• 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!

Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income

Once again, you exclude capital gains and dividends tax rates. That is where most of the disparity in income results from.

Snapshot_Bush-tax-cut.jpg


The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy | Economic Policy Institute

Psst, you didn't read or didn't understand what the numbers I posted mean, plus you're changing your argument.
The taxes for the middle class did not go up.
There is nothing there to support it, at all.

You either lied or were seriously mislead.
Stop trying to hide from your original statements.
 
Its historical fact Harry. Do you know what the capital gains and inheritance tax rates were prior to 1981???

As for cap gains...well, for 79-81 they were the same as they were from 87-90. But higher than those from '54 to '69. So what's your point.

Historical Capital Gains and Taxes

As for estate...well, they were lower from '34-'79 except for 1947. Again, so what's your point.
 
Once again, you exclude capital gains and dividends tax rates. That is where most of the disparity in income results from.

Capital gain and dividend tax rates cause most of the disparity in income??? Can you explain this more clearly?
 
If that were the case, wouldn't there high inflation? The inflation rate is historically low.

I believe this is artificial these days as well...but artificial or not it will come, have no fear, it is inevitable.

Yep, like those in the Clinton Administration, the only real cuts we've had in the past 30 years.

You can thank repubs, and Gingrich for dragging him kicking and screaming for that.

I think he cut military spending in half didn't he?

Yes, that worked out well on 9/11 didn't it?

And he didn't start any optional unfunded wars either did he?

No, in fact missiles to aspirin factories in order to divert attention to his uncontrollable escapades were the order of the day. In any case, he nearly left us wide open, and we were attacked....Great record.

And he increased capital gains tax rate to 20% didn't he?

And left Bush with a recession due to his corrupt energy policy.

Despite the media effort to pin the 2001 recession on President Bush, the fact remains that he had little to do with the last eight years of economic policy from the White House. The infamous miracle bubble of Bill Clinton's economy burst last summer when OPEC oil price increases rocked the world economy.

In February 1999, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson visited Saudi Arabia when prices were at their lowest. Richardson reportedly pressed Saudi Oil Minister Ali Naimi on the "oversupplied market" and expressed concern about "extreme price volatility."

Former Saudi minister Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani told a Houston oil conference that Richardson had "saved the oil industry" during that visit because his "intervention" had "persuaded" the Saudis to change policy by raising prices.

After Richardson's visit, Petroleum Intelligence Weekly, an industry newsletter, quoted Saudi officials as wanting "a price of $18 to $20 as soon as possible."

In 1999, then-President Clinton pressed OPEC to raise prices in order to finance the brutal Russian war in Chechnya. Clinton needed Russia's help settling that pesky little war in Kosovo. However, Bill was unable to aid Boris Yeltsin directly because of the rampant corruption inside Moscow.

Clinton quietly used OPEC oil diplomacy to supply Russia increased energy profits. The influx of cash into Moscow was mainly obtained through Iraqi oil sold by the U.N. and distributed through Russian suppliers. The cash paid for the Russian war and a new round of rampant corruption, centered on the former Soviet GAZPROM state oil company.

However, there were also unexpected results. The oil sales helped Saddam Hussein re-arm his military with a brand new Chinese-built air defense system. The move is also now seen as a major blunder that triggered the 2001 recession.

Clinton Recession: 'Bill' Comes Due for 8 Years of Corruption

Now for the record, I think that Clinton did do some good things, but to cast him as some sort of model in governance is a mistake.

j-mac
 
Or maybe it just means that it's idiotic to cut spending in a demand-side economic slump. Possibly it could mean that the wealthy have actually prospered throughout the recession, while everyone else has suffered. That might provide a reason why one might look to the rich first. Or one might recognize that, in a demand-side slowdown, it's beneficial to the overall economy to provide relief to the middle class. And, if it must be paid for NOW -- as Republicans insist it must -- that pulling money from the one sector that is going ganbusters makes the most sense. Just some turtle food for thought.

so all the spending our government does is required and necessary.

that sort of idiocy is why we have the deficit we have now

the rich prosper in most economic scenarios. that's why they tend to be rich. Its like pro golfers. They tend to shoot good scores no matter what the course-slick, slow, wet, dry, windy, still etc

that's why they are pros
 
Support this statement or admit you were wrong.
Stop changing your argument.

He cannot, its a lie, and the middle class pay a lower share of the federal income tax now than they have in the last 60 years
 
Capital gain and dividend tax rates cause most of the disparity in income??? Can you explain this more clearly?

Tax rates for the middle class have been raised over the last 30 years to make up for the reduction in revenue created by the tax rate cuts for the wealthy.
 
Some good points. Tell me TD, through out this whole recession who has benefitted the most? Who has been hurt the most? Straight answer please...no need for a bunch of spin.

depends. Obama's buddies at Goldman-Sachs did ok, same with the Unions at GM.

as I noted, smart resourceful people tend to "benefit" the most no matter what the conditions because they are smarter, more industrious and better able to adapt to changing conditions than stupid, lazy and poorly educated people
 
The only time I have seen spending cut during the last 30 years is under the Clinton Administration.

The only way we will reduce the deficit will be if the Democrats and the Republicans agree to both cut spending and eliminate the tax cuts for the wealthy, just as was done in the Clinton Administration.

Over the last 30 years tax rates have been increased for the middle class and cut for the wealthy.

stop fibbing, the income tax rates on the middle class have not increased and the rich pay more of the income tax burden now than at any time in the last 60 years

and the richest 5% pay more federal income taxes now than the rest of the country combined
 
Support this statement or admit you were wrong.
Stop changing your argument.

"Over the last 30 years, the top income tax rate has averaged about 40%. It’s now at 35%, one-half of the 70% rate in effect throughout the 1970s. It was even higher, at 90% in the 1950s and early 1960s, before being reduced to 70% in 1965. As we discuss (Stable Income Inequality), these lower-than maximum income tax rates were an instrumental factor, together with the other two pillars of Reaganomics [1], in greatly increasing income and wealth inequality, with disastrous consequences for the economy and for the bottom 99%."

The 30-Year Growth of Income Inequality |
 
Once again, you exclude capital gains and dividends tax rates. That is where most of the disparity in income results from.

Snapshot_Bush-tax-cut.jpg


The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy | Economic Policy Institute

More nonsense. of course tax cuts benefit those who pay the most taxes disproportionately

if tax cuts benefited everyone proportionately that would mean we had a FLAT TAX, something you welfare socialist soak the rich tax warfare operatives absolutely LOATHE
 
"Over the last 30 years, the top income tax rate has averaged about 40%. It’s now at 35%, one-half of the 70% rate in effect throughout the 1970s. It was even higher, at 90% in the 1950s and early 1960s, before being reduced to 70% in 1965. As we discuss (Stable Income Inequality), these lower-than maximum income tax rates were an instrumental factor, together with the other two pillars of Reaganomics [1], in greatly increasing income and wealth inequality, with disastrous consequences for the economy and for the bottom 99%."

The 30-Year Growth of Income Inequality |

so you think the purpose of the government and taxes is to prevent the most able and the most resourceful from increasing their wealth?
 
I believe this is artificial these days as well...but artificial or not it will come, have no fear, it is inevitable.

Well be sure to let us know when it happens, cause it ain't happening now.



You can thank repubs, and Gingrich for dragging him kicking and screaming for that.

Really, Gingrich is the one responsible for cutting military spending in half???



Yes, that worked out well on 9/11 didn't it?

Military spending does not affect Saudis hijacking your own planes and using them against you.



No, in fact missiles to aspirin factories in order to divert attention to his uncontrollable escapades were the order of the day. In any case, he nearly left us wide open, and we were attacked....Great record.

We were attacked by Saudis. The ones we kiss ass for their oil, remember?



And left Bush with a recession due to his corrupt energy policy.

Sorry, it wasn't even bad enough to meet the definition of a recession.


Now for the record, I think that Clinton did do some good things, but to cast him as some sort of model in governance is a mistake.

It wasn't Ciinton, and it wasn't Gingrich. It was both sides coming together to cut spending and increase taxes so they could lower the deficit.

That's what will inevitably have to happen again, if we are to lower the deficit. The no tax thing has got to go bye bye, are we aren't going to get anywhere.
 
It was a question, notice the question mark at the end of the sentence. Its worse than I thought. Thanks!

Something about your source is fallacious. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 cut the capital gains tax rate from the 28% your source states to 20%. Look it up.
 
so you think the purpose of the government and taxes is to prevent the most able and the most resourceful from increasing their wealth?

Turtle..do you believe that america should be like medieval england...where the rich and powerful lived in luxury off the toils of the peasants living outside their plush castles..who gave the best of the best of everything to the rich barons and were left with the dregs..in time of drought and famine everything went to the rich barons and lords and the peasants starved...the only thing they recieved from the lords was protection from invaders and that was the lords protecting their investment....you seem to want america to be exactly that way for the most part....peasants work for peanuts to enrich the rich...fight their wars so they can get richer..and in return they get low pay...no pensions, no benefits no security in old age....
 
Turtle..do you believe that america should be like medieval england...where the rich and powerful lived in luxury off the toils of the peasants living outside their plush castles..who gave the best of the best of everything to the rich barons and were left with the dregs..in time of drought and famine everything went to the rich barons and lords and the peasants starved...the only thing they recieved from the lords was protection from invaders and that was the lords protecting their investment....you seem to want america to be exactly that way for the most part....peasants work for peanuts to enrich the rich...fight their wars so they can get richer..and in return they get low pay...no pensions, no benefits no security in old age....


There is more than one way to surfdom my friend...In the modern day I believe it would be called Socialism....


j-mac
 
Turtle..do you believe that america should be like medieval england...where the rich and powerful lived in luxury off the toils of the peasants living outside their plush castles..who gave the best of the best of everything to the rich barons and were left with the dregs..in time of drought and famine everything went to the rich barons and lords and the peasants starved...the only thing they recieved from the lords was protection from invaders and that was the lords protecting their investment....you seem to want america to be exactly that way for the most part....peasants work for peanuts to enrich the rich...fight their wars so they can get richer..and in return they get low pay...no pensions, no benefits no security in old age....

I see strawmen walking

making people dependent on the government is the best way to create serfs
 
"Over the last 30 years, the top income tax rate has averaged about 40%. It’s now at 35%, one-half of the 70% rate in effect throughout the 1970s. It was even higher, at 90% in the 1950s and early 1960s, before being reduced to 70% in 1965. As we discuss (Stable Income Inequality), these lower-than maximum income tax rates were an instrumental factor, together with the other two pillars of Reaganomics [1], in greatly increasing income and wealth inequality, with disastrous consequences for the economy and for the bottom 99%."

Please help clear this up for me. The article linked went on and on about low taxes for the wealthy and income inequality but failed to correlate the relationship between the two. Exactly how is the wealthy paying lower taxes causing low/low-middle class earners income to stagnate?
 
Something about your source is fallacious. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 cut the capital gains tax rate from the 28% your source states to 20%. Look it up.

I stand corrected, it was decreased from 28% to 20% half way through the last year of the Clinton presidency.

"This was the first law devoted solely to tax cuts that Congress enacted using the fast-track budget reconciliation process."

Reagan increased the capital gains tax rate from 20% to 33%.
 
There is more than one way to surfdom my friend...In the modern day I believe it would be called Socialism....


j-mac

Please .... we had much higher tax rates for the Rich than anything proposed by the Democrats today under Republican presidents, Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford
 
There is more than one way to surfdom my friend...In the modern day I believe it would be called Socialism....


j-mac

I would agree with you...but your assuming im a socialist...I am not...Im just against the rape of the working class that is being perpetrated on the middleclass by the corporations and their CEOS for an extra buck...all the evidence of that is plainly right out there...
 
Back
Top Bottom