• 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!

Obama, Republicans reach deal on fiscal cliff; Senate vote expected tonight

Objective Voice said:
I don't use any federal entitlement program - not welfare, not Medicaid, not unemployment, I don't live in a HUD home, I pay my own cell phone bill and I have private health insurance. Try laying that guilt trip on somebody else.
Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:
then why do you demand others pay more when they use even less than you do?
Click to expand...

You know why.

Urban Dictionary: liberal

liberal

Liberal is a person with liberal views. However, an EXTREME liberal is the WORST type of person. To start with they brainwash people. Then they convince you that their pre made views they hand to you are open minded. They tell you to hate Republicans and everyone who thinks differently than you. They are the first to throw around the word racist. Most extreme liberal abuse minorities. They look for a group typically blacks or hispanics, convince them they are nothing and need the liberals to survive, then exploit them for political power. Extreme liberals are usually igorant but claim everyone else is. They pretend to be looking out for the people but are only looking out for themselves. Some day people will realize this is the truth.
Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
when you start paying as much for each dollar of "benefits" you get than you will be in a position to make such a stupid comment. Its time for people like you to start getting billed for all the crap you want from government rather than telling others to pay your tab

I don't expect you to pay for me so why should I pay for you
Click to expand...
In 2011, someone making over one mill$ payed as a percent of income, Fed,state, and local taxes 29% ,those making up to 105k$ payed 29.5%.Those making over one mill$, their SS is payed in about five weeks,those making 105k$ pay SS all year long.:2wave:
 
Whipsnade said:
In 2011, someone making over one mill$ payed as a percent of income, Fed,state, and local taxes 29% ,those making up to 105k$ payed 29.5%.Those making over one mill$, their SS is payed in about five weeks,those making 105k$ pay SS all year long.:2wave:
Click to expand...

I find those numbers bogus and based on funny games with state tax rates and using FICA


so you think the purpose of the federal income tax is to balance out taxes at the state level taxes never intended to be progressive>
 
TurtleDude said:
I find those numbers bogus and based on funny games with state tax rates and using FICA


so you think the purpose of the federal income tax is to balance out taxes at the state level taxes never intended to be progressive>
Click to expand...

I'm shocked that you find "those numbers bogus".:roll: Where in my post did you get the idea that the purpose of "federal income tax is to balance out taxes "?NO! that would be the last thing i would want.Taxes are too skewed to the top 2% as it is now.

What i have in mind is % tax and ALL INCOME,be it in the Caymons,Burmuda,wherever. And SS collected on it as well.:peace
 
vvx said:
I suppose you are handing out millions of jobs (with a M) for all the moochers? Maybe you could give up your job for one of them?
Click to expand...

So you dont care about others and are a arrogant person, you don't care about the unemployment of Millions (with a M). yes because people having jobs and working and paying taxes to the government is bad right? according to you atleast.
 
Whipsnade said:
I'm shocked that you find "those numbers bogus".:roll: Where in my post did you get the idea that the purpose of "federal income tax is to balance out taxes "?NO! that would be the last thing i would want.Taxes are too skewed to the top 2% as it is now.

What i have in mind is % tax and ALL INCOME,be it in the Caymons,Burmuda,wherever. And SS collected on it as well.:peace
Click to expand...

well you seem to think federal taxes need to be even more progressive to make the overall tax bill much higher percentages on the rich because some taxes are flat or the same amount
 
TurtleDude said:
well you seem to think federal taxes need to be even more progressive to make the overall tax bill much higher percentages on the rich because some taxes are flat or the same amount
Click to expand...

Whats wrong with a percentage of all income, be it wages, stockmarket dividends,gramps will,bonuses.ALL INCOME PERIOD.

Almost forgot///HAPPY NEW YEAR TURTLDUDE.:2wave:
 
apdst said:
And who said you and I couldn't find something to agree on? :)
Click to expand...

No matter what we were going to get some sort of austerity package, and it looks like our turn has come.
 
cado20 said:
So you dont care about others and are a arrogant person, you don't care about the unemployment of Millions (with a M). yes because people having jobs and working and paying taxes to the government is bad right? according to you atleast.
Click to expand...

No paying taxes is necessary for the common good. Paying taxes for someone to survive because they aren't interested enough in making something out of their lives is their business, not mine, or the governments.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
No matter what we were going to get some sort of austerity package, and it looks like our turn has come.
Click to expand...

There needs to be an auterity package. You can't raise revenue to meet spending. You have to lower spending to meet revenue.
 
From the OP - just going through and responding.

Republicans gave in on the spending cuts, known as sequestration, by agreeing to a two-month delay in budget reductions that would be paid for in part with new tax revenue, a condition they had resisted. And the White House made a major concession on the estate tax, agreeing to terms that would permit estates worth as much as $15 million to escape taxation by the end of the decade, Democrats said.
Click to expand...

Wait. So we are going to be doing this again in two months?


uring a midday event at the White House, Obama praised the emerging agreement even though it would raise only about $600 billion over the next decade by White House estimates — far less than the $1.6 trillion the president had initially sought to extract from the nation’s richest households.
Click to expand...

Boehner offered Obama $800 Bn and he said that he "got that for free". I'd say that Democrats lost that round.


Other Democrats were upset about the administration’s decision to maintain a big exemption for inherited estates that allows those worth as much as $5 million — $10 million for couples — to go untaxed.

Although the White House won an agreement to raise the tax rates on larger estates from 35 percent to 40 percent, Republicans successfully insisted that the exemption should be adjusted annually for inflation, a provision that would increase the exemption amount to $7.5 million for individuals and $15 million for couples by 2020, said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee.
Click to expand...

I loathe this tax in general, but indexing it for inflation is just smart - no need to create another AMT like debacle. Now we need to do the same for long-term capital gains.

Under the agreement, the top income tax rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent for married couples earning more than $450,000 a year and single people earning more than $400,000 a year. Those households also would pay higher rates on investment profits, with rates on dividends and capital gains rising from 15 percent to 20 percent.
Click to expand...

And hiking Capital Gains rates on top of the additional Obamacare tax on them is a loss for Republicans - that's a more than 25% hike in capital gains tax rates for upper income earners.

In addition to permanently extending tax cuts enacted during the George W. Bush administration for 114 million households, the deal calls for a permanent fix for the alternative minimum tax, which would otherwise hit nearly 30 million taxpayers for the first time when they file their 2012 returns.
Click to expand...

THIS is EXCELLENT. No more monkeying around with temporary tax rates.

The long-term unemployed could count on receiving emergency benefits for another year, at a cost of about $30 billion.
Click to expand...

This is a problem - as long as we continue to pay people not to have jobs, they won't have them.

doctors would be spared a 27 percent cut in Medicare reimbursements set to take effect in January — although the $30 billion cost of that extension would be covered by cutting other health-care programs.
Click to expand...

Expected, though it sort of blows the hole in the 'Obamacare reduces the deficit' shibboleth.

the sequester was back on the table. The White House at first sought a two-year delay, which would have added more than $200 billion to budget deficits. Republicans demanded new spending cuts and offered $120 billion in options.

As the talks continued, Obama appeared at the White House, demanding in a campaign-style event that any plan to pay for the sequester must be “balanced.”

“That means the revenues have to be part of the equation in turning off the sequester and eliminating these automatic spending cuts,” he said.
Click to expand...

Sure. So long as you agree to serious entitlement reform. Otherwise, you're not negotiating on "permanent tax rates" in good faith.
 
apdst said:
There needs to be an auterity package. You can't raise revenue to meet spending. You have to lower spending to meet revenue.
Click to expand...

I agree that we need to cut spending but you and i probably disagree where spending needs to get cut at.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I agree that we need to cut spending but you and i probably disagree where spending needs to get cut at.
Click to expand...

I think we need to do away with all frivolous and wasteful spending that does absolutely jack-****-nothing for the country.
 
apdst said:
I think we need to do away with all frivolous and wasteful spending that does absolutely jack-****-nothing for the country.
Click to expand...

I agree with that.
But what im saying is that we probably disagree with what "jack-****" means.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I agree with that.
But what im saying is that we probably disagree with what "jack-****" means.
Click to expand...

I would say that $4 million dollars vacations, deer underpasses and turtle tunnels should be at the top of the list.
 
TurtleDude said:
uh you are completely wrong. those all involve different transactions

when a company makes money that money belongs to the owners

the same government taxes the same money twice
Click to expand...

I don't get this. Corporations are -- by definition -- separate entities from the ownership. That's the whole point of limited liabability. That's the price you pay for protection, as an investor, from whatever liabilities a corporation may accrue.
 
upsideguy said:
How do you think we went for $400B (which is not the correct number, its more like $641B) to $1.2T? Its not because we suddenly increased spending. Its because revenues essentially evaporated with the recession. We went from $1.85T in income tax receipts in 2008 to $1.4T in 2009, a difference of $450B in tax receipt shortfall caused by the recession. Add to that $100B in unemployment benefit increase and you are talking about $550B in deficits caused almost exclusively by the recession. Fix the recession and you fix most of the deficit.

See table 1.1 from the Budget for each of these numbers. Take note of the revenue fall-off from 2008 to 2009.

View attachment 67140167
Click to expand...

Oh. The 200 billion less in revenue (inevitable in a recession) is responsible, not the 1.2 trillion increase in spending? Silly me.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
I don't get this. Corporations are -- by definition -- separate entities from the ownership. That's the whole point of limited liabability. That's the price you pay for protection, as an investor, from whatever liabilities a corporation may accrue.
Click to expand...

Only certain kinds of companies.
 
TurtleDude said:
LOL workers of the world unite mantra.
Click to expand...

It's not about "workers of the world unite." But is about the ethical distribution of capital. The only reason government -- a representative government like ours, at least -- desires to redistribute wealth is in response to a political imbalance. As I'm sure you recognize, as long as labor is failing to keep pace with capital, there will be political pressure toward redistribution.
 
Republic Now! said:
Oh. The 200 billion less in revenue (inevitable in a recession) is responsible, not the 1.2 trillion increase in spending? Silly me.
Click to expand...

If I make enough to pay my bills, but lose my job, do the bills disappear? To combat this, don't I need to cut what sending I can and seek more employment? Want I'm saying is the choice you present is false.
 
Boo Radley said:
If I make enough to pay my bills, but lose my job, do the bills disappear? To combat this, don't I need to cut what sending I can and seek more employment? Want I'm saying is the choice you present is false.
Click to expand...

It's much easier to control your spending then it is your revenue. You can do things to try to increase your revenue, but there is no guarantee of success. You can largely be certain that spending cuts will be successful.
 
Republic Now! said:
It's much easier to control your spending then it is your revenue. You can do things to try to increase your revenue, but there is no guarantee of success. You can largely be certain that spending cuts will be successful.
Click to expand...

Not sure that's entirely true. But, the point is, you'd do as much of both as you can, within reason.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not sure that's entirely true. But, the point is, you'd do as much of both as you can, within reason.
Click to expand...

Yes, starting by not spending 1.2 trillion more than I take in until I manage to increase my revenue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom