results in terms of wealth and profits were staggering. Financial services became Wall Street's new profits machine.
Click to expand...

It wasn't that CEOs and hedge fund managers were making profits from producing goods in the U.S. Manufacturing as a percentage of GDP has been on the decline since 1950 (pg 31) - 29.3% in 1950 to just 12% in 2005 - whereas financial services had been on a slow uptick - 10.9%, 13.6%, 14% and 15% between 1950-1980. By 1990, financial services had surpassed manufacturing and has never looked back since. So, what has this to do with taxing the rich? Only that the wealthiest among us and only the wealthy can take advantage of tax shelters that most of us can only dream of. As such, the weathy are able to hide their taxable income thereby reducing or in some cases completely eliminating their tax liability. Yes, the wealthy still pay a higher gross percentage of federal income taxes, but those who pay income taxes via their profits from (long-term) capital gains do in some cases end up paying taxes at a lower rate than the average worker.

So, getting back to the Debt Commission's proposals (which fell only 3 votes shy of the required 14 votes of 18 votes needed before the recommendations could be submitted to Congress for debate), although their recommendations didn't specifically mention changing the capital gains tax, the Commission did recommend changing the tax code, specifically: capping taxes at 21% of GDP, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax and raising the earnings subject to the payroll tax to $190,000 in 2020. It is worth noting that none of the changes to the tax code except for temporarily lowering the payroll tax to 3.1% and possibly changes to the capital gains tax would go into effect until January 1, 2013 at the earliest.
 
Last edited:
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
BTW, polls show most of the youngsters are right leaning these days.
Gill said:
That's not true. Young people, especially college kids are overwhelmingly liberal.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
They identify as Dem over GOP by about 20%, but if you look at their views on individual issues they lean GOP to libertarian on fiscal and government issues, but they lean left on social issues like same-sex marriage and abortion. If they're Democrats, they're old-style Southern Democrats.
 
Gill said:
I'll give you two that I'm familiar with:

1. Safety harnesses are now required by any roofer working more than 6' above the ground. Any one that has ever worn a safety harness will tell you that they create more of a safety hazard than by not having one. Besides, every contractor I see would hit the ground before the harness caught because they leave a lot of slack in them so they can get their work done. If it was done correctly, harnesses would be required on roofs beyond a certain roof slope such as greater than 8:12.

2. The EPA now requires that all contractors renovating or repairing a house built before 1978 to be lead paint certified. It doesn't matter if they've tested the paint and found that it does not contain lead. They still have to send their men to an 8 hour course that costs $300 a person. Another way to increase the cost of doing business.
Click to expand...

#1 will create jobs for the people who make safety harnesses and will not cost any jobs

#2 won't cost any jobs ($300/employee is a minimal expense) and will prevent fraud that can kill people. Lead is highly toxic

If those are the best you can come up with, it looks like the rightwing is just whining again about hobgoblins
 
Gill said:
I should have known better than to post a serious reply to a partisan hack that has no knowledge of how business works.

You're dismissed.
Click to expand...

Translation: Gill cant show how this two regulations have any significant effect on jobs or business
 
Gill said:
since you've never worn a safety harness, I wouldn't expect a serious answer from you. It's very hard to walk around with one on.

My point was that the regulations are useless. No roofing contractor wears a safety harness that would actually prevent him from being injured, they only wear it so that the OSHA inspector won't fine them. What good does that do.
Click to expand...

You claimed that these regs cost jobs. Now you're making another argument because you know those regs don't cost jobs
 
sangha said:
19 Different Polls Show That Americans Support Tax Increases To Cut Deficit


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/u...-plan-is-well-received.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2



http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/250094/new-york-times-cbs-poll-results.pdf
According to the poll, large majorities support increased spending to create jobs


Large majority supports increasing taxes on those making more than 250K
Click to expand...

The majority of people are also stupid and are basing their opinions off of little or no actual facts.
 
Smokified said:
The majority of people are also stupid and are basing their opinions off of little or no actual facts.
Click to expand...
Well, then it's a good thing we have politicians to tell us what to do ain't it?


Most people are of average intelligence.

Except people on the internet. The typical internet user has an IQ of 147 and a 9 inch penis. Present company included.
source: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/numbers.png
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Well, then it's a good thing we have politicians to tell us what to do ain't it?


Most people are of average intelligence.

Except people on the internet. The typical internet user has an IQ of 147 and a 9 inch penis.
source: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/numbers.png
Click to expand...

lol. I am going to expect that you actually realize why the comment "Most people are of average intelligence" is funny.
 
What if we extended tax cuts to businesses who actually create jobs? Not to businesses who MIGHT create a job, but only to the one who actually do so?

Would that pass ideological muster?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
What if we extended tax cuts to businesses who actually create jobs? Not to businesses who MIGHT create a job, but only to the one who actually do so?

Would that pass ideological muster?
Click to expand...

The problem is not so much the taxes or the cuts as it is the fact that business is not growing because people are not spending. Companies are not going to take risks like expansion in a market that can't make up it's mind on which direction it is going, and especially when it is heading in the wrong direction. No amount of molesting the tax code is going to fix that problem. None of this was a problem until it cost people $4 a gallon to put gas in their cars.
 
Last edited:
Smokified said:
The problem is not so much the taxes or the cuts as it is the fact that business is not growing because people are not spending. Companies are not going to take risks like expansion in a market that can't make up it's mind on which direction it is going. No amount of molesting the tax code is going to fix that problem. None of this was a problem until it cost people $4 a gallon to put gas in their cars.
Click to expand...
I am not really asking if it would work so much as to whether or not it would be ideologically acceptable.
Ideology is what stands in the way of practicality on a wide variety of issues in and out of politics. As abstract and ephemeral as ideology is, it does have real world effects and implications.
 
ZIRP4EVA said:
Obama's math:

Pretending that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will go on in perpetuity and then counting $1.1 trillion in savings by "ending" them.

So, the $3 trillion is really comprised of ~$1.5 trillion in new taxes, ~$1.1 trillion in mythical war spending savings, and then a measely ~$400 billion in true spending cuts. That's his "balanced approach".
Click to expand...
That was Paul Ryan's math as well.:roll:
 
disneydude said:
Why do you have a problem with Obama asking the wealthiest Americans to pay the same exact tax rate that most middle class people pay?
Click to expand...

As of yet, we have not actually seen him ask that. He's made vague remarks with nothing to show for them. When he actually comes up with a plan, then maybe someone can debate it. Until then, it's the same old, same old out of him. Nothing.
 
I'm blah to it. Govt will find new ways to spend, corps will move more capital to overseas, our debt is still going to go up and nobody wants to tackle the big elephants in the room. Short sighted plan that is expected from the establishment to keep the sheep, sheepie. Good political tactic, nothing else.
 
Last edited:
1Perry said:
As of yet, we have not actually seen him ask that. He's made vague remarks with nothing to show for them. When he actually comes up with a plan, then maybe someone can debate it. Until then, it's the same old, same old out of him. Nothing.
Click to expand...

the problem with Obumble's idiocy is as follows

1) what is the average middle class tax rate. 47% of america has an effective tax rate of ZERO. that group encompasses a lot of the middle class.

2) is he going to impose a flat rate on millionaires no matter if their income is

a) mainly salary (earned income)

b) long term capital gains

c) Dividends (which are double taxed)

you can have three people each making 5 million a year having very different effective tax rates
 
TurtleDude said:
the problem with Obumble's idiocy is as follows

1) what is the average middle class tax rate. 47% of america has an effective tax rate of ZERO. that group encompasses a lot of the middle class.
Click to expand...

Which is a point entirely seperate.

2) is he going to impose a flat rate on millionaires no matter if their income is

a) mainly salary (earned income)

b) long term capital gains

c) Dividends (which are double taxed)

you can have three people each making 5 million a year having very different effective tax rates
Click to expand...

I hope so but my guess is we never see any plan.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
I am not really asking if it would work so much as to whether or not it would be ideologically acceptable.
Ideology is what stands in the way of practicality on a wide variety of issues in and out of politics. As abstract and ephemeral as ideology is, it does have real world effects and implications.
Click to expand...

I think our society will accept anything that "sounds good". Could it work? Maybe. Is it worth trying to implement a "band-aid" plan when the real solution lies elsewhere?
 
apdst said:
IOW, the government can't create jobs, so let's soak tax payers for as much as we can.
Click to expand...

When Eisenhower was president, the highest tax rate was 90%, and unemployment was low. No, I am not suggesting that we tax at 90% again. I just brought up this fact to show the lie that is being passed around that it is tax cuts that create jobs. Jobs are created when people buy stuff, and when the middle class is squeezed more than the rich, they buy less, and fewer jobs are created as a result. It's all about supply and demand. What can kill demand, and therefore jobs? Greed.
 
Gipper said:
The reason the middle class can pay taxes is because the rich allow them an opportunity to.
Click to expand...

So, the people who actually, you know, work, are only allowed to work by the grace of the generally non-working super wealthy and they should be thanking them for that opportunity and not questioning the 50% that the super wealthy skim off the top of the profits they generate, but instead looking for ways to give the super wealthy more. So things are just figured out by birth. Super wealthy people are born superior to the serfs and have a divine right to all that is produced in the land where the serfs have a god given duty to take up the toil that the super wealthy permit them. Is that about right?

So you aren't so much a libertarian as you are interested in returning to feudalism?
 
danarhea said:
When Eisenhower was president, the highest tax rate was 90%, and unemployment was low. No, I am not suggesting that we tax at 90% again. I just brought up this fact to show the lie that is being passed around that it is tax cuts that create jobs. Jobs are created when people buy stuff, and when the middle class is squeezed more than the rich, they buy less, and fewer jobs are created as a result. It's all about supply and demand. What can kill demand, and therefore jobs? Greed.
Click to expand...

yet the effective top rate wasn't much different due to all the breaks, loopholes etc and that top rate applied to far less people and was justified in paying off a massive war

we also were the only industrial power left standing after WWII

IS there anyone out there who suggests TAX HIKES create jobs? that is the main issue
 
TurtleDude said:
yet the effective top rate wasn't much different due to all the breaks, loopholes etc and that top rate applied to far less people and was justified in paying off a massive war

we also were the only industrial power left standing after WWII

IS there anyone out there who suggests TAX HIKES create jobs? that is the main issue
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. Demand creates jobs. When the middle and lower classes have no money, there is no demand. very simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom