• 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!"

ecofarm said:
I don't think you understand the fair tax or the prebate. The prebate, which provides for "essential items" is based on the poverty line and provides a rebate (at the beginning of the year, thus prebate) for taxes up to that level of expenditure (presuming that expenditure to be in the retail market). Thus, everyone gets a prebate for ~$4000, the taxes (again, assuming retail) up to the poverty line (~12k).
Click to expand...

I think you may have reading comprehension problems or maybe selective reading problems I said and I quote

I don't like the fair tax one reason would be that it can be adjusted annually, I would need to see a list of what exactly essential is, for instance is a 5 bedroom 6 bath home essential for a family of 3, is a 50 thousand dollar new auto essential?
Click to expand...

Do you see any thing in my qoute that talks about the prebate? If a person buys a used home for 1 million dollars will he/she have to pay the sales tax, if they buy a used mersades for 75 thousand will they pay tax on it? Until I know more about the fair tax I said and I quote
I don't like the fair tax one reason would be that it can be adjusted annually
Click to expand...

Figuring that someone is a Muslim is name calling? Why do you hate Muslims. Ok, maybe you're not Muslim. Perhaps you idolize and glorify OBL for some other reason.
Click to expand...

Maybe I am a muslim the fact is it's none of YFB, As far as OBL he was the man behind the attack on the twin towers if you want to believe that his primary goal was just to take down the towers and kill all of those innocent people then you have little to no knowledge of gurella warfare. Whether he had in his mind that what he did was right or not he should have ended up as he did a lot sooner then he did. My guess is that he wanted the US to respond exactly like we did because he saw an opportunity to wage an economic war and cause us to come to same end that the Russians did, as I stated OBL must have been ROFL when President Bush decided to invade IRAQ, it must have been like a bonus for him. Imagine the USA taking out OBL'S enemy Sadam and opening up another war front.

Try to be a little more realistic and a little more honest do you really think we had to invade Afghanistan to capture or kill Bin Laden or Iraq to capture or kill Sadam?


Personally, I think the biggest factor was mismanagement by the centralized government (the largest mistake being a failure to de-centralize agriculture as China and Cuba did to save themselves). Nonetheless, any sane and educated person would give Reagan more credit than OBL.[/QUOTE]
 
Blue_State said:
Why can't they just be people who live in a trailer park that don't want to live on government hand outs?
Click to expand...

What government handouts? And why would they be happy paying a higher tax rate than those who's income is primarily from investments?
 
Earl loves OBL.
 
ecofarm said:
Personally, I think the biggest factor was mismanagement by the centralized government (the largest mistake being a failure to de-centralize agriculture as China and Cuba did to save themselves). Nonetheless, any sane and educated person would give Reagan more credit than OBL.
Click to expand...

Clearly the biggest factor was their unsustainable political/economic system and Gorbachev's unwillingness to use force to shut down dissent. IMO, the most significant external trigger precipitating the fall was the collapse of oil prices that drastically reduced their access to foreign currency.
 
Why are billionaires waiting on tax law? Why don't they just send in the money?
 
American said:
Why are billionaires waiting on tax law? Why don't they just send in the money?
Click to expand...

Probably for the same reason that no one else voluntarily pays taxes.
 
AdamT said:
Probably for the same reason that no one else voluntarily pays taxes.
Click to expand...
But they're asking to be taxed aren't they? Why not just send it in?
 
Jetboogieman said:
Because you can't pay for programs off the possibility people send in money.
Click to expand...

Nor can you expect everyone in the same income group to follow your lead. Somehow I don't think the tax system would work very well if we operated the whole thing on the honor system.
 
American said:
Why are billionaires waiting on tax law? Why don't they just send in the money?
Click to expand...

Does anyone do math these days before asking dumb questions???

"Paul Egerman, founder of a medical transcription company called eScription, also scoffed at the suggestion millionaires who advocate for higher taxes should take it upon themselves to send money to the government.
"Running any government is a shared responsibility of its citizens," Egerman said. "Government is not a charity, and you can’t imagine a situation where the Department of Defense runs a bake sale to build an aircraft carrier."


"According to the Treasury Department, the government has received $1.7 million worth of donations to relieve the public debt so far this year. In 2009, it received $3 million worth of donations, the most ever.

But even if each of the nearly 200 millionaires who signed a letter demanding congressional Republicans consider tax increases donated $1 million to the government, they wouldn't put a dent in the government's debt, which currently stands at $14.3 trillion. According to CTJ, if the tax cuts are extended beyond their current expiration date of January 2013, they'll add another $5.5 trillion to the debt.

The cuts disproportionately benefit the richest 1 percent of Americans, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute."

Why Millionaires Who Want Higher Taxes Don't Just Donate Money To The Government
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Does anyone do math these days before asking dumb questions???

The cuts disproportionately benefit the richest 1 percent of Americans, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute."
Click to expand...

Yes, I do alot of math concerning this and find that there is no way the 1% can be taxed enough to aleviate the ANNUAL DEFICIT, much less address the national debt.

Further, the link contained in your link states:

The percentage change in after-tax income, TPC’s preferred measure for comparing the benefits of tax cuts across income groups, rises under this scenario as income rises, from an increase of 0.3 percent in after-tax income in the bottom quintile (see table) to a rise of 4.3 percent in the top quintile. It rises even further within the top quintile, with a 6.4 percent increase for the top 1 percent and a 7.5 percent increase for the top 0.1 percent (not shown). Thus the tax cuts would be regressive, raising after-tax income by a greater percentage for high-income households than for all others.

Doesn't it seem logical that if the taxable income is small, bottom two quintiles, then the effect of tax cuts on 'percentage change in after-tax income' will be small thusly?
 
Dickieboy said:
Yes, I do alot of math concerning this and find that there is no way the 1% can be taxed enough to aleviate the ANNUAL DEFICIT, much less address the national debt.
Click to expand...

That's what's called a red herring, because I know of NO ONE suggesting that eliminating the tax cuts for the rich alone will fix our debt problem. It took 30 years of tax breaks to the rich and too much spending on the military to create our debt, and is going to take 30 years of tax increases on the rich and a return to defense only levels of military spending to lower our debt. We will also need to switch to a UHC system to get our health care cost under control.

Further, the link contained in your link states:

The percentage change in after-tax income, TPC’s preferred measure for comparing the benefits of tax cuts across income groups, rises under this scenario as income rises, from an increase of 0.3 percent in after-tax income in the bottom quintile (see table) to a rise of 4.3 percent in the top quintile. It rises even further within the top quintile, with a 6.4 percent increase for the top 1 percent and a 7.5 percent increase for the top 0.1 percent (not shown). Thus the tax cuts would be regressive, raising after-tax income by a greater percentage for high-income households than for all others.

Doesn't it seem logical that if the taxable income is small, bottom two quintiles, then the effect of tax cuts on 'percentage change in after-tax income' will be small thusly?
Click to expand...

Which link? I need context as the part you included does not appear to include the Bush tax cuts to capital gains and dividends.
 
Catawba said:
That's what's called a red herring, because I know of NO ONE suggesting that eliminating the tax cuts for the rich alone will fix our debt problem. It took 30 years of tax breaks to the rich and too much spending on the military to create our debt, and is going to take 30 years of tax increases on the rich and a return to defense only levels of military spending to lower our debt. We will also need to switch to a UHC system to get our health care cost under control.
Click to expand...
First, I didn’t state ‘eliminating the tax cuts for the rich alone will fix our debt problem’. Not sure how you read that into my post. But I must have miss-read the portion you posted ‘But even if each of the nearly 200 millionaires who signed a letter demanding congressional Republicans consider tax increases donated $1 million to the government, they wouldn't put a dent in the government's debt, which currently stands at $14.3 trillion’. ‘Tax increases (eliminating tax cuts)…wouldn’t put a dent in the debt’ sure sound like they are suggesting…albeit sarcastically.

Your opinion on the military spending is spot on though. As to the 30 years, we don’t have that long. Given the projected deficits by WHOEVER’S charts (CBO, BHO, PTP, etc.) over the next 10 years, which are probably optimistic, the debt service (interest) will easily overtake discretionary spending (no reference as they are personal calculations) at which point there isn't enough revenue to tax across the board. Of course there are many variables such as if the credit agencies cause an increase in this debt service, slower than expected growth, failure to address spending/revenue quickly (especially spending…on MIC for instance).

Which link? I need context as the part you included does not appear to include the Bush tax cuts to capital gains and dividends.
Click to expand...

The link in the last paragraph of the article on Huffpo you linked to:
If we ignore how the cuts are paid for, who benefits from them?
 
Dickieboy said:
First, I didn’t state ‘eliminating the tax cuts for the rich alone will fix our debt problem’. Not sure how you read that into my post. But I must have miss-read the portion you posted ‘But even if each of the nearly 200 millionaires who signed a letter demanding congressional Republicans consider tax increases donated $1 million to the government, they wouldn't put a dent in the government's debt, which currently stands at $14.3 trillion’. ‘Tax increases (eliminating tax cuts)…wouldn’t put a dent in the debt’ sure sound like they are suggesting…albeit sarcastically.
Click to expand...

Yes, you did mis-read it.

Your opinion on the military spending is spot on though. As to the 30 years, we don’t have that long. Given the projected deficits by WHOEVER’S charts (CBO, BHO, PTP, etc.) over the next 10 years, which are probably optimistic, the debt service (interest) will easily overtake discretionary spending (no reference as they are personal calculations) at which point there isn't enough revenue to tax across the board. Of course there are many variables such as if the credit agencies cause an increase in this debt service, slower than expected growth, failure to address spending/revenue quickly (especially spending…on MIC for instance).
Click to expand...

That's why over the next ten years we will need to both cut spending and eliminate the Bush tax cuts on income which included Capital gains, dividends, and inheritance, and eliminate the tax breaks for companies that outsource American jobs, and eliminate tax cuts to big oil and big agriculture.
This in addition to entitlement reform should have us well on our way to a strong recovery.


The link in the last paragraph of the article on Huffpo you linked to:
If we ignore how the cuts are paid for, who benefits from them?
Click to expand...

That doesn't factor in capital gains, dividends, inheritance, or payroll taxes. They even provided this disclaimer in the paragraph you referenced:
"(but not of total federal tax)"
 
“The wealthiest can afford to pay more in taxes. That’s a part of the deal. That makes sense. I don’t know anyone that doesn’t agree with that. The wealth disparity between the lowest and the highest continues to expand, and that’s inappropriate. We cannot cut our way to greatness.”
Click to expand...

-- Ruth Porat, CFO, Morgan Stanley
 
Income inequality is increasing across much of the developed world, a trend that will continue unless governments move aggressively to arrest it, according to a report released Monday by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The widening gap between rich and poor is being driven in part by a growing disparity in wages, as skilled workers command a disproportionate share of the bounty made possible by technological progress, the report said.

...

“The social contract is starting to unravel in many countries,” OECD Secretary General Angel Gurria said in a statement. “This study dispels the assumptions that the benefits of economic growth will automatically trickle down to the disadvantaged and that the greater inequality fosters greater social mobility. Without a comprehensive strategy for inclusive growth, inequality will continue to rise.”
Click to expand...

OECD report cites rising income inequality - The Washington Post
 
AdamT said:
OECD report cites rising income inequality - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

While off the OP...per the OECD report:

“There is nothing inevitable about high and growing inequalities,” said Mr Gurría. “Our report clearly indicates that upskilling of the workforce is by far the most powerful instrument to counter rising income inequality. The investment in people must begin in early childhood and be followed through into formal education and work.”

That "early childhood" remark sounds somewhat simular to Newt's recent 'working kids' comment.
 
Dickieboy said:
While off the OP...per the OECD report:

“There is nothing inevitable about high and growing inequalities,” said Mr Gurría. “Our report clearly indicates that upskilling of the workforce is by far the most powerful instrument to counter rising income inequality. The investment in people must begin in early childhood and be followed through into formal education and work.”

That "early childhood" remark sounds somewhat simular to Newt's recent 'working kids' comment.
Click to expand...

Aren't all of the GOP candidates saying we should get rid of Headstart and the Department of Education?
 
Dickieboy said:
While off the OP...per the OECD report:

“There is nothing inevitable about high and growing inequalities,” said Mr Gurría. “Our report clearly indicates that upskilling of the workforce is by far the most powerful instrument to counter rising income inequality. The investment in people must begin in early childhood and be followed through into formal education and work.”

That "early childhood" remark sounds somewhat simular to Newt's recent 'working kids' comment.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily think that "upskilling" contemplates janitorial skills.
 
AdamT said:
I don't necessarily think that "upskilling" contemplates janitorial skills.
Click to expand...

I understand your point but considering the author's 'begin in early childhood' isn't going from no skills to janitorial skills 'upskilling'?
 
Dickieboy said:
I understand your point but considering the author's 'begin in early childhood' isn't going from no skills to janitorial skills 'upskilling'?
Click to expand...

I don't think that's what they had in mind. They say that educational attainment is a good way to combat inequality, so I think they would say that the kids would be better off with additional study as opposed spending time mopping floors and cleaning urinals.
 
AdamT said:
I don't think that's what they had in mind. They say that educational attainment is a good way to combat inequality, so I think they would say that the kids would be better off with additional study as opposed spending time mopping floors and cleaning urinals.
Click to expand...

Maybe so but I interpret this somewhat differently. They do make the ‘educational attainment’ statement but I don’t think skills equate to education. I infer that ‘upskilling’ kids, mopping floors/cleaning urinals, promotes improving/increasing their work ethic which will translate into educational attainment being more successful. That was the case in my personal experience.
 
Catawba said:
Aren't all of the GOP candidates saying we should get rid of Headstart and the Department of Education?
Click to expand...

I don't know as I don't pay attention as most of these are unattainable campaign promises crap...just like BHO did three years ago (Gitmo, no-bid contracts, etal).
 
The US government's debt crisis can be traced to the tax cut policies of 3 Republican Administrations - Reagan, GHW Bush and GW Bush.

The federal debt reached its lowest debt/GDP ratio under the Carter Administration (32.5%) but these GOP adminstrations were responsible for 60% of the federal debt/GNP increase. Despite the fact that the Clinton Administration reduced the federal debt/GDP ratio by 9.7%, the GW Bush Administration in turn increased it by 27.8%, leaving Obama with a economy in shambles and a debt/GDP ratio of 84.2%.

Their tax policies (trickle down economics) were supposed to stimulate the American economy and generate enough revenue to compensate for the cuts. The wealthy, who were the major benefactors from these cuts, never reinvested that money into the economy - at least not in the US economy!

America is now experiencing the result of 20 years of tax cut policies that have failed to generate a corresponding return on its "investment."

Given that the wealthy are the one and only group of Americans that have prospered substantially during the last 3 decades, it is now in their best interests to reinvest in the economy, however belatedly, before the recession degenerates into civil unreast.

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom