• 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

Dittohead not! said:

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.
Click to expand...

Thats what I said. SS money gets spent on SS benefits directly, and any surplus is lent to the govt. SS is not taking in enough right now though, so no money is getting lent. All revenue that comes in through OASID goes right back out to current retirees.
 
longview said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your idea of compromise is a whole lot short of meeting the other side halfway.

Lets do just that - both sides agree on a number - half to come from tax raises and half from spending cuts. Now that is meeting somebody halfway.

16 to 1 is beyond absurd.
 
haymarket said:
Your idea of compromise is a whole lot short of meeting the other side halfway.

Lets do just that - both sides agree on a number - half to come from tax raises and half from spending cuts. Now that is meeting somebody halfway.

16 to 1 is beyond absurd.
Click to expand...
Actually absurd, is the amount of unfunded spending our Government has been engaging in.
We can fix part of it through increased taxes, but the Government's method of base line budgeting
will spend any increase before it can reduce the deficit.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Are they finally gonna sacrifice the interests of the richest of the rich for the rest of the American public?
Click to expand...
What the hell does that mean, Socialist? One can't help get the feeling that the Left is more interested in tearing down the rich, than it is building up everyone else. So they raises taxes. Then what? Will that prove to be a definite step up for you?
 
Dooble said:
What the hell does that mean, Socialist? One can't help get the feeling that the Left is more interested in tearing down the rich, than it is building up everyone else. So they raises taxes. Then what? Will that prove to be a definite step up for you?
Click to expand...

A 10% raise in rates on income over $250,000 is "tearing down the rich"? It's call shared sacrifice, the middle class gets cus to programs for them and so do the rich.
 
iguanaman said:
A 10% raise in rates on income over $250,000 is "tearing down the rich"?
Click to expand...
They're already in a higher tax bracket. Bleed turnips much?

iguanaman said:
It's called shared sacrifice,
Click to expand...
Uh-uh. It's called government take over. Washington has no business piling programs on us. It's Communistic and therefore, oppressive.
 
iguanaman said:
What is it about the fact that tax rates are based on what the earner can afford don't you understand?
Click to expand...

Your notion that taxes exist based on how much in taxes people can afford to pay, is even more absurd than the earlier objection you thought you were rebutting.

I can technically afford 100% in taxes, therefore taxes should be 100%? Reasoning eludes you I see.
 
tech30528 said:
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.
Click to expand...

No one is proposing a 75% tax on the rich in this country (though it didn't seem to destroy American in the 50s and 60s when the top marginal rate was even higher). There's a huge difference between a 5% tax hike and 34% tax hike. I think it's a difference of 29%. :)
 
Mach said:
Your notion that taxes exist based on how much in taxes people can afford to pay, is even more absurd than the earlier objection you thought you were rebutting.

I can technically afford 100% in taxes, therefore taxes should be 100%? Reasoning eludes you I see.
Click to expand...

Then feel happy the Govt, is giving you a break. We have tried 90% rates though and the world went on as usual. Taxing income not spent at a higher rate is how we grow.
 
AdamT said:
No one is proposing a 75% tax on the rich in this country (though it didn't seem to destroy American in the 50s and 60s when the top marginal rate was even higher). There's a huge difference between a 5% tax hike and 34% tax hike. I think it's a difference of 29%. :)
Click to expand...

Right. France's failure was that it took their tax rate up too fast and people jumped ship. Here we have the ACA with all kinds of neat little tax nuggets in it that will make it more difficult to determine where the money is going. But rest assured, it is only a matter of time before the government has total control thru taxation. And that will not stop at the line between left and right. It's going to be the government over the people.
 
iguanaman said:
A 10% raise in rates on income over $250,000 is "tearing down the rich"? It's call shared sacrifice, the middle class gets cus to programs for them and so do the rich.
Click to expand...

The rich are sacrificing their property and the middle class is sacrificing what? Programs paid for by someone else?
 
Dooble said:
What the hell does that mean, Socialist? One can't help get the feeling that the Left is more interested in tearing down the rich, than it is building up everyone else. So they raises taxes. Then what? Will that prove to be a definite step up for you?
Click to expand...

Austerity. It means austerity.
 
American said:
Liberals will never fall on their sword to give up on the spending cut issue.
Click to expand...
They wont? "They" already have!
Obama
Will Obama Agree to Entitlement Cuts? He Already Has - NYTimes.com
Obama Deficit Plan Cuts Entitlements and Raises Taxes on Rich - NYTimes.com


Without drastic spending cuts, we are absolutely doomed. Democrats have always lied about spending cuts, they lied to Reagain and they will lie now. Their talk of spending cuts is pure lip service. Until spending cuts are first implemented, I don't support tax increases.
Click to expand...
See above.
 
AdamT said:
No one is proposing a 75% tax on the rich in this country (though it didn't seem to destroy American in the 50s and 60s when the top marginal rate was even higher). There's a huge difference between a 5% tax hike and 34% tax hike. I think it's a difference of 29%. :)
Click to expand...

Yet!!
 
iguanaman said:
Then feel happy the Govt, is giving you a break. We have tried 90% rates though and the world went on as usual. Taxing income not spent at a higher rate is how we grow.
Click to expand...

Not only did it go on as usual, but we built the interstate highway system while funding the Marshall Plan in the 50s, and we entered the space race and put men on the moon in the 60s, all without incurring huge debt.
 
jonny5 said:
The rich are sacrificing their property and the middle class is sacrificing what? Programs paid for by someone else?
Click to expand...

What BS. Our FIT system is based on progressive taxes, it's not because we want to punish anybody. It's because they WORK. The progressive tax system increases growth and more specifically growth that is equal across all income classes. We are a consumer economy and we grow by increasing consumer spending not by cutting taxes on those that save most of their income anyway. So stop the whining, if you are paying higher taxes when this is all over it's because you are making more than 98% of us and an extra 3% on your income above $250,000 is peanuts for you.
 
iguanaman said:
A 10% raise in rates on income over $250,000 is "tearing down the rich"? It's call shared sacrifice, the middle class gets cus to programs for them and so do the rich.
Click to expand...


so what you are saying is that the middle class sacrifices by getting less goodies from the government and the rich sacrifice by paying moar taxes.

the rich pay for the programs they use and the programs everyone else uses
 
TurtleDude said:
so what you are saying is that the middle class sacrifices by getting less goodies from the government and the rich sacrifice by paying moar taxes.

the rich pay for the programs they use and the programs everyone else uses
Click to expand...

And what about the poor and the "poor"?
 
TurtleDude said:
so what you are saying is that the middle class sacrifices by getting less goodies from the government and the rich sacrifice by paying moar taxes.

the rich pay for the programs they use and the programs everyone else uses
Click to expand...

Like McConnel said, dollar for dollar we trade our "goodies" for your "goodies". Believe me it will hurt us more. Happy now?
 
nota bene said:
That's right; it will never happen. But not for reasons to be thankful for.
Click to expand...


Depends on where your sitting...if you and your wife have to work part time in walmart because your job was outsourced and together you make 18,000 and you have a kid or two...you think they should pay 2700 in federal taxs...then state tax...then sales tax...then gas tax..then utility taxs..then have money to pay for food and clothing and shelter..and buy the kids shoes and haircuts and stuff for school...and pay for their drivers license registration and insurance...seriously are you kidding me...so after you take all these taxs out of them..which public assistance program do you recommend they go on...foodstamps ? medicaid ? rent and utitlity asst plus public paid housing.
Really cmon think about what your trying to EXPECT from people...you need to really put yourself in their shoes...this fires me up really..note im going to give you a scenario real quick..and please if you would tell me where im wrong and where im an idiot.

You have two people working husband and wife...one works in walmart 24 yrs and the other works in Publix supermarket works whats considered full time..32 hrs on minimum wage. Between the two lets say the earn per year...25,000, you want them to pay 15% flat federal tax.
Thats 3750.00, then state income tax, and social security and unemployment ins. Then their rent in a craphole 1 br apt is 600 a month
Then they have to buy food, pay their utils...the dont have a tv or cable and they dont have a phone. Now they have to pay transportation to and from work...they dont own a car cant afford it...but they still have to get to work. They still have to replace thier clothes now and then get a haircut and other of lifes necessities..THEY SPEND zero on entertainment they never go out ot eat never do anything for fun except have sex..
Do they make enough money to keep their head above water without having any children or any fun. Now keep in mind I didnt say what happens when they get sick..and have no health care..I didnt say what happens if one of them falls and breaks their leg and cant work.
What i want to know is just how much you expect from these people...so you can pay LESS and turtle can pay LESS and Paul Ryan can pay LESS and the CEO of citbank and GE can pay LESS...under no circumstances should all workers pay the same rate as the wealthy with a flat tax its absurd..who has more pain...this couple making 25000 paying 3750 or a guy making 400,000,000 paying 20%
 
iguanaman said:
Like McConnel said, dollar for dollar we trade our "goodies" for your "goodies". Believe me it will hurt us more. Happy now?
Click to expand...

lets see

we pay and get little in return

you get stuff and don't pay for it

We trade what we pay for with what we pay for?

its not like you are giving us a fair value to start with

our taxes go up and we don't get any benefits

you get less benefits that you don't pay for anyway

so you get LESS free stuff and we pay more

sounds like we are getting screwed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom