• 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

pbrauer said:
Where did the President of the United States lie?
Click to expand...

every time that clown claims the rich don't pay their fair share of income taxes
 
teamosil said:
So you wouldn't come close to balancing the budget:

Education- $77 billion
Energy- $29 billion
Transportation- $13 billion
EPA- $8 billion
5% of remaining budget minus SS and Medicare- $119 billion

Total cuts you're proposing: $246 billion. Remaining deficit: $1.354 trillion.
Click to expand...
This would be a start. There are about 50 extra-constitutional departments and agencies filled with bureaucratic busybodies churning out regulations. Those regulations cost all of us about a trillion dollars a year. So let's just chuck 'em. We have about two million busybody bureaucrats. They need to get real jobs.
 
Misterveritis said:
This would be a start. There are about 50 extra-constitutional departments and agencies filled with bureaucratic busybodies churning out regulations. Those regulations cost all of us about a trillion dollars a year. So let's just chuck 'em. We have about two million busybody bureaucrats. They need to get real jobs.
Click to expand...

Name one department that you do not think is authorized by the constitution and I'll happily point you to the passage that it draws it's authority from. That's just one of those things tea party types say, it isn't like it's true or anything.
 
teamosil said:
Name one department that you do not think is authorized by the constitution and I'll happily point you to the passage that it draws it's authority from. That's just one of those things tea party types say, it isn't like it's true or anything.
Click to expand...

education for one
 
teamosil said:
Name one department that you do not think is authorized by the constitution and I'll happily point you to the passage that it draws it's authority from. That's just one of those things tea party types say, it isn't like it's true or anything.
Click to expand...
No. It would be an exercise in futility. You believe that all of them are Constitutional. Nothing I could say or do would convince you. I shall not waste my time.

But the bureaucratic branch is the reason we are doomed.
 
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
No. It would be an exercise in futility. You believe, that all of them are Constitutional. Nothing I could say or do would convince you. I shall not waste my time.

But the bureaucratic branch is the reason we are doomed.
Click to expand...

a little law school is a dangerous thing. many departments have no proper constitutional authorization and piss on the Tenth Amendment
 
pbrauer said:
Where did the President of the United States lie?
Click to expand...

Are you kidding or serious?

When the US President said "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" he is either lying or seriously misinformed. Personally I think he was lying deliberately and hoped his followers would believe him without ever really thinking about what he was saying.

The tax rates for someone making $50 million a year is much higher than the tax rates for someone making $50,000 a year. It's called "The Progressive Income Tax" and was first introduced in 1862.

Tax Bracket Married Filing Jointly Single
10% Bracket $0 – $17,000 $0 – $8,500
15% Bracket $17,001 – $69,000 $8,501 – $34,500
25% Bracket $69,001 – $139,350 $34,501 – $83,600
28% Bracket $139,351 – $212,300 $83,601 – $174,400
33% Bracket $212,301 – $379,150 $174,401 – $379,150
35% Bracket Over $379,150 Over $379,150
 
Misterveritis said:
No. It would be an exercise in futility. You believe that all of them are Constitutional. Nothing I could say or do would convince you. I shall not waste my time.

But the bureaucratic branch is the reason we are doomed.
Click to expand...

If you can't back up your claim that all these departments are unconstitutional you should stop saying that.
 
teamosil said:
If you can't back up your claim that all these departments are unconstitutional you should stop saying that.
Click to expand...

the burden is always upon the statists to prove constitutionality, not the other way around
 
Grant said:
Are you kidding or serious?

When the US President said "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" he is either lying or seriously misinformed. Personally I think he was lying deliberately and hoped his followers would believe him without ever really thinking about what he was saying.

The tax rates for someone making $50 million a year is much higher than the tax rates for someone making $50,000 a year. It's called "The Progressive Income Tax" and was first introduced in 1862.

Tax Bracket Married Filing Jointly Single
10% Bracket $0 – $17,000 $0 – $8,500
15% Bracket $17,001 – $69,000 $8,501 – $34,500
25% Bracket $69,001 – $139,350 $34,501 – $83,600
28% Bracket $139,351 – $212,300 $83,601 – $174,400
33% Bracket $212,301 – $379,150 $174,401 – $379,150
35% Bracket Over $379,150 Over $379,150
Click to expand...

Somebody making $50 million isn't making $50 million in wages... That's the chart for wages...
 
TurtleDude said:
the burden is always upon the statists to prove constitutionality, not the other way around
Click to expand...

Like I said, name a department you think is suspect and I will happily prove it is authorized in the constitution. It's not like it's hard...
 
Grant said:
Are you kidding or serious?

When the US President said "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" he is either lying or seriously misinformed. Personally I think he was lying deliberately and hoped his followers would believe him without ever really thinking about what he was saying.

The tax rates for someone making $50 million a year is much higher than the tax rates for someone making $50,000 a year. It's called "The Progressive Income Tax" and was first introduced in 1862.

Tax Bracket Married Filing Jointly Single
10% Bracket $0 – $17,000 $0 – $8,500
15% Bracket $17,001 – $69,000 $8,501 – $34,500
25% Bracket $69,001 – $139,350 $34,501 – $83,600
28% Bracket $139,351 – $212,300 $83,601 – $174,400
33% Bracket $212,301 – $379,150 $174,401 – $379,150
35% Bracket Over $379,150 Over $379,150
Click to expand...

Look, I agree with your position but stop me where I'm wrong as I'm not a tax lawyer. $50K in income is 15% correct? $50 million in capital gains income is 15%, correct? So they pay the same rate.

Both arguements would be wrong unless I have my figures wrong.
 
TurtleDude said:
education for one
Click to expand...

Oh, look, you already did. Obviously that's a super easy one. The department of education has no powers, so it's own operation doesn't require any powers. Congress had to spend to create it, but of course that is the very first enumerated power (art 1, sect 8, cl 1), so they're all good.
 
teamosil said:
Oh, look, you already did. Obviously that's a super easy one. The department of education has no powers, so it's own operation doesn't require any powers. Congress had to spend to create it, but of course that is the very first enumerated power (art 1, sect 8, cl 1), so they're all good.
Click to expand...

wrong, that provision does not authorize such things. try again
 
1Perry said:
Look, I agree with your position but stop me where I'm wrong as I'm not a tax lawyer. $50K in income is 15% correct? $50 million in capital gains income is 15%, correct? So they pay the same rate.

Both arguements would be wrong unless I have my figures wrong.
Click to expand...

No, because the person making $50k also pays FICA and payroll taxes on that where the investor does not. And the person making $50k pays sales taxes on a large percentage of their income, where the person making $50m does not. And property taxes and vehicle taxes, etc.
 
teamosil said:
If you can't back up your claim that all these departments are unconstitutional you should stop saying that.
Click to expand...
I did not say I could not. I said it would be an exercise in futility. I do not need that exercise.
 
TurtleDude said:
wrong, that provision does not authorize such things. try again
Click to expand...

You're saying the taxing and spending clause does not authorize spending? Of course it does... It says it right there that it can tax the people and spend the money to provide for the general welfare... You know that. If you have an argument, don't be coy, present it.
 
teamosil said:
No, because the person making $50k also pays FICA and payroll taxes on that where the investor does not. And the person making $50k pays sales taxes on a large percentage of their income, where the person making $50m does not. And property taxes and vehicle taxes, etc.
Click to expand...

You have no idea how much property tax any one in particular pays. Deriving your money from C.G. does not excuse you from paying sales and property taxes.

The only honest way to argue it is to argue what is known. Obama is argueing income tax. Or we can just assume the person making $50 mill does it with $25 mill in income and $25 mill in C.G's.
 
Last edited:
teamosil said:
You're saying the taxing and spending clause does not authorize spending? Of course it does... It says it right there that it can tax the people and spend the money to provide for the general welfare... You know that. If you have an argument, don't be coy, present it.
Click to expand...
Why do you believe that one clause, to provide for the general welfare trumps the entire rest of the Constitution?

See what I mean? It would just be an exercise in futility.
 
teamosil said:
No, because the person making $50k also pays FICA and payroll taxes on that where the investor does not. And the person making $50k pays sales taxes on a large percentage of their income, where the person making $50m does not. And property taxes and vehicle taxes, etc.
Click to expand...

but yet the investor won't receive the same SS benefits then and he pays far more overall tax dollars yet receives no additional benefits. and since food is not taxed where do you get that claim?
 
Misterveritis said:
Why do you believe that one clause, to provide for the general welfare trumps the entire rest of the Constitution?

See what I mean? It would just be an exercise in futility.
Click to expand...

they seem to think the TEnth amendment does not exist
 
Misterveritis said:
Why do you believe that one clause, to provide for the general welfare trumps the entire rest of the Constitution?

See what I mean? It would just be an exercise in futility.
Click to expand...

teamosil is hopeless, he won't learn.
 
TurtleDude said:
wrong, that provision does not authorize such things. try again
Click to expand...


Well then, take your case to the supreme court, you should have no problem winning since you are so sure. Or the reality is you do t know what you're talking about and are wrong. I think the more likelihood is you are wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom