• 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!

ABC's "20/20 - Lessons from Billionaires: Tax ME to create jobs IN AMERICA!"

Free For All said:
Though, you are saying that the rich need to be taxed for the governments out of control spending problem.
Click to expand...

You keep changing what I say. Over the last 30 years, we have, at the same time, spent too much AND cut revenues through tax breaks for the rich too much. To adequately address our debt will take 30 years of the reverse, spending less AND increasing revenue by eliminating the tax breaks for the rich.

The first that should be eliminated are the tax breaks for outsourcing American Jobs. Do you support tax breaks for outsourcing American jobs?
 
FilmFestGuy said:
If you base it on the two criteria I mentioned (size of family - i.e. a family of 9 won't have the same needs as a family of 4) and home value, you can find a moment where the price of the home goes beyond necessity and into luxury.

For instance, I don't know anyone who could argue that a $5 million home is all "necessary". Let the "necessary" part (we can argue where that point is) be deductible and the "luxury" part not be. Again, I think if this is based on family size (and I would likely add geographic region because of obvious variance), we could come up with something that would be agreeable.

And because it came up as I was typing this: farwell to Joe Frazier.
Click to expand...

A couple of things about this, and believe me, I don't argue this from a standpoint of being anywhere near that level of lifestyle, but,

1. Who is to decide what is 'Luxury' and what isn't.
2. What do you suppose an added tax on 'Luxury' items would do to that part of the industry in these times.
3. How is this singling out of one part of say homes, or boats, or jets or whatever, not jealousy based.

We saw what happens, and the unintended consequences of this sort of thing when the makers of 'Luxury' items like boats were hit in the 90s with an added tax. It put the middle class workers that built those items out of work and did little to effect the wealthy, and harmed the industry that built these things. Is that what we want to do?

j-mac
 
Catawba said:
You keep changing what I say. Over the last 30 years, we have, at the same time, spent too much AND cut revenues through tax breaks for the rich too much. To adequately address our debt will take 30 years of the reverse, spending less AND increasing revenue by eliminating the tax breaks for the rich.
Click to expand...


30 years is too long. We need things to begin to happen in upward gains immediately. How about the people that are not paying anything? Should they participate, or should someone pay for them based on their success in this country? And what do you suppose that would do to the drive toward success?

The first that should be eliminated are the tax breaks for outsourcing American Jobs. Do you support tax breaks for outsourcing American jobs?
Click to expand...

Would you then agree that along with ending those breaks that look damaging, should also be accompanied with a lowering of the Corp. tax rates to encourage repatriating that money, jobs, and business back to our country?


j-mac
 
Catawba said:
If we end our optional wars and cut military spending in half, that is trillions more over 30 years. Together, they could retire our national debt.
Click to expand...

Please provide supporting calculations for this global claim.

Further it is impossible to reture our national debt under the current monitary 'arrangement'. Our currency is based on this debt (BUT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD ON THIS THREAD).
 
j-mac said:
A couple of things about this, and believe me, I don't argue this from a standpoint of being anywhere near that level of lifestyle, but,

1. Who is to decide what is 'Luxury' and what isn't.
2. What do you suppose an added tax on 'Luxury' items would do to that part of the industry in these times.
3. How is this singling out of one part of say homes, or boats, or jets or whatever, not jealousy based.

We saw what happens, and the unintended consequences of this sort of thing when the makers of 'Luxury' items like boats were hit in the 90s with an added tax. It put the middle class workers that built those items out of work and did little to effect the wealthy, and harmed the industry that built these things. Is that what we want to do?

j-mac
Click to expand...

That "Law of unintended consequences" reared its head again when those of a particular political bent figured it was a good idea for everyone to own a home, regardless of their income levels, and forced the banks to comply. Reality always trumps political philosophies.
 
Grant said:
There are plenty of jobs to be had in the United States, and even the Mexicans know that. There are plenty of Blue Collar jobs available but too many young people are taking political science courses and the like rather than learning a trade like an electrician, carpenter or plumber. Those participating in the riots apparently don't get this.
Click to expand...
Oh sure, McDonalds and Burger King are always in need of employees, and I'm sure you've already figured in their gasoline, baby-sitter, mortgage payments, and other expenses associated with most families, and McDonalds and Burger King will be most obliged to pay them enough to cover them. And, there are no riots, cons want to paint OWS as such, but FYI, OWS is made up of Dems, Reps, Inds, and Libertarians, so you may want to rethink your insults.

And did you know you can by shares in many corporations? Perhaps you can be one of those rich guys too.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm sure you've invested all your money in those shares, hoping that you will be a billionaire soon, I have better sense. I have investments, and am pretty well set, but that hasn't turned me into a greedy brainwashed person who thinks helping the rich is more rewarding than helping the poor.
 
Grant said:
That "Law of unintended consequences" reared its head again when those of a particular political bent figured it was a good idea for everyone to own a home, regardless of their income levels, and forced the banks to comply. Reality always trumps political philosophies.
Click to expand...

Could that political bent be Republican, cheered on by their illustrious leader?

George W. Bush:
"And part of economic security is owning your own home. Part of being a secure America is to encourage homeownership, so somebody can say, "This is my home. Welcome to my home."
Now, we've got a problem here in America that we have to address. Too many American families, too many minorities do not own a home. There is a homeownership gap in America."


Read more at the American Presidency Project:www.presidency.ucsb.eduGeorge W. Bush: Remarks at St. Paul AME Church in Atlanta, Georgia

Truth has a way of biting one on the butt, you may want to rephrase your statement, now that you know who started it.




 
haymarket said:
You badly need to keep up. This incredibly stupid and asinine ENVY charge has been smashed and trashed, crushed and flushed so many times that the idea than any right wing apologist who still clings to the fiction is about as relevant as the hula hoop.

Wall Street Isn't Winning It's Cheating | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone



Open up you mind, read and learn.


Read more: Wall Street Isn't Winning It's Cheating | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone
Click to expand...

It's confounding - Faux New's millionaires feed this crap to their viewers, tell them that Libs (who just happen to be the richest in America) are envious of the rich (themselves) and the mentally deficient buy it hook, line and sinker. They repeat the asinine statements they have been led to believe and think that the rest of us are going to believe it too, too funny!
 
mertex said:
It's confounding - Faux New's millionaires feed this crap to their viewers, tell them that Libs (who just happen to be the richest in America) are envious of the rich (themselves) and the mentally deficient buy it hook, line and sinker. They repeat the asinine statements they have been led to believe and think that the rest of us are going to believe it too, too funny!
Click to expand...

Lotsa generalizations in that post. Think it's time to turn off the television altogether.

Rewinding a post, was GWB the mind who came up with the subprime scheme?
 
Last edited:
Neomalthusian said:
Lotsa generalizations in that post. Think it's time to turn off the television altogether.

Rewinding a post, was GWB the mind who came up with the subprime scheme?
Click to expand...


Wiki:
The last two years of his presidency were characterized by the worsening subprime mortgage crisis, which resulted in dramatic government intervention to bailout damaged financial institutions and a weakening economy.

The ratio of lower-quality subprime mortgages originated rose from the historical 8% or lower range to approximately 20% from 2004-2006, with much higher ratios in some parts of the U.S.[SUP][1][/SUP] A high percentage of these subprime mortgages, over 90% in 2006 for example, were adjustable-rate mortgages.
 
You didn't answer. It was a yes/no question, not a request for wikipedia regurgitation.
 
j-mac said:
30 years is too long. We need things to begin to happen in upward gains immediately.
Click to expand...

Its not possible to fix this problem overnight that was 30 years in the making.

How about the people that are not paying anything? Should they participate, or should someone pay for them based on their success in this country?
Click to expand...

You mean the unemployed, seniors and the poor? How about we put them to work with living wages so they make enough to pay taxes?
You think maybe its time to eliminate the tax breaks for outsourcing US jobs?

And what do you suppose that would do to the drive toward success?
Click to expand...

Jobs are always preferable to welfare.

Would you then agree that along with ending those breaks that look damaging, should also be accompanied with a lowering of the Corp. tax rates to encourage repatriating that money, jobs, and business back to our country?
Click to expand...

No, I would not, as it was a failure when we did that in 2004:

"WASHINGTON -- The 15 companies that benefited the most from a 2004 tax break for the return of their overseas profits cut more than 20,000 net jobs and decreased the pace of their research spending, according to report from the Democratic staff of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released Monday night.

The report warned against repeating the tax break, calling the 2004 effort "a failed tax policy" that cost the U.S. Treasury $3.3 billion in estimated lost revenues over 10 years and led to U.S. companies directing more funds offshore. U.S.-based multinationals often defer bringing back profits earned abroad to avoid paying U.S. taxes on them.

The 15 companies that repatriated the most after the 2004 tax break on the return of overseas profits later cut a net 20,931 jobs between 2004 and 2007 and slightly decreased the pace of their spending on research and development, found the report surveying 19 companies' activity."

Report: Repatriation Tax Holiday a 'Failed' Policy - WSJ.com
 
Dickieboy said:
Please provide supporting calculations for this global claim.
Click to expand...

Our military budget is about $700 billion dollars. Half that times 30 years is $10.5 trillion dollars.
 
Catawba said:
You mean the unemployed, seniors and the poor? How about we put them to work with living wages so they make enough to pay taxes?
Click to expand...

1). Doing what?
2). "We?" Do you mean the federal and state governments?

Jobs are always preferable to welfare.
Click to expand...

Mandating that those with jobs/money employ those without is the same concept as welfare.
 
Catawba said:
Our military budget is about $700 billion dollars. Half that times 30 years is $10.5 trillion dollars.
Click to expand...

Assumes the DoD budget would otherwise remain around $700 Billion per year.
 
Neomalthusian said:
1). Doing what?
2). "We?" Do you mean the federal and state governments?
Click to expand...

Doing what needs to be done. We need to implement the jobs plan until there is enough people consuming to create the demand needed for the the private market again start production.


Mandating that those with jobs/money employ those without is the same concept as welfare.
Click to expand...

I have seen no proposals to mandate hiring quotas for private industry. Got a link?
 
Catawba said:
Doing what needs to be done. We need to implement the jobs plan until there is enough people consuming to create the demand needed for the the private market again start production.
Click to expand...

We already budgeted $1.6 trillion above what we can afford this year, which ended up giving lots of people government jobs to do. You nonetheless want to "put people to work." Doing what?

I have seen no proposals to mandate hiring quotas for private industry. Got a link?
Click to expand...

So you mean government jobs then. That's what I figured, just making sure.
 
Catawba said:
It won't if we cut it, that's my point.
Click to expand...

DoD expenditures should decrease significantly in times of peace compared to times of war. But this difference does not result in cash in the pocket we can then use to employ people for the sake of employing them. In other words, cutting an expenditure or department is not a pay-for, because of how deeply we're already deficit
spending.
 
Neomalthusian said:
DoD expenditures should decrease significantly in times of peace compared to times of war. But this difference does not result in cash in the pocket we can then use to employ people for the sake of employing them. In other words, cutting an expenditure or department is not a pay-for, because of how deeply we're already deficit
spending.
Click to expand...


Less wasteful spending together with increased revenues is what will be required to reduce our debt.
 
Catawba said:
Less wasteful spending together with increased revenues is what will be required to reduce our debt.
Click to expand...

I think we'll have to wait a few quarters before increase in revenues (by means of taxing) can be realized. Maybe even after the election - assuming he does get reelected. If we were to continuing following Keynesian economics, right now would be the wrong time to raise taxes, though it would be a good time to cut frivolous spending and invest that extra money into stimuli for the economy. Then, after stabilization, taxes and spending cuts can go into place. Right now, it appears Obama is doing the right thing as far as the economy goes, though some would and have argued that he hasn't spent enough.
 
Neomalthusian said:
We already budgeted $1.6 trillion above what we can afford this year, which ended up giving lots of people government jobs to do. You nonetheless want to "put people to work." Doing what?
Click to expand...

We have lots of roads, bridges, schools, water and wastewater systems that need to be upgraded. I prefer paying people to work then giving them welfare until there is enough consumer demand again for increased production by the private market. The Democrats have put up a jobs plan that does not increase our debt.


So you mean government jobs then. That's what I figured, just making sure.
Click to expand...

Government jobs are better than no jobs, which will create more consumers which create more demand for private market production.
 
whysoserious said:
I think we'll have to wait a few quarters before increase in revenues (by means of taxing) can be realized. Maybe even after the election - assuming he does get reelected. If we were to continuing following Keynesian economics, right now would be the wrong time to raise taxes, though it would be a good time to cut frivolous spending and invest that extra money into stimuli for the economy. Then, after stabilization, taxes and spending cuts can go into place. Right now, it appears Obama is doing the right thing as far as the economy goes, though some would and have argued that he hasn't spent enough.
Click to expand...

Good points. I was outlining what our 30 year plan needs to be. I would disagree however that increasing the taxes a few percentage points on the most wealthy would hurt us now. I don't know how we can not afford to eliminate right away the tax breaks for companies that outsource US jobs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom