• 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 to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

Why do the middle class like their products? They created something that the middle class wants and you want to penalize them for it. If you truly admire them then let them spend their money wherever they want. It isn't the role of the Federal Govt. to take care of the poor in your community, that is your job and the neighbors in your community. You have bought the liberal rhetoric that it is the role of the massive central govt. to provide domestic welfare when it is the role of the Federal Govt. to promote domestic welfare. Why do you support such waste, fraud, and abuse of our Federal Tax dollars. Tell me how any rich person prevented you from becoming rich or getting a bigger share of the growing pie? I keep asking the question and liberals ignore it.

You ignored my question and went back to your same old rant. I'll try one more time. How would Bill Gates have gotten rich without a middle class with the money to buy his products? It does not matter how much someone wants an item if he cannot afford to BUY it. It is the middle class that is failing not the wealthy.
 
You ignored my question and went back to your same old rant. I'll try one more time. How would Bill Gates have gotten rich without a middle class with the money to buy his products? It does not matter how much someone wants an item if he cannot afford to BUY it. It is the middle class that is failing not the wealthy.

I can't quite understand how the government expects to benefit the "middle class", when it's been the primary cause for the troubles faced by the middle class. How does a capital gain payment on inherited stock, where no capital gain has been realized, benefit the middle class?
 
All this back-and-forth aside, raising taxes in a frail anemic recovery is a recipe for killing that recovery. THAT is a FACT. . . PERIOD

Only an idiot would propose such a thing.
 
I can't quite understand how the government expects to benefit the "middle class", when it's been the primary cause for the troubles faced by the middle class. How does a capital gain payment on inherited stock, where no capital gain has been realized, benefit the middle class?

As long as Obama promises to tax the rich more and make them share the wealth, it makes the people eaten up with class envy feel those thrills run up their leg again. It doesn't have to actually benefit anyone to be wildly popular with idiots.
 
I can't quite understand how the government expects to benefit the "middle class", when it's been the primary cause for the troubles faced by the middle class. How does a capital gain payment on inherited stock, where no capital gain has been realized, benefit the middle class?

Higher taxation obviously helps no one, but a shifting of tax burden can be beneficial to the majority, and beneficial to our economy.

Higher taxation on inheritance can be offset by lower tax rates in the lower tax brackets. I'd much prefer to pay my taxes after death, when I no longer have a need for wealth, than to pay taxes on income that I earn while I am alive.
 
Which still doesn't answer the question about how removing the money from the ecomomy benefits anyone....

It doesn't remove it from the economy. Just the opposite. It puts the money back into the economy. Think of it as the opposite of "Trickle Down". Its trickle up economics. Put the money in the hands of the working and middle class and they are likely to put it back into the economy.
 
All this back-and-forth aside, raising taxes in a frail anemic recovery is a recipe for killing that recovery. THAT is a FACT. . . PERIOD

Only an idiot would propose such a thing.

I really don't think that active discussion of tax policy is harmful to our economy, although down-talking the economy to gain political power can be.

Like Obamacare for instance, it's effectively neutral to our macroeconomy (some people are a little better off, others are harmed just a tad, they factor each other out), but I would think that people who have been claiming that Obamacare is going to destroy our economy have themselves caused a certain amount of economic harm by making such claims (and thus retarding consumer spending and business expansion due to the fear factor).
 
Higher taxation obviously helps no one, but a shifting of tax burden can be beneficial to the majority, and beneficial to our economy.

Higher taxation on inheritance can be offset by lower tax rates in the lower tax brackets. I'd much prefer to pay my taxes after death, when I no longer have a need for wealth, than to pay taxes on income that I earn while I am alive.

My understanding is that is not how it's going to work. If you are a beneficiary of estate, regardless of your income status, you will be required to pay capital gains taxes on the cost differential at the time of death, rather than when you dispose of the asset. That means that some people will be forced to sell assets in order to pay capital gains taxes, even though they had no plans to dispose of the assets.

What an outrageous POS proposal.
 
I really don't think that active discussion of tax policy is harmful to our economy, although down-talking the economy to gain political power can be.. . . . .

Okay. You got me on a technicality. Yes, "discussion" of tax policy is not harmful to our economy. But why even discuss raising taxes when its a bad thing to do and when it would never pass Congress? What is Obama's purpose other than to deflect from real issues at hand.

.... . . . . Like Obamacare for instance, it's effectively neutral to our macroeconomy (some people are a little better off, others are harmed just a tad, they factor each other out), but I would think that people who have been claiming that Obamacare is going to destroy our economy have themselves caused a certain amount of economic harm by making such claims (and thus retarding consumer spending and business expansion due to the fear factor).

I totally disagree. Obamacare is a job killer, and that is bad for everyone.
 
I really don't think that active discussion of tax policy is harmful to our economy, although down-talking the economy to gain political power can be.

Like Obamacare for instance, it's effectively neutral to our macroeconomy (some people are a little better off, others are harmed just a tad, they factor each other out), but I would think that people who have been claiming that Obamacare is going to destroy our economy have themselves caused a certain amount of economic harm by making such claims (and thus retarding consumer spending and business expansion due to the fear factor).

:shock:

You didn't just blame people who don't like Obamacare for harming the economy did you?
 
My understanding is that is not how it's going to work. If you are a beneficiary of estate, regardless of your income status, you will be required to pay capital gains taxes on the cost differential at the time of death, rather than when you dispose of the asset. That means that some people will be forced to sell assets in order to pay capital gains taxes, even though they had no plans to dispose of the assets.

What an outrageous POS proposal.

Don't get too worked up. Obama is just trying to get his polling numbers out of the basement so he's going to be making all kinds of promises and blowing all kinds of pinko dog whistles. All that barking you hear in response is just dogs doing what dogs do. The house and senate are going to bend him over and shove his proposals right back where he got them from.
 
Minimum Wage Workers in Texas ? 2013 : Southwest Information Office : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Texas-Size Recovery

"Fact: Texas along with Mississippi has the highest percentage of workers at or below the minimum wage, according to BLS data"


Damn those pesky facts getting in the way of your attempts to dance and shuffle around Con!


Yep, continue to distort and try to divert. I was wrong, the latest number of Californians making minimum wage is 2.4 million which of course is much less than the 500,000 Texans. Interesting how you cannot seem to comprehend that reality and no matter how many times you make the statement that Texas has more people on Minimum wage than California it remains a lie.

Now back to the topic, please tell me exactly how some rich person kept you from becoming rich and how 32 billion dollars per year is going to help pay for the current 500 billion debt each year?
 
Most of this money is made off overseas and is untaxed in the US profits so just think of it as a windfall tax. Close the offshoring of IP then maybe I will be willing to give your vodoo doll a poke.

Since we have a labor force of 157 million with 147 million working how many of them are hiding their profits overseas? You seem to think like govt. bureaucrats that businesses are charities. They aren't and are in business to make a profit which is used to hire and pay employees and as in large corporations pay their shareholders many of whom are seniors. Thank God for investment income and those profits or more and more seniors would be living totally on SS
 
Bit of a shame that capital gains will still be taxed less than regular income under this proposal.

Which is why we need to eliminate capital gains taxes and simply have the money declared as income and tax it according to the normal schedules. They should do the exact same thing with transfers of wealth also from one person to another. No estate tax or inheritance taxes - just consider it all as income and tax it according to the normal schedules.
 
It does not matter if the pie gets bigger when the wealthy are getting a larger and larger piece of it. Their % of the economy keeps growing. it is unsustainable.

So what? Still waiting for an answer, how has any rich person prevented you from joining them? There is plenty of room at the top, but the govt. isn't going to get you there.
 
It doesn't remove it from the economy. Just the opposite. It puts the money back into the economy. Think of it as the opposite of "Trickle Down". Its trickle up economics. Put the money in the hands of the working and middle class and they are likely to put it back into the economy.
:lamo..

taxing , at the federal level, removes the money from the economy.

Tax revenues from the rich are not transferred to the poor or middle class in any shape ,form ,or fashion.

If Obamas desire is for the middle class to keep more of their money in the economy, he simply needs to cut their taxes...
cutting the tax on the middle class I get...but I'm not understanding what he thinks the benefit of raising the taxes on the rich is supposed to be....economically speaking, his actions make no sense.

Politically speaking, I get it...but econonically?...nope..no sense at all.
 
Don't get too worked up. Obama is just trying to get his polling numbers out of the basement so he's going to be making all kinds of promises and blowing all kinds of pinko dog whistles. All that barking you hear in response is just dogs doing what dogs do. The house and senate are going to bend him over and shove his proposals right back where he got them from.

Thanks for the advice PB. I'm actually not too worked up over it, for the reasons you stated.

However, the checks we have to balance against these outrageous proposals are but for a brief period of time, and the class envy sabre will be swinging at blurring speeds over the next two years as posturing takes place in preparation for the next Presidential/Congressional election cycle. Knowing they don't stand a chance now shouldn't lull anyone into thinking they aren't going to be scoring points with people who buy into their bogus message. As such, I think it imperative to use these bogus proposals to expose the messengers for who and what they are.
 
You ignored my question and went back to your same old rant. I'll try one more time. How would Bill Gates have gotten rich without a middle class with the money to buy his products? It does not matter how much someone wants an item if he cannot afford to BUY it. It is the middle class that is failing not the wealthy.

Bill Gates started with nothing, developed a product that people wanted and people purchased from the money they earned on their jobs or do you think the govt. gave them the money to buy Microsoft products? You like far too many are just envious of anyone who has more than you have and expects the govt. to even things out for you. That is never going to happen. Now answer the question, how did Bill Gates or any other rich person prevent you from joining them?
 
So what? Still waiting for an answer, how has any rich person prevented you from joining them? There is plenty of room at the top, but the govt. isn't going to get you there.

One way, often used, is by helping to pass (lobbying for) laws that make competition much more difficult. It is no problem for a mega corporation to devote thousands (if not millions) to getting "compliance" laws passed that only a large business can possibly afford to meet.
 
So what? Still waiting for an answer, how has any rich person prevented you from joining them? There is plenty of room at the top, but the govt. isn't going to get you there.

Good post. Those who complain about the super rich are almost always those who have not exhibited the single-minded drive to become super-rich themselves. They are usually people with mediocre grades, who don't try to excel, maybe even smoke a doobie every now and then, and then snivel when purpose-driven success-oriented people get rich. Its sheer envy and sniveling.

Then idiots like Obama come along and want to punish such single-minded, driven, success-oriented people so he can give free phones to bums and buy the votes of the lazy and the mediocre. It is decidedly UN-American
 
Since we have a labor force of 157 million with 147 million working how many of them are hiding their profits overseas? You seem to think like govt. bureaucrats that businesses are charities. They aren't and are in business to make a profit which is used to hire and pay employees and as in large corporations pay their shareholders many of whom are seniors. Thank God for investment income and those profits or more and more seniors would be living totally on SS

Apple shields most of its profits overseas, and therefore it is not taxed in the US the first time, let alone twice. If we are not taxing it at the corporate level, then we need to be taxing it at the stockholder level. My preference would be to reign in corporate largesse and tax them more heavily and not tax cap gains at all, but since the both parties are bought and paid for by the corporations, one of which having convinced many of its poor voters that it is in their best interest that rich people pay no taxes, it will never happen.
 
Thanks for the advice PB. I'm actually not too worked up over it, for the reasons you stated.

However, the checks we have to balance against these outrageous proposals are but for a brief period of time, and the class envy sabre will be swinging at blurring speeds over the next two years as posturing takes place in preparation for the next Presidential/Congressional election cycle. Knowing they don't stand a chance now shouldn't lull anyone into thinking they aren't going to be scoring points with people who buy into their bogus message. As such, I think it imperative to use these bogus proposals to expose the messengers for who and what they are.

The good fight must be fought. :) I just don't think there's any question that the timing of these "proposals" has everything to do with the fact that his approval numbers absolutely suck. He's begging to regain the love that he lost from his pinko base. He's just trying to reignite the romance with the freestuffers that once thought of him as "The Messiah".
 
Then idiots like Obama come along and want to punish such single-minded, driven, success-oriented people so he can give free phones to bums and buy the votes of the lazy and the mediocre. It is decidedly UN-American

You spelled Reagan wrong
 
Okay. You got me on a technicality. Yes, "discussion" of tax policy is not harmful to our economy. But why even discuss raising taxes when its a bad thing to do and when it would never pass Congress? What is Obama's purpose other than to deflect from real issues at hand.

I dunno about Obama's madness. I'm not an Obama supporter.

I totally disagree. Obamacare is a job killer, and that is bad for everyone.

Yet job growth seemed to be picking up, the closer we got to the employer mandate. Now the mandate is effective, and I'm not exactly seeing the economic devastation that so many far right political talking heads were predicting. Economic realty doesn't seem to support the far right rhetoric (as usual, no surprises to me).

I really don't understand why anyone honestly thought it was a jobs killer when 98% of all companies that were required to offer insurance already did. I do totally get why people like to believe that though, as it's the only argument conservatives seem to be able to muster against this conservative idea.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an Obamacare supporter any more than I am an Obama supporter, I actually had a one on one private meeting with my congressman to opposed Obamacare and to suggest better alternatives. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to bash Obamacare, but it being a "jobs killer" isn't one of them.
 
Back
Top Bottom