• 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!

State of the Union Address

Dickieboy said:
That's true but 'marginal' is not effective. The only credible data that I have found reveals that since 1979 the effective individual Federal Income tax rate has held relatively unchanged, between 19.8 and 23.0%, at least to 2005.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/98xx/doc9884/12-23-EffectiveTaxRates_Letter.pdf
Click to expand...

So that shows that over all effective tax rates fell about 2%, which is not inconsiderable, but not huge, either. Notice, however, that the very wealthiest people have seen about an 11% drop, versus around 4% for most of everyone else.

[EDIT: there is something wrong in those CBO numbers. The difference in total federal tax rate from 79 to 05 is listed at 1.7%, but if you look at each subcategory, every single one shows a drop greater than -- and most considerably greater than -- 1.7%.]

I think it's more relevant, though, to look at tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. You can see that it rose 5%, very gradually, from about 1950 to 2000, and then it essentially fell off a cliff, dropping 5% in just 10 years. Tax Revenue as a Fraction of GDP | Department of Numbers
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Nice attempt at diversion, you claimed that higher tax rates led to more tax revenue and a reduced deficit. Clinton claimed a surplus AFTER the Tax Relief Act of 1997 which reduced tax rates after having higher deficits prior to August 1997, That destroys your argument
Click to expand...

Even with the '97 Act, tax rates were still higher than they were before -- taken as a whole. And they were certainly higher than they were before Bush's disastrous tax cuts.
 
Conservative said:
Yes, you did without knowing it. Oh, look, another personal attack because again I showed that you continue to care more about more tax revenue vs. how tax dollars are spent.
Click to expand...

Then it should be really really easy for you to quote that definition then. Or are you just lying again?
 
AdamT said:
Even with the '97 Act, tax rates were still higher than they were before -- taken as a whole. And they were certainly higher than they were before Bush's disastrous tax cuts.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to grasp the difference between rates and what is actually paid nor do you understand the various taxes and their uses. That explains a lot about you and especially liberals which you defend as part of your game.
 
haymarket said:
Then it should be really really easy for you to quote that definition then. Or are you just lying again?
Click to expand...

Liberalism is defined by the concept of spending IN THE NAME OF COMPASSION but never getting compassionate results which mean solving an actual social problem. I am still waiting for you to explain how a Bureaucrat in D.C. who you want to get more tax dollars can solve a local problem in your community whereas you cannot do what you have been hired to do. Guess it is easier blaming an unknown bureaucrat in D.C. versus taking personal responsibiliy in your own state and community.
 
Conservative said:
You don't seem to grasp the difference between rates and what is actually paid nor do you understand the various taxes and their uses. That explains a lot about you and especially liberals which you defend as part of your game.
Click to expand...

In other words, you were proven wrong and now you're trying to change the subject. Par for the course.
 
AdamT said:
In other words, you were proven wrong and now you're trying to change the subject. Par for the course.
Click to expand...

No, you were proven wrong, Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and had a higher deficit than was generated AFTER the Tax Relief Act of 1997 but as you continue to play your game you ignore that reality. How do you explain tax rates prior to 1997 being higher than after 1997 and having a higher deficit prior to 1997
 
AdamT said:
So that shows that over all effective tax rates fell about 2%, which is not inconsiderable, but not huge, either. Notice, however, that the very wealthiest people have seen about an 11% drop, versus around 4% for most of everyone else.

I think it's more relevant, though, to look at tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. You can see that it rose 5%, very gradually, from about 1950 to 2000, and then it essentially fell off a cliff, dropping 5% in just 10 years. Tax Revenue as a Fraction of GDP | Department of Numbers
Click to expand...

But see, that’s not consistent with your previous argument:

AdamT said:
I don't think that's accurate. Top marginal rates were considerably higher in the 70s and 80s and are now extremely low by historical standards.
Click to expand...

As to your claim, I am somewhat confused. The chart shows the lowest quintile realized a 46% reduction (8 to 4.3), second a 30.7% reduction (14.3 to 9.9), third a 23.6% reduction (18.6 to 14.2) and so on. What am I missing?
 
as i posted, i believe incentives to drive job creation are fine, when they are needed, and we need them now.
 
Conservative said:
No, you were proven wrong, Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and had a higher deficit than was generated AFTER the Tax Relief Act of 1997 but as you continue to play your game you ignore that reality. How do you explain tax rates prior to 1997 being higher than after 1997 and having a higher deficit prior to 1997
Click to expand...

Clinton's deficits started shrinking in '93 and it was a continuous decline -- nearly linear -- from that time until 2000. The '97 tax cut was largely offset by the dotcom bubble. Of course the cut also helped FUEL the bubble, as is usually the case.
 
MaggieD said:
I like this a lot.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that seems to be the liberal philosophy today appealing to someone's heart bypassing their brain. Notice the liberal rhetoric blaming conservatives of starving kids, killing seniors, and polluting the air and to solve those problem they want more money because all that previous spending never solved the problem. Who wants to starve kids,kill seniors, and pollute the air that they breath? That way they get people to think with their heart instead of their brain.
 
AdamT said:
Clinton's deficits started shrinking in '93 and it was a continuous decline -- nearly linear -- from that time until 2000. The '97 tax cut was largely offset by the dotcom bubble. Of course the cut also helped FUEL the bubble, as is usually the case.
Click to expand...

I see, when was that proclaimed Clinton surplus, before or after 1997?
 
Conservative said:
Liberalism is defined by the concept of spending IN THE NAME OF COMPASSION but never getting compassionate results which mean solving an actual social problem.
Click to expand...

Versus conservatives who like spending money on wars and spending money on corporate welfare that will supposidly give an incentive to create jobs, but doesn't. I'd rather spend money to try and help Americans, then spend money on other nations like conservatives like to do.
 
Dickieboy said:
But see, that’s not consistent with your previous argument:



As to your claim, I am somewhat confused. The chart shows the lowest quintile realized a 46% reduction (8 to 4.3), second a 30.7% reduction (14.3 to 9.9), third a 23.6% reduction (18.6 to 14.2) and so on. What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Why isn't it consistent?

8% to 4.3% is a change of 3.7%. 42.9% to 31.5% is a change of 11.4%. I think that's what you're missing.
 
TurtleDude said:
capital gains taxes are income taxes

try again

and Payroll "taxes" have never played a prominent role in the divide and conquer schemes of congress
Click to expand...

More dishonest claptrap from the right

Income and capital gains are not the same things

And payroll taxes were the subject of a recent battle in congress. Once again, you've been proven to be posting fiction
 
Conservative said:
Liberalism is defined by the concept of spending IN THE NAME OF COMPASSION but never getting compassionate results which mean solving an actual social problem.
Click to expand...

Nice bumber sticker, but in fact safety net programs have cut the poverty rate in half since they were enacted. And I think present conditions would be infinitely worse if we didn't have unemployment, food stamps, and other forms of assistance.
 
TheNextEra said:
Versus conservatives who like spending money on wars and spending money on corporate welfare that will supposidly give an incentive to create jobs, but doesn't. I'd rather spend money to try and help Americans, then spend money on other nations like conservatives like to do.
Click to expand...

LOL, you really don't stand the concept of making money and keeping more of it. You truly have been brainwashed. Corporate welfare is mostly in the form of tax credits where corporations keep more of what they earn. What do they do with that extra money?

If you would rather spend money to help Americans, I am all for it, do it, give as much as you want to the charity of your choice but please stop believing that bureaucrats in D.C. have the same feelings and beliefs nor can they do what you can do better. You don't seem to understand the concept of social responsibility and prefer to make it a Federal responsibility vs. a state and local. That way you can delegate blame to someone else for failures. It is easier ignoring blame for failure when that spending was based upon compassion and the feelings of the heart. When are liberals ever going to generate compassionate results for all that social spending that has created more dependence?
 
AdamT said:
Nice bumber sticker, but in fact safety net programs have cut the poverty rate in half since they were enacted. And I think present conditions would be infinitely worse if we didn't have unemployment, food stamps, and other forms of assistance.
Click to expand...

Really? It was liberalism that cut the poverty rate and not individual incentive? Prove it? You certainly think with your heart now try to do it with your brain.
 
TurtleDude said:
People who have large amounts of investment income write quarterly checks based on a predicted income for that year
Click to expand...

You really are unlearned when it comes to taxation. There are "safe harbors" that allow you to defer paying quarterly (See Form 2210)
 
TurtleDude said:
I will tell the tax attorney and CPA that handle that stuff for me and my wife that some guy on a message board who most likely is not anywhere near the top 1 percent has a better suggestion on what we ought to do
Click to expand...

So you pay a tax atty to pay your taxes sooner than you need to, you don't know about Form 2210, and you think other people are unlearned about taxation? :lamo:
 
Dickieboy said:
Then maybe YOU can help me. Just so I understand, a company generates revenue from a change in ‘owners’ of money. If I own stock in a company and they make a profit isn’t some miniscule portion of that profit mine? The company pays tax on that profit (including my miniscule part). They then MAY distribute any remaining in dividend (which represents my miniscule part of the original PRETAX profit) to me which I pay tax on. How is the ORIGINAL transfer of money not taxed twice?
Click to expand...

A businesses' revenue is not taxed. It's profit (or more accuratey, it's "income") is taxed. Then if the company is a publically owned corp, it can choose to distribute it's profit to its' shareholders as dividends. If it chooses to do so, those dividends are taxes when received. This tax is only applied one time (when received), not twice

The "original distribution" is not taxed twice. It's not even taxed once. The PROFIT (not the revenue) is taxed one time, and only one time. If you don't want to pay a divident tax, you can avoid it very simply. Simply don't accept the dividend. Tell the corp to keep it and re-invest it to build the business.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom