• 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

Conservative said:
I asked you to post the information on the GDP Components and the contribution each makes to the GDP, you have made no such post. again point me to the post that did that?
Click to expand...
What do think I posted? It is a graph showing the major components, along with the link to the pdf....all from the St Louis FED.

If I went more complex than that, you would be befuddled....so I kept it simple. Yet here you are befuddled by simple graphs.
 
Conservative said:
Now that is a response that I expected when you cannot refute the information posted. I feel so sorry for people like you who bought an ideology that makes you look foolish. No, the govt. hasn't prevented me from becoming self sufficient but it has prevented small businesses from growing and hiring people. You buy what you are told and ignore results, that says it all.

I suggest you think more and stop buying what the left tells you. Think, how much more money is the middle class going to get from an Obama tax cut since many in that middle class don't pay any income taxes due to deductions, tax credits, and the Bush tax cuts. What you are seeing is nothing more than Obama appealing to his ignorant base. I expect more out of you than this.
Click to expand...

Would the poor economy have prevented small business hiring? Seems reasonable.
Large companies are sitting on significant cash amounts as they do not see the economy improving, And will do so until they see that.
Now the middle class many pay little tax.
Can you define middle class and provide evidence they pay little tax?
Define what you mean by "many"?
On another thread a member posted the poor pay no tax and just go on welfare. Do you agree with the point the member made?
Copied below
Poor people don't pay income taxes and they consume goods, using taxpayer funded welfare.
Creating more poormfolks isn't going to help the the economy.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
What do think I posted? It is a graph showing the major components, along with the link to the pdf....all from the St Louis FED.

If I went more complex than that, you would be befuddled....so I kept it simple. Yet here you are befuddled by simple graphs.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you posted, what was the post number?
 
JANFU said:
Would the poor economy have prevented small business hiring? Seems reasonable.
Large companies are sitting on significant cash amounts as they do not see the economy improving, And will do so until they see that.
Now the middle class many pay little tax.
Can you define middle class and provide evidence they pay little tax?
Define what you mean by "many"?
On another thread a member posted the poor pay no tax and just go on welfare. Do you agree with the point the member made?
Copied below
Poor people don't pay income taxes and they consume goods, using taxpayer funded welfare.
Creating more poormfolks isn't going to help the the economy.
Click to expand...

Yes, the poor economy would lead to less hiring, your point? Where was the Obama leadership? Stimulus? LOL, Obamacare? LOL

Yes, companies are sitting on a large amount of cash because they have no idea what Obamacare or what the next Obama tax and regulations are going to cost. they cannot print money therefore they have to save their case in anticipation of higher costs

Yes, the middle class pays very little in income taxes as evidenced by the number of people that actual do pay federal income taxes. You can get that number from the IRS.

Robert Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the University of California-Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor, has suggested the middle class be defined as households making 50 percent higher and lower than the median, which would mean the average middle class annual income is $25,500 to $76,500
Click to expand...

Many means that approximately 47% of all income earners or the 147 million working Americans pay almost zero FIT, that is an IRS number

If you get unemployment insurance for two years where is the incentive to find a job

Yes, poor people getting welfare buy certain goods and service but not enough to make a difference in the economy. Most buy the necessities and not what it takes to keep the economy growing

Creating more poor folks is what the Democrat Party is doing, reducing incentives to work and creating greater dependence thus giving the Congress more power
 
ocean515 said:
Nice.

I thought I'd add something. Consider it a gift in return for the recipe.
Click to expand...

Did you recognize that recipe? It is what many people - almost all people in fact - call and APPLE PIE. But I think it sounds better if you name it after a teeny tiny ingredient that makes up less that 99.9% of the pie- CINAMMON.

You are doing the same thing. Even though 99.% of the Americans who die each year do not pay an estate tax - you and some others prefer to name it after a teeny tiny slice of the people who do pay it and die just like all the other 99.9% even though they are dead but DO NOT PAY and ridiculous DEATH TAX.

And some desk jockey who writes IRS code is just as much a total idiot if he subscribes to the same nonsense.

Do you have a recipe for humble pie?
Click to expand...

I suspect you are the master in that department. Feel free to post your tried and true one. You have earned it.
 
Conservative said:
Yes, the poor economy would lead to less hiring, your point? Where was the Obama leadership? Stimulus? LOL, Obamacare? LOL

Yes, companies are sitting on a large amount of cash because they have no idea what Obamacare or what the next Obama tax and regulations are going to cost. they cannot print money therefore they have to save their case in anticipation of higher costs

Yes, the middle class pays very little in income taxes as evidenced by the number of people that actual do pay federal income taxes. You can get that number from the IRS.



Many means that approximately 47% of all income earners or the 147 million working Americans pay almost zero FIT, that is an IRS number

If you get unemployment insurance for two years where is the incentive to find a job

Yes, poor people getting welfare buy certain goods and service but not enough to make a difference in the economy. Most buy the necessities and not what it takes to keep the economy growing

Creating more poor folks is what the Democrat Party is doing, reducing incentives to work and creating greater dependence thus giving the Congress more power
Click to expand...

The world economy is in slow growth and many worry deflation in some countries. Blaming the president and ObamaCare does not cut it.
Tax increase/ cuts - along with spending cuts - well all are needed.
Business is sitting on cash as they do not see an expansion- Not due to ObamaCare, that is a partisan opinion.
The 47 % that Romney spoke about?
 
JANFU said:
The world economy is in slow growth and many worry deflation in some countries. Blaming the president and ObamaCare does not cut it.
Tax increase/ cuts - along with spending cuts - well all are needed.
Business is sitting on cash as they do not see an expansion- Not due to ObamaCare, that is a partisan opinion.
The 47 % that Romney spoke about?
Click to expand...

The U.S. economy is the best in the world. If you sit around on your ass waiting for something to happen, it will and you won't like the results.

Why are tax increases necessary? do you have any idea what the budget of the United States is and where the money goes? Please explain to me why we need a 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt. along with your state and local governments?

Have you ever done any business planning. Companies plan at least five years into the future. Do you have any idea what Obama did to business in 2009? Where does the money come from to pay for higher taxes and higher employee benefits? What if the consumer won't pay for those cost increases? Where does the company get the money?

The 47% Romney talked about came from IRS data, where else should it come from?
 
Conservative said:
I have no idea what you posted, what was the post number?
Click to expand...
FFS, the response in post 626 was a link to the original post. Can't you get anything right tonight? Don't you recognize a link when it is posted?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Both, that one....and the one I posted, show clearly the con got it wrong.
Click to expand...

But "that one" didn't show any such thing. Your compatriot is making a foolish argument regardless of how on point you think your argument is.
 
jmotivator said:
But "that one" didn't show any such thing.
Click to expand...
Yes, it did, GDP gains were occurring as G declined, ergo G was not the cause of GDP gains.
Your compatriot is making a foolish argument regardless of how on point you think your argument is.
Click to expand...
The posters graph, as did mine, showed con was incorrect which neither you nor con can accept.....but then I did not expect an acceptance of facts from either of you.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
his point was not about multipliers or ROI.

his point was that the GDP increased ("much") due to an increase in the "G" component in the equation that defines GDP. Which is of course completely at odds with what the data I provided show.
Click to expand...

I missed this.

The average "G" was very high for the last 7 years compared to the previous 16 in both dollars and % of GDP. There is no doubt that the dollars spent over the last 7 years have been very high. Your graph doesn't show your point, nor does it prove Conservative's point.

As for "much increased", I would have to side with Conservative based on the $3.5 trillion from QE 1,2&3 as well as the nearly $1 trillion in stimulus we are talking $4+ trillion pumped into the economy... I think that qualifies as "much".
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Yes, it did, GDP gains were occurring as G declined, ergo G was not the cause of GDP gains.The posters graph, as did mine, showed con was incorrect which neither you nor con can accept.....but then I did not expect an acceptance of facts from either of you.
Click to expand...

The average over that 7 years was still well above average, the private GDP eventually catching up to the federal spending doesn't prove your point.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
The 47% Romney talked about came from IRS data, where else should it come from?
Click to expand...

The 47% are the 47% because money doesn't trickle-down. The bottom 50% only possess 2% of the nation's wealth.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
The average over that 7 years was still well above average, the private GDP eventually catching up to the federal spending doesn't prove your point.
Click to expand...
Private GDP? LOL....we were discussing US GDP, which includes G, if G declined as GDP gains were realized, the gains could not come from a declining contribution.

Please...stop.
 
tres borrachos said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that, but that doesn't erase the fact that many people don't fit into that category.
 
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

I agree that is a part of the story; but only a part. Also playing into this is the decline of unions (that would have also acted to keep some companies from off-shoring manufacturing)Eco trends - unionincome.jpg


However, if you simply look at the multiple of CEO pay to average workers and minimum wage workers, you will note that wealth (in this case, income) disparity has widened significantly without even considering the middle class. Moreover, CEO pay has widened vis-a-vis corporate profits, showing CEO's are getting more "pie" than ever (the fat cats are getting fatter)

Wealth Disparity - ceo pay.gif


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...iple-of-workers-skirts-law-as-sec-delays.html
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Did you recognize that recipe? It is what many people - almost all people in fact - call and APPLE PIE. But I think it sounds better if you name it after a teeny tiny ingredient that makes up less that 99.9% of the pie- CINAMMON.

You are doing the same thing. Even though 99.% of the Americans who die each year do not pay an estate tax - you and some others prefer to name it after a teeny tiny slice of the people who do pay it and die just like all the other 99.9% even though they are dead but DO NOT PAY and ridiculous DEATH TAX.

And some desk jockey who writes IRS code is just as much a total idiot if he subscribes to the same nonsense.



I suspect you are the master in that department. Feel free to post your tried and true one. You have earned it.
Click to expand...


LOL.

You can throw yourself on the ground and kick and scream, but it's a death tax. The IRS labels it as such, and that is precisely what it is. Your "teeny, tiny" bit, including the pie bit, while entertaining, is actually quite lame. It has no relevance. Of course, that doesn't stop you from now claiming the IRS doesn't know what it's doing, because, well, the almighty haymarket knows better.

Man, one thing is for sure, humble pie is not on your menu, as it would appear the main ingredient could never be found in your kitchen. An Arrogance layer cake is no doubt more probable.
 
ocean515 said:
LOL.

You can throw yourself on the ground and kick and scream, but it's a death tax. The IRS labels it as such, and that is precisely what it is. Your "teeny, tiny" bit, including the pie bit, while entertaining, is actually quite lame. It has no relevance. Of course, that doesn't stop you from now claiming the IRS doesn't know what it's doing, because, well, the almighty haymarket knows better.
Click to expand...

1- my pie example has complete relevance as it destroys your argument and shows the complete fraud of it. That is why you resist it and criticize it.

2- you have mentioned the IRS label - lets see it. Produce it.

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Estate-Tax

Estate Tax
The Estate Tax is a tax on your right to transfer property at your death. It consists of an accounting of everything you own or have certain interests in at the date of death (Refer to Form 706 (PDF)). The fair market value of these items is used, not necessarily what you paid for them or what their values were when you acquired them. The total of all of these items is your "Gross Estate." The includible property may consist of cash and securities, real estate, insurance, trusts, annuities, business interests and other assets.
Once you have accounted for the Gross Estate, certain deductions (and in special circumstances, reductions to value) are allowed in arriving at your "Taxable Estate." These deductions may include mortgages and other debts, estate administration expenses, property that passes to surviving spouses and qualified charities. The value of some operating business interests or farms may be reduced for estates that qualify.
After the net amount is computed, the value of lifetime taxable gifts (beginning with gifts made in 1977) is added to this number and the tax is computed. The tax is then reduced by the available unified credit.
Most relatively simple estates (cash, publicly traded securities, small amounts of other easily valued assets, and no special deductions or elections, or jointly held property) do not require the filing of an estate tax return. A filing is required for estates with combined gross assets and prior taxable gifts exceeding $1,500,000 in 2004 - 2005; $2,000,000 in 2006 - 2008; $3,500,000 for decedents dying in 2009; and $5,000,000 or more for decedent's dying in 2010 and 2011 (note: there are special rules for decedents dying in 2010); $5,120,000 in 2012, $5,250,000 in 2013, $5,340,000 in 2014 and $5,430,000 in 2015.
Beginning January 1, 2011, estates of decedents survived by a spouse may elect to pass any of the decedent’s unused exemption to the surviving spouse. This election is made on a timely filed estate tax return for the decedent with a surviving spouse. Note that simplified valuation provisions apply for those estates without a filing requirement absent the portability election.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
1- my pie example has complete relevance as it destroys your argument and shows the complete fraud of it. That is why you resist it and criticize it.

2- you have mentioned the IRS label - lets see it. Produce it.
Click to expand...

LOL. The only thing you've destroyed is what little credibility you hoped you had. How many of those small percentage of people you reference are dead? I rest my case.

Estate tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term "death tax"[edit]

The caption for section 303 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, enacted on August 16, 1954, refers to estate taxes, inheritance taxes, legacy taxes and succession taxes imposed because of the death of an individual as "death taxes." That wording remains in the caption of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.​

Are you going to bang pots and pans while you kick and scream and throw a tantrum in the face of your failure?

Really, why die on this hill? What is it about DEATH TAXES that causes the left to go apoplectic over it's use? What are liberal/progressive afraid of? The truth?

Go on, explain your obsession.
 
ocean515 said:
LOL. The only thing you've destroyed is what little credibility you hoped you had. How many of those small percentage of people you reference are dead? I rest my case.

Estate tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term "death tax"[edit]

The caption for section 303 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, enacted on August 16, 1954, refers to estate taxes, inheritance taxes, legacy taxes and succession taxes imposed because of the death of an individual as "death taxes." That wording remains in the caption of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.​

Are you going to bang pots and pans while you kick and scream and throw a tantrum in the face of your failure?

Really, why die on this hill? What is it about DEATH TAXES that causes the left to go apoplectic over it's use? What are liberal/progressive afraid of? The truth?

Go on, explain your obsession.
Click to expand...

You still have NOT reproduced the IRS language you say is there. All you have done is reproduce a statement from another source saying the language is there.

You can attack me all you want and use silly hyperbolic language in doing so but that is a poor substitute for the actual language you claim is there in the IRS sections.
 
haymarket said:
You still have NOT reproduced the IRS language you say is there. All you have done is reproduce a statement from another source saying the language is there.

You can attack me all you want and use silly hyperbolic language in doing so but that is a poor substitute for the actual language you claim is there in the IRS sections.
Click to expand...


Geeze, you're succeeding in redefining pathetic. Here you go, as reprinted.

26 U.S. Code § 302 - Distributions in redemption of stock | LII / Legal Information Institute

(f) Cross references
For special rules relating to redemption—

(1) Death Taxes.— Of stock to pay death taxes, see section 303.

(2) Section 306 Stock.— Of section 306 stock, see section 306.

(3) Liquidations.— Of stock in complete liquidation, see section 331.​


You know, I don't usually go back and step on a bug I've already taken care of, so I really don't understand why you're making me do the same type of thing.

Why don't you re-write the code if DEATH TAXES appearing in the IRS code is causing you heart failure.

:lamo
 
ocean515 said:
Geeze, you're succeeding in redefining pathetic. Here you go, as reprinted.

26 U.S. Code § 302 - Distributions in redemption of stock | LII / Legal Information Institute

(f) Cross references
For special rules relating to redemption—

(1) Death Taxes.— Of stock to pay death taxes, see section 303.

(2) Section 306 Stock.— Of section 306 stock, see section 306.

(3) Liquidations.— Of stock in complete liquidation, see section 331.​


You know, I don't usually go back and step on a bug I've already taken care of, so I really don't understand why you're making me do the same type of thing.

Why don't you re-write the code if DEATH TAXES appearing in the IRS code is causing you heart failure.

:lamo
Click to expand...

I followed your link:

(a) In general
A distribution of property to a shareholder by a corporation in redemption of part or all of the stock of such corporation which (for Federal estate tax purposes) is included in determining the gross estate of a decedent, to the extent that the amount of such distribution does not exceed the sum of—
(1) the estate, inheritance, legacy, and succession taxes (including any interest collected as a part of such taxes) imposed because of such decedent’s death, and
Click to expand...

It does not say that there is a tax on the death of a person. It says that the tax on the estate and inheritance and other taxes that are imposed because of the death.

Why do you insist on being so personally insulting in your replies? Why can't you simply present the information without all the attached slights, attacks and insults that you throw in?

Do you know what a Boston Cream Pie is?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom