• 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

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.

that's a silly statist argument and you know it.
 
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.

The president did not mention capital gains or salaries. He mentioned 'earning' and 'pulling in'.

It seems to me he should make himself clear. But even using your system as both paying the same 15% rate then yes, neither is higher or lower, as he claimed.
 
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.

What do you mean? We know how much property taxes people pay. If we're going to have a conversation about who is paying what share of the taxes we can't just artificially exclude some of them to get an answer we like better.
 
that's a silly statist argument and you know it.

No it isn't. You claim to know more than any other lawyer that has deemed it appropriate so take your case to the courts. The simple fact is you are wrong and you know it.
 
No it isn't. You claim to know more than any other lawyer that has deemed it appropriate so take your case to the courts. The simple fact is you are wrong and you know it.

we have 70+ years of FDR inspired improper precedent
 
we have 70+ years of FDR inspired improper precedent

In other words YOU are WRONG. You can flash all the catchy phrases you want, but you are wrong. Deal with it!
 
The president did not mention capital gains or salaries. He mentioned 'earning' and 'pulling in'.

He has to be careful with his words. Everyone knows the distinctions but IMO since he plans to do absolutely nothing about the actual problem, he can not state it by name.

It seems to me he should make himself clear. But even using your system as both paying the same 15% rate then yes, neither is higher or lower, as he claimed.

Which is really, outside of trying anything you can to disprove someone's arguement one way or another is what we have to go on.
 
What do you mean? We know how much property taxes people pay.

Yeah? How much do I pay?

If we're going to have a conversation about who is paying what share of the taxes we can't just artificially exclude some of them to get an answer we like better.

Then those who are excluding the C.G. arguement are free to do so.
 
In other words YOU are WRONG. You can flash all the catchy phrases you want, but you are wrong. Deal with it!

so it is your learned opinion as a respected constitutional lawyer that whatever the supreme court says is written in stone and that no dissenting opinion can be tolerated?

You are unlearned and clueless on this subject
 
so it is your learned opinion as a respected constitutional lawyer that whatever the supreme court says is written in stone and that no dissenting opinion can be tolerated?

You are unlearned and clueless on this subject

I don't think he said that. I went back and looked at his posts and he did not say that. Dissent is certainly permitted -and in our society encouraged. Living in a world which denies legal reality is not. That is what I thought his point was.
 
Oh I see what you're saying. All those ones with no numbers next to them you just want to cancel. So you basically just want to eliminate the government entirely except for the military... Yeah, that's what I said would happen if you tried to get all the cuts from just cutting domestic spending. Obviously no sane person would actually support that of course. It would mean the US would immediately become a third world nation... So that's one option. Collapse the country down to third world status.

Another option would be to make cuts in the military, cuts domestically, and raise revenues. That would be kind of tough. We'd need to do some serious adjusting. But we would certainly still remain first world.

I don't see why we would opt for the third world anarchy option...

What I want is the govt. to get back to the intent of the Founders which is to defend this nation which is about 600 billion a year, leaving 800 billion for the rest. That hardly guts the govt. but it does put the power back where it belongs at the state level. All social programs should be handled by the states, local communities and charities. Right now govt. is way too big, too powerful and to subject to corruption. Love how people like you believe it was the Central govt. that made this country great. History says you are wrong, individual entreprenuers made this country great. If you cannot run the govt. on 1.4 trillion dollars there is something wrong.

Just an example in 1965 with 175 million people the budget of the U.S. was 250 billion dollars, today it is 3.7 trillion with 310 million people. Make a case for that amount. I am saying you can increase the 1965 budget by 6 times and do quite well. Too many people don't know history.
 
No thanks, I don't want your money. You could send it to IRS to help pay for Bush's war in Iraq.

Elizabeth Warren just entered the race for U.S. Senator from Massachusetts and she's already ahead of Scott Brown in the polls.

You are a one trick pony, the war in Iraq, the war in Iraq, the war in Iraq. How did that hurt you and your family. Both wars cost 1.4 trillion in 10 years or 140 billion a year. That didn't create the 14.6 trillion debt
 
so it is your learned opinion as a respected constitutional lawyer that whatever the supreme court says is written in stone and that no dissenting opinion can be tolerated?

You are unlearned and clueless on this subject

Coming from someone pretending to be a lawyer like you that's funny.

As I said before, of you're right you should have no problem with other lawyers backing you and paying your way to take it to the supreme court. Obviously your conviction is lacking as we haven't seen anything from you. Why not, I mean you know more than all those lawyers right?
 
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.

FICA IS payroll tax
 
the law, is the law, is the law.

its that simple.

using your simplistic paradigm women never would have gained the vote nor slaves their freedom
 
Coming from someone pretending to be a lawyer like you that's funny.

As I said before, of you're right you should have no problem with other lawyers backing you and paying your way to take it to the supreme court. Obviously your conviction is lacking as we haven't seen anything from you. Why not, I mean you know more than all those lawyers right?

anytime you want to put your money where your mouth is I will be happy to oblige you.

remind me where you got your law degree and what state you are licensed in
 
You are a one trick pony, the war in Iraq, the war in Iraq, the war in Iraq. How did that hurt you and your family. Both wars cost 1.4 trillion in 10 years or 140 billion a year. That didn't create the 14.6 trillion debt

I'm sure the families of those that died in the war can testify how it has hurt them.

Tell us conservative, what did you sacrifice for the war in Iraq? Nothing?
 
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.

See Article I
 
I'm sure the families of those that died in the war can testify how it has hurt them.

Tell us conservative, what did you sacrifice for the war in Iraq? Nothing?

NOt relevant
 
anytime you want to put your money where your mouth is I will be happy to oblige you.

remind me where you got your law degree and what state you are licensed in

I never made the claim it was unconstitutional, YOU did. This is not about me this is about you claiming all the other lawyers that have deemed this appropriate being wrong. So if you are right, why aren't you out there right now trying to get this case heard from the supreme court? Cause we know you are phony or you are a ambulance chaser and nothing more.
 
Back
Top Bottom