• 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!

Bill Kristol: “It won’t kill the country” to raise taxes on millionaires

Not neccesarily. That 15% flat tax could still equate to more than 15% of GDP. And is that in addition to or a replacement for OASID taxes?

ie, total adjusted gross income for all filers is 7.5 trillion. 15% of that is 1.1 trillion. Right now the govt collects 860bn. So just on that, the govt is collect more taxes. Once you add in SS and medicare taxes...

and if that 15% were to be the entire tax burden, the upper income taxpayers would be paying a bigger share than they do now.

If you add another 13% or whatever it is for payroll taxes, then the poor would really be paying more.
 
and if that 15% were to be the entire tax burden, the upper income taxpayers would be paying a bigger share than they do now.

If you add another 13% or whatever it is for payroll taxes, then the poor would really be paying more.

What does that have to do with your claim about spending cuts?
 
You will get NO argument from me that an extremely reduced and condensced tax code would be a huge benefit. Where the argument comes in is the proponents of the simplified tax code real agenda is for the again the RICH to pay far far less and the middleclass to pay far far more...because the people with NOTHING dont pay in this tax code and they wont pay in a more simplified tax code...you cannot get blood from a stone...so when the rich want to pay "LESS" that just means they want to take out "MORE" than they already have out of the working mans posterior

Ipast, I hear what you're saying.

Since 2000, America has lost "6 million" manufacturing jobs...and 55,000 manufacturing companies to outsourcing. The outsourcing income isn't "trickling down" in the same manner had those 6 million jobs existed here in this country...or the 55,000 companies were still actively engaged in production here. And unemployment AND UNDEREMPLOYMENT in this country is greatly related to the loss of these 55,000 companies. Where do 6 million displaced workers get work that would come close to maintaining a close to or equal living wage that they had in their manufacturing jobs?

I think that it would be a real state of denial for those who don't believe that the rich depend on both the middle class and, YES, even the poor, to get rich and to maintain their level of wealth. In other words, the rich can't be rich without the poor working class, middle class...and they make money off of those who are welfare recipients.

Regardless of the classes..."the government" is the main beneficiary from the tax code system we all currently live under.

In the end...there's no physical proof or fiscal proof that the overall economy welfare is deprived based on taxing those who have the types of wealth that are capable of investing their wealth to create jobs. The conservative entertainment industry has been making these claims for eons...yet, they never offer any proof of such claims. Most people of substantial wealth don't pay all that much tax based on ordinary income. They sustain much of their wealth from capital gains and tax free bonds.

And I've never seen an official IRS demographic breakdown of the 47% of people who don't pay income tax. If somebody has that list, I think we'd all love to see it.
 
Thats not what you said. You said 'total avoidance of tax responsibility'. The richest 1% pay 40% of income tax. How is that total avoidance?

To be honest I dont remember saying that...or the context I would have said it in.....I gave an example in another post.. the richest do pay the most taxes in dollars...not percentages of what they earn...400 americans ALONE own more wealth and make more than almost 200,000,000 americans...think about that let it sink in...thats not the top 1% thats the top "VERY FEW"
 
What does that have to do with your claim about spending cuts?

If the entire tax burden is 15%, and the government continues to spend 21%, the deficits continue. if you add another 13% to low and middle tax payers in the form of payroll taxes, then the budget might balance out.

What we tend to forget is that payroll taxes also go into the general fund, just like income taxes do, and are used for the day to day expenses of government. There is no social security "trust fund" out there, just an empty bin of government promises.
 
I would be willing to compromise.
The difference between the additional tax revenue brought in by allowing the top tier
of the *Obama tax cut to expire and the deficit is about $1.1 Trillion.
*( Obama signed the current tax rates into law in 2010)
I think the ratio was 16:1, So if the Democrats cut $16. from the budget for each additional
dollar raised by the new taxes, I am ON BOARD.

Actually Senate minority leader McConnell has said he is "onboard" with 1 to 1 budget cuts to tax revenue. Now we are gettng somewhere.
 
Ipast, I hear what you're saying.

Since 2000, America has lost "6 million" manufacturing jobs...and 55,000 manufacturing companies to outsourcing. The outsourcing income isn't "trickling down" in the same manner had those 6 million jobs existed here in this country...or the 55,000 companies were still actively engaged in production here. And unemployment AND UNDEREMPLOYMENT in this country is greatly related to the loss of these 55,000 companies. Where do 6 million displaced workers get work that would come close to maintaining a close to or equal living wage that they had in their manufacturing jobs?

I think that it would be a real state of denial for those who don't believe that the rich depend on both the middle class and, YES, even the poor, to get rich and to maintain their level of wealth. In other words, the rich can't be rich without the poor working class, middle class...and they make money off of those who are welfare recipients.

Regardless of the classes..."the government" is the main beneficiary from the tax code system we all currently live under.

In the end...there's no physical proof or fiscal proof that the overall economy welfare is deprived based on taxing those who have the types of wealth that are capable of investing their wealth to create jobs. The conservative entertainment industry has been making these claims for eons...yet, they never offer any proof of such claims. Most people of substantial wealth don't pay all that much tax based on ordinary income. They sustain much of their wealth from capital gains and tax free bonds.

And I've never seen an official IRS demographic breakdown of the 47% of people who don't pay income tax. If somebody has that list, I think we'd all love to see it.


Not only manufacturing jobs to the tune of 6million...Customer Service Jobs...Tech Support and many more..were talking MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of decent paying jobs and the republican base which is mostly working class...just GLOSS over this...they are so convinced their corporate gods are their saviors and benefactors...when the truth is is the corporatists didnt need them at all to make them richer they would step over them as they starved in the street..it amazes me

Outsourcing is GREED in its purest form...no one can tell me that MicroSoft, Intel, HP and all the other big corporations would have gone broke and bankrupt and close up if they didnt OUTSOURCE all their customer service and tech support to places you cant even understand wtf their saying. GREED more PROFIT ...GREED...enough is never enough
So they put america out of work..they put millions of americans on the PUBLIC DOLE...millions of americans cant find work and lost their homes...millions of americans not spending to grow the economy and the REPUBLICANS tell us the RICH NEED ANOTHER TAX CUT to create jobs...LMAOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo......since 1982 the rich and corporations have had their tax rates cut FULLY IN HALF...capitol gains cut more than in half...inheritance tax gutted....so if there was trickledown and tax cuts created jobs there shouldnt be a single american out of work.
Keep living in lala land NON RICH WORKING CLASS republicans...keep voting for the rich because you hate blacks, you hate gays, you hate abortions, you stupid enough to think they are going to take your guns...and while you're at it do not PULL YOUR PANTS UP and just remain in that bent over position...
 
If the entire tax burden is 15%, and the government continues to spend 21%, the deficits continue. if you add another 13% to low and middle tax payers in the form of payroll taxes, then the budget might balance out.

What we tend to forget is that payroll taxes also go into the general fund, just like income taxes do, and are used for the day to day expenses of government. There is no social security "trust fund" out there, just an empty bin of government promises.

The bin is not "empty" it has treasury bonds with the full weight of the US govt. behind them. There will be no welching on those bonds.
 
To be honest I dont remember saying that...or the context I would have said it in.....I gave an example in another post.. the richest do pay the most taxes in dollars...not percentages of what they earn...400 americans ALONE own more wealth and make more than almost 200,000,000 americans...think about that let it sink in...thats not the top 1% thats the top "VERY FEW"

It was 2 hours ago, like ten posts. Perhaps you need to stop constantly posting random rhetoric if you cant keep track of it.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...aise-taxes-millionaires-2.html#post1061143406
 
Since when is a decision being good, based on the fact that it "will not directly kill you or the country?" You could raise taxes on everyone or no one, and that would still be true.

The fact is you want federal benefits and you demand someone else pay for them because you have no interest in doing what it takes to earn it yourself. That's it, nothing more to be said.

What is it about the fact that tax rates are based on what the earner can afford don't you understand?
 
It was 2 hours ago, like ten posts. Perhaps you need to stop constantly posting random rhetoric if you cant keep track of it.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...aise-taxes-millionaires-2.html#post1061143406

You're right that was written wrong..and I dont believe there is TOTAL avoidance...just alot of avoidance meaning loopholes that allow the rich to pay far less a percentage than even some middleclass...thanks for pointing that out...I dont intentionally make gross mistatments..unless I truly believe it
 
If the entire tax burden is 15%, and the government continues to spend 21%, the deficits continue. if you add another 13% to low and middle tax payers in the form of payroll taxes, then the budget might balance out.

What we tend to forget is that payroll taxes also go into the general fund, just like income taxes do, and are used for the day to day expenses of government. There is no social security "trust fund" out there, just an empty bin of government promises.

Social security does not go into the general fund. It goes into a separate social security fund, which is then drawn on for current benefits. Any surplus is required to be invested t-bonds which then go into the general fund.

But regarding spending, the point was that a 15% flat tax 'might' bring in 10% of revenue lets say, but as I showed above thats more than current. Once you also add in the SS tax, thats 18% of GDP. So no deep cuts are needed relative to not having a flat tax.
 
You're right that was written wrong..and I dont believe there is TOTAL avoidance...just alot of avoidance meaning loopholes that allow the rich to pay far less a percentage than even some middleclass...thanks for pointing that out...I dont intentionally make gross mistatments..unless I truly believe it

Ok, fine. In that case, I dont really have anything to argue about. I disagree with your definition of fairness, but theres nothing new here.
 
The bin is not "empty" it has treasury bonds with the full weight of the US govt. behind them. There will be no welching on those bonds.

Which is, in turn, a part of that 16 trillion and growing national debt. How is that ever going to be paid?
 
Ok, fine. In that case, I dont really have anything to argue about. I disagree with your definition of fairness, but theres nothing new here.

:) hey disagreeing is what this forum is all about...if we all agreed this would be a dating site lol
 
Republicans - No Compromise!! Ever!! Stick to your guns! Listen to what Rush and the other leaders of your party on radio are saying!
 
Which is, in turn, a part of that 16 trillion and growing national debt. How is that ever going to be paid?

Out of your hide if necessary which it is not. We have never paid back any debt since 1776, why would we start now?
 
It would be an interesting argument if increasing taxes on the wealthy would have a meaningful effect on revenue, but it won't. This isn't about the money, it's about punitive taxation. It won't change the deficit, it's just a move to make selfish people feel better. Problem is, the thinking is backwards. Taxing the rich more will not reduce everyone else's taxes. If the middle class feels taxes are too high they should seek a reduction instead of acting like petulent children. Since increasing taxes on the rich will not have a meaningful effect on revenue, it raises the question: What's next? Raise their rates and the dem base gets a feeling of revenge, for a while. But what happens when that feeling wears off? Raise them higher?

I've got a better idea. Instead of looking at current spending and saying the government needs more (and more and more) why not submit a budget. You know, a REAL one (since we haven't seen one since Obama took office) and only THEN see what adjustments need to be made. Households need a budget, businesses need a budget, the government should have one too.
 
Actually Senate minority leader McConnell has said he is "onboard" with 1 to 1 budget cuts to tax revenue. Now we are gettng somewhere.
That will not help anything, our Government spends too much compared to their income.
Even if they taxed everyone at 100%, they may not have enough.
The only answer is cut spending, If the Dems price to balance the budget is to increase taxes
on those over $250 a year by 10%, so be it.
We must get our budget under control if we are to survive as a nation.
 
Social security does not go into the general fund. It goes into a separate social security fund, which is then drawn on for current benefits. Any surplus is required to be invested t-bonds which then go into the general fund.

But regarding spending, the point was that a 15% flat tax 'might' bring in 10% of revenue lets say, but as I showed above thats more than current. Once you also add in the SS tax, thats 18% of GDP. So no deep cuts are needed relative to not having a flat tax.

Well, sort of:


However, the Social Security Act specifies that the monies in the fund may "be invested in securities backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal government," such as treasury bills, treasury notes, and treasury bonds, as well as special issue bonds. So, essentially, the government can "invest" Social Security funds by lending them to itself, then spending that money on programs not related to Social Security (e.g., defense, foreign aid, education). This has always been the case.

So, the government can lend the SS money to itself, spend it, and put the IOU (T bond) back into the SS fund. The result is a pot full of IOUs. There is no essential difference between the fate of money paid via payroll taxes and money paid in the form of income taxes.
 
Social security does not go into the general fund. It goes into a separate social security fund, which is then drawn on for current benefits. Any surplus is required to be invested t-bonds which then go into the general fund.
[/I]
That's not entirely accurate. Starting in 1968 excess SS receipts which were deemed by the SS admin
to be beyond that necessary, were allowed to be applied against the deficit.
Both sides have done this to the tune of about $5Trillion over that time.
No bonds, the money is just spent.
(the Clinton budgets never really balanced, because they counted excess SS funds.)
SS does hold about $6T in very low interest bonds.
 
If you'd like to see what high tax rates on the rich look like, you only need to look as far as France. Taxes jumped, and so did they. There are now so many high earning French in GB that they jokingly refer to London as France's 7th largest city. 40 of France's wealthiest people now live in Belguim. It doesn't work. And if you would prefer to put that tax on businesses, expect an exodus of outsourcing. What we need is a budget, not increased taxes. In our households we understand we can't have everything, the government needs to figure that out too.
 

Well, sort of:




So, the government can lend the SS money to itself, spend it, and put the IOU (T bond) back into the SS fund. The result is a pot full of IOUs. There is no essential difference between the fate of money paid via payroll taxes and money paid in the form of income taxes.

The difference is that it is money that was paid for by the labor and sweat of American workers to insure their health and well being after they retire. It is payment on the contract we have made as a nation. How can you forget this stuff? Just because it was made before you were born is no excuse for your ignorance.
 
That's not entirely accurate. Starting in 1968 excess SS receipts which were deemed by the SS admin
to be beyond that necessary, were allowed to be applied against the deficit.
Both sides have done this to the tune of about $5Trillion over that time.
No bonds, the money is just spent.
(the Clinton budgets never really balanced, because they counted excess SS funds.)
SS does hold about $6T in very low interest bonds.

That's not entirely accurate, either. SS surpluses were not counted against the deficit to produce a balanced budget; rather, they were simply ignored. Otherwise SS surpluses are paradoxically counted as contributing to the deficit, because they consist of debt owed to future SS recipients.

Say, for example, that you have a $100,000 mortgage, and you decide to set up a savings account dedicated to paying your monthly mortgage. If you put $20,000 in that account, does that increase your debt? Not really, but that's how some people want to account for the SS surplus. It produces an absurd result: the more SS revenue you collect, the more this accounting method says you owe (or the bigger your deficit becomes).
 
The rich benefit the most from the tax code...by code that allows total avoidance of tax responsibility

If the "rich" pay the most income tax, what are they avoiding? Who benefits the most, he who pays 10% income tax or he who pays none? The poor are asks to pay no income tax.
 
Back
Top Bottom