• 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

upsideguy said:
Because no society will stand in the long-term if the "spoils" are not equitably (fairly) distributed. The tax rate cuts of the early 1980's, which dropped the highest marginal rate under 50% were at the root of Wealth Disparity. Its reasonable to seek some roll-back of that as a means of easing the wealth disparity issue.View attachment 67179159
Click to expand...

wrong-what is the cause of wealth disparity is the changing economy and global labor markets. No longer can you get a middle class job easily with little education like could in the 50s working on an auto factory line. If you don't have hi-tech education skills you aren't going to get high wages. and government dependency is not helping with that
 
Conservative said:
Love proud liberals because they show why I could never be a liberal as I have much higher expectations than adding 7.6 trillion to the debt, having one million more people employed than 7 years ago when the recession began, having 7.5 million full time part time workers who want full time jobs, much of the GDP growth due to govt. spending, record numbers of discouraged workers during his term, higher premiums and still 30 million uninsured after Obamacare, 11.2% U-6 unemployment. Gruber sure nailed it in describing the liberal electorate and you appear to have very low expectations. Sorry I just don't see a lot to be proud of
Click to expand...

you are literally----- dead wrong.
PNFMYM7.jpg
 
Fenton said:
Nonsense.

Are you seriously telling me you would BELIEVE Obama if he promised more shovel ready jobs ?

Again ?

And besides, " Stimulus for infrastructure to increase aggregate demand " doesn't work.

Its like you people swore off the existence of Japan all together. Just because they've tried every left wing platitude and narrative you people upchuck on this forum daily and have FAILED.
Click to expand...
Of course it works, anytime you increase the number of jobs you increase demand which will increase the number of jobs.

The reason Reagan was successful was because he spent money on Cold War stuff...Keynesian economics... it wasn't because he cut taxes... That's a right wing myth.
 
Blue_State said:
You could probably guess, but I believe they have taxed us enough. I am also on the side that we should not be taxed by the Federal Government. Only the state. Unfortunately, that is never going away.
Click to expand...

Most of the south would become 3rd world without a year, and there goes the military as well

Come to think of it, that is a pretty great idea
 
ludin said:
semantics. you are filing what you will or will not owe and it is required 6 months after the person dies
according to the IRS. so yes it is a death tax.

semantics is not an argument but one makes it if they can't support their original position.
Click to expand...

It is not just semantics . Being required to file a report and being required to pay a tax are two very different things not just different words.
A "death tax" implies that the state taxes dying, it does not and never has.
The tax is paid by those receiving an unearned income in the form of an inheritance, just like winning the lottery is taxed as unearned income.
Calling inheritance tax a "death tax" is not only dishonest it is misleading and inaccurate.
If you don't like inheritance taxes, you can say so without lying.
For some reason you can't bring yourself to do that.
 
d head said:
The relevant knowledge is that inheritance tax is not "death tax".
I understand this simple fact.
You have yet to gain that relevant knowledge because you insist on clinging to erroneous terminology and the only arguments you have are fictitious scenarios.
Inheritance is unearned income and should be taxed.
Click to expand...

When do the estate taxes become due? Case closed. Learn something.
 
imagep said:
You would probably need to ask your wife how those issues were resolved, how the heck would I know. So did the dog end up with the money? I bet there were lot's of people volunteering to adopt it.

Anyhow, I get your point. It's a tax on large estates which is levied only after death.

For a number of years I have advocated that inheritance be treated exactly like any other form of income, and taxed at the standard income rate that earned income would have been taxed at.
Click to expand...

The estate provided for a caretaker of the dog who was compensated for the effort as long as the dog was living. To insure the dog didn't live to 50 years old, (think about it) she had to have an RFID chip surgically implanted, as well as a tattoo on the inside of it's lip.

As to inheritance tax, I disagree, but there is a tiny argument to be made about such a thing. Considering the actual number of estates in question, the whole effort amounts to little more than a false flag operation by the left. It's a effort to further the "rich are bastards" meme to keep the troops focused on a shiny object, while other, far more important issues go unchecked, and remain ignored.
 
haymarket said:
Since there is no death tax - there is nobody to pay it.


It is a purely political term used by political people in pursuit of a political goal to gain advantage in a political dispute. And that is admitted and acknowledged by one of the leading pushers of that dishonest term.
Click to expand...

You can flail, kick and scream, but the fact remains, it's a death tax. An estate is an extension of the person to whom it belongs. Upon that person's death, taxes are due. Not before. Until it's business is finalized, an estate remains an entity that must, if it qualifies, pay it's taxes due.

Your ignorance of this fact and your insistence it's not true only serves to further eliminate your credibility.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
"much of the GDP growth due to govt. spending"
Click to expand...

I think he was referring specifically to the last quarter, where a surge in government spending (gotta get those dollars out the door before the Fiscal Year ends) resulted in a much-celebrated "5% growth".
 
One of the more entertaining ironies is going after the Trust Fund rules that rich folks like Buffet et. al. use to shield their heirs from taxes.

Also interestingly, as I recall, that's what the Obama's have been using (as well as annual maximum "gifts") to pass on their wealth while minimizing their tax burden. Anyone want to bet there will be a grandfather addendum? :)
 
SlevinKelevra said:
you are literally----- dead wrong.
PNFMYM7.jpg
Click to expand...

Again percentage change, Really? Still waiting for you to explain why we need a 3.9 trillion dollar budget and why another Obama promise never was kept when he said he would go through the budget line by line cutting out waste, fraud, abuse, duplications? A 20$ increase un Reagan was 400 billion dollars, a 20% increase under Obama is 2.8-3.4 TRILLION. How much inflation would take 400 billion to 3.4 trillion?
 
pbrauer said:
Of course it works, anytime you increase the number of jobs you increase demand which will increase the number of jobs.

The reason Reagan was successful was because he spent money on Cold War stuff...Keynesian economics... it wasn't because he cut taxes... That's a right wing myth.
Click to expand...

Would you please show me the spending in the Reagan stimulus that brought us out of the 81-82 recession?
 
pbrauer said:
Of course it works, anytime you increase the number of jobs you increase demand which will increase the number of jobs.

The reason Reagan was successful was because he spent money on Cold War stuff...Keynesian economics... it wasn't because he cut taxes... That's a right wing myth.
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't. Japan blew through 10 different Stimulus packages in the 90s and they spent allot of it on " infrastructure ".

All it did was create allot of debt. Obama's first stimulus just created allot of debt. There was no substantial increase in economic growth.

How could there be ? He lied about " shovel ready " and his " green jobs initiative " was a joke.

Also Government spending as a percentage of GDP actually fell under Reagan.

" Fiscal stimulus for the purpose of increasing aggregate demand " doesn't work. But let's say in a alternate Universe it does.

Trusting the pathological liar that currently resides in the White House is a bit Naive of you, dont you think ?
 
ocean515 said:
You can flail, kick and scream, but the fact remains, it's a death tax. An estate is an extension of the person to whom it belongs. Upon that person's death, taxes are due. Not before. Until it's business is finalized, an estate remains an entity that must, if it qualifies, pay it's taxes due.

Your ignorance of this fact and your insistence it's not true only serves to further eliminate your credibility.
Click to expand...

It is a purely political term used by political people in pursuit of a political goal to gain advantage in a political dispute. And that is admitted and acknowledged by one of the leading pushers of that dishonest term.

Well-known Republican pollster Frank Luntz wrote that the term "death tax" "kindled voter resentment in a way that 'inheritance tax' and 'estate tax' do not"
Click to expand...

But allow me to indulge your ideological flight of fancy for a moment with a question: if it is indeed a DEATH TAX, what percentage of Americans who meet their DEATH each year pay that DEATH TAX?
 
Last edited:
Fenton said:
No, it doesn't. Japan blew through 10 different Stimulus packages in the 90s and they spent allot of it on " infrastructure ".

All it did was create allot of debt. Obama's first stimulus just created allot of debt. There was no substantial increase in economic growth.

How could there be ? He lied about " shovel ready " and his " green jobs initiative " was a joke.

Also Government spending as a percentage of GDP actually fell under Reagan.

" Fiscal stimulus for the purpose of increasing aggregate demand " doesn't work. But let's say in a alternate Universe it does.

Trusting the pathological liar that currently resides in the White House is a bit Naive of you, dont you think ?
Click to expand...

Japan’s 2-Decade Experiment with Fiscal Austerity


...
Fiscal austerity did not begin immediately, but “Japan’s experiment with Keynesian-style public works programmes” ended in 1997. The public works programs did not promote a significant recovery, but in the six years from 1992 to 1997, real GDP at least managed to grow at a feeble 1.3% annual rate. But in the two years after austerity began — public works spending being cut back and the consumption tax raised, real GDP fell by 2.1% (1998) and 0.1% (1999). Despite fiscal austerity after 1997, the budgetary situation steadily deteriorated, government outlays rising as percentage of GDP while tax revenues are 5% lower as a percentage of GDP than in 1988 when the consumption tax was introduced.

...
​
 
haymarket said:
It is a purely political term used by political people in pursuit of a political goal to gain advantage in a political dispute. And that is admitted and acknowledged by one of the leading pushers of that dishonest term.



But allow me to indulge your ideological flight of fancy for a moment with a question: if it is indeed a DEATH TAX, what percentage of Americans who meet their DEATH each year pay that DEATH TAX?
Click to expand...


DEATH TAX is an appropriate and accurate description of the TAX, since it only applies to people once they are DEAD.

As to your question, if I can dodge your kicking and flailing for a moment, I can answer it.

The percentage of Americans who meet their DEATH each year and are subject to the DEATH TAX is in direct correlation to the number of Estates to which the DEATH TAX applies.


Is there a flight number for your particular denier flight of fancy?
 
Conservative said:
Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address | Fox News

Let's here it Obama supporters how does taxing the rich benefit the U.S. economy and how much money is going to be generated to fund the liberal spending appetite?

Class warfare is never going to solve the problems we face in this country and what ever happened to incentive to create more upper class individuals? Growing up I always strove to generate enough money to pay for a family that I hoped to have and fund charities that I want to support. My education process taught me the value of hard work and the desire to succeed. What happened to that philosophy in today's world? Why is it the Federal Government's role to tell the private sector where to spend its own money and on what?
Click to expand...

Robin Hood would be proud.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
It's not about "penalizing risk taking." People who actually work for their income are punished under the current taxation system because they have a higher tax rate than those who pay capital gains tax.
Click to expand...

I work for my income. So does my husband. I also have investments which came about by us making investments with our earnings that we already paid taxes on. Believe it or not, some people actually both work and invest.
 
A Democrat calling for a tax increase; in other news the sky is blue.
 
More like tax revenues being REPLENISHED, after extremely unwise tax cuts since 1983.

I can only repeat former Senate Majority Leader Dole, who led the implementation of these tax cuts, along with Sen. Simpson of Simpson/Bowles fame.

The both called these tax cuts the very worst thing they did in their careers, after retiring of course .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom