• 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 Announces 'Framework' for Deal With Congress to Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts

That would be different for every person filing since it depends on deductions.

Exactly!! And most people in the higher tax brackets had a lot of deductions. Most of those have been taken away over time. People then didn't pay a much different actual tax than they are paying today. the difference is the size of the govt. then vs. now.
 
And this is nothing but a ridiculous attempt at fear mongering that "OMG if we don't raise taxes on the top 2% essential portions of society will become destroyed!"

So the federal government can't give as much to states to do road work. Lets say we even accept your premise. States will then have to learn to be more efficient in what they spend their road money on or find other ways to finance it. Individuals may, gasp, have to actually pay attention to the road for potholes. And hey, at least I'll have more money in my pocket that I can choose to use myself for my repairs if need be.

Again, accepting your premise that somehow lawlessness will run amock, its assuming that police currently are running at maximum efficiency and thus any cuts at all will result in gross lawbreaking.

You make the typical, riduclous and idiotic fallacy of equating conservative with anarchist. Of comparing cuts in funding with removal of funding.

You are making the typical, ridiculous, and idiotic strawman fallacy of what I actually said.

I never said that lawlessness will run amok. It will increase due to early releases and cuts in police coverage.

Call your local auto repair shop and ask them what it would cost to replace a tire, rim, tie rod and A-arm assembly. Then compare that to what your think your increase in taxes would be. Sometimes in heavy traffic you can't avoid every pothole.

And neither side does the sensible thing and says cut it from all to some extent while identifying which programs and services and spending is considered legitimately "essential" to the function of government and what is a "luxury".

When you have hard financial times as a family you don't continue to buy expensive grocheries but cut out all luxuries. You also don't severely skimp on grocheries while buying a new X-Box game every week. You, if you're smart, cut back everywhere, though "luxury" things get a larger cut then essential ones. The government needs to do that as well.

Yet for some reason nobody is seriously talking about reducing spending. Instead we are talking about tax cuts for the top 2%.

Incorrect, FAR more than 2% are controlling the issue of revenue. Go take a look at exit pollings on the amount of people for extending the Bush Tax Cuts for all...I assure you, its more than 2%. The mistake you're making here is thinking that everyone gloms onto class warfare and its only those evil 2% that are putting a stop to this. That's simply not the case.

Those people in the polls aren't controlling anything. They support cutting spending, but they won't make it happen. They certainly don't control the media cycle which has us talking about tax cuts instead of spending cuts. I blame the politicians and the spin doctors in the media. They fit into the top 2%.

Here's the thing. We KNOW the government has no problem raising taxes. George H.W. Bush implimented new taxes, Clinton implimented new taxes, Bush implimented new taxes, Obama implimented new taxes and wanted the tax rate for some to go up. The government has proven, time and time again, that is has ZERO issue with raising taxes utlimately.

What is hasn't shown though is that it is willing to make spending cuts, or interested in using the money that is gained from raising taxes for anything other than MORE spending.

You're right, we need to do both. We absolutely do. However, just doing one...raising taxes...and not the other, mixed with what we know historically happens with increased taxes (additional spending, not paying down the deficit with that money), is WORSE in my mind than doing neither of those two things.

Essentially for the current situation doing both > reducing spending alone > doing neither > just raising taxes.

Raising taxes and just raising taxes does nothing but feed the addiction. This is like saying that a person is having financial problems because they always are buying cartons of cigerettes, so since you can't get them to stop buying so many cartons you decide to give them extra money every month to help with their finances. However, if they end up going out and buying more cigerettes all you've done is given yourself less money and continued enabling their bad habit.

I understand your point. But voters really have no power. You get to vote for one of 435 House Representatives. You can unanimously vote your representative in or out, but it won't change the other 434 representative's minds. Term limits aren't a fix-all, but perhaps that would help.

Using your addiction analogy. You can't help someone until they have hit their bottom. Collapse is the only thing that will change how Washington operates. Unfortunately, a balanced budget amendment isn't even being considered. Not even by the Tea Partiers.

However, outside of a short period of time during the perhaps the most prolific technological boom of the previous century while having a staunchly conservative congress and a center leaning democratic president, it has generally been the norm. And unless we're banking on a once in a lifetime type of economic miracle that was the technology explosion of the late 90's, then politicians are going to have to actively work towards a government that isn't running a gigantic deficit.

I won't speak for other Conservatives but I would be willing to accept a small tax increase, ACROSS THE BOARD, if it was tied directly with reductions in the federal budget. I'd even accept it to be "progressive" to your tax bracket as long as it was across the board and wasn't huge in disparity from the lowest to the highest percentage. But unless you're giving me some kind of guarantee that the government is going to do ITS part if we citizens do ours, and that our money will actually be going to fighting the deficit not just helping them add to it, then you will never get me on board with any sort of tax raise.

The problem is that there are no guarantees that the government will do its part.
 
Yet tax cuts have grown revenue everytime rates were cut so higher revenue doesn't increase deficits, but higher revenues do increase spending. Bush withholding tax reduction July 2003

Yr Tot Rev Income Tax
2000 3,132 2202.8
2001 3,118 2163.7
2002 2,987 2002.1
2003 3,043 2047.9
2004 3,265 2213.2
2005 3,659 2546.8
2006 3,996 2807.4
2007 4,197 2951.2
2008 4,072 2790.3

Sorry for not responding soon, I was out doing some research. Took me forever to find actual credible statistics for US federal income tax revenue (Google was astoundingly little help, and when it did find some, the author never sourced em)

Anyway, I finally found some on Office of Management and Budget website, then I personally standardized the income tax revenue against 2009 dollars. I made a graph and added in the presidents, and the locations of the Bush/Reagan tax cuts.

I'm not trying to make any sort of point. This is just data. Data that I'd been wanting for a while and I thought I'd share with you guys. Sorry for it being a bit large, I couldn't shrink it and it needs the pixels anyway:

TAXREVENUE.jpg


This is only revenue from Federal income tax.

You can find a larger version of my graph here.

You can find the OMB stats on Revenue from 1934-2009 here.

You can find the Seattle.gov stats on Federal CPI here.

A comparison with income rates are suggested, unfortunately there is little way to graph them, as they vary according to income class, nonetheless, I highly recommend you check them out here. This is by far the most detailed review of income tax levels I've seen.

You can find the exact values for Federal income tax revenue adjusted to 2009 dollars here. I created it, so it's hosted here. Unfortunately the forum won't let me post excel files, so I chucked it in a .zip, which can be found below:

View attachment Federal income tax revenues in 2009 dollars.zip

Apart from that... good day. If you have any questions just gimme a yell.
 
Last edited:
"They" aren't in charge yet, this is still a Democrat Congress. How much help should the unemployed get, how many years? Do you think that you keeping more of what you earn is an expense to the govt?

Are they going to change the deal once they are in charge?

The unemployed should get help until the economy recovers.

The budget deficit is an expense.
 
I expect to hear none of these right-wing Republicans complaining about the size of the deficit over the next two years....seeing that the GOP will be responsible now for adding trillions to the deficit.



But Obama won't be?
 
Exactly!! And most people in the higher tax brackets had a lot of deductions. Most of those have been taken away over time. People then didn't pay a much different actual tax than they are paying today. the difference is the size of the govt. then vs. now.

special deductions, right? not available to the middle class?
 
Exactly!! And most people in the higher tax brackets had a lot of deductions. Most of those have been taken away over time. People then didn't pay a much different actual tax than they are paying today. the difference is the size of the govt. then vs. now.

Perhaps some did. Perhaps some did not. Perhaps some had more than others.

And today, people also have deductions to lower their tax liability from the top rate.
 
You are making the typical, ridiculous, and idiotic strawman fallacy of what I actually said.

I never said that lawlessness will run amok. It will increase due to early releases and cuts in police coverage.

And that naturally it would lead to my car being stolen. Cut in money given to states to pay police does not guarantee increase in crime, let alone significant enough that things such as cars being stolen are a routine enough thing that you can throw it out there as an obvious example of why it must not be cut.

Call your local auto repair shop and ask them what it would cost to replace a tire, rim, tie rod and A-arm assembly. Then compare that to what your think your increase in taxes would be. Sometimes in heavy traffic you can't avoid every pothole.

Again, you're assuming there's going to be a plethora of potholes that it is so impossible to avoid that i'm guaranteed to have a front end incident. I think that's ridiculous exaggeration.

Yet for some reason nobody is seriously talking about reducing spending. Instead we are talking about tax cuts for the top 2%.

Because there was literally 1 month to act before it went up for EVERYONE, regardless of what anyone thought. Things that have a ticking timer on them generally get tackled first.

Those people in the polls aren't controlling anything. They support cutting spending, but they won't make it happen. They certainly don't control the media cycle which has us talking about tax cuts instead of spending cuts. I blame the politicians and the spin doctors in the media. They fit into the top 2%.

Ahh, yes, I gotcha. The evil wealthy, controlling everything.

Nevermind that by that logic if the tax rates did go up, for the top 2% or for everyone, then it'd still be decided by the Top 2%.

Actually, by that logic, every decision made on every issue every day in the united states is only controlled by the top 2%. Funny though, I don't hear the demonization of them when the "Top 2%" pushes for health care, or the "top 2%" pushes for global warming legislation", or other sort of stuff...since you know, politicians and spin doctors = the top 2%.

I understand your point. But voters really have no power. You get to vote for one of 435 House Representatives. You can unanimously vote your representative in or out, but it won't change the other 434 representative's minds. Term limits aren't a fix-all, but perhaps that would help.

Absolutely agree with you on term limits. Beyond that though, while I agree with you with regards to voter power I think if you're taking it from that angle your use of the top 2% as a complaint is nothing but a bit of a strawman because it would apply to everything, including both sides of this particular issue.

Using your addiction analogy. You can't help someone until they have hit their bottom. Collapse is the only thing that will change how Washington operates. Unfortunately, a balanced budget amendment isn't even being considered. Not even by the Tea Partiers.

I haven't heard much talk of the budget as of yet since, as I said, you had a time sensitive issue right now. Proposing an amendment concerning a balanced budget is something I'm going to watch for in the next year since I believe that was something on the Contract From America that a good deal of new house members signed onto.

That said, you're right, often you can't help someone till they hit rock bottom. You're not going to hit rock bottom by feeding their addiction.

The problem is that there are no guarantees that the government will do its part.

Nope, there's not. But, and I know this is likely the difference in mentalities here, I will happily take some bad times for the (large in my mind) chance that it will cause a rebound into long term good times rather than having a long, drawnout, continual decline.

I'll take hitting rock bottom and bouncing back up then slowly floating down, down, down, without ever a hope of rising back to the top.
 
what were tax rates in the 50's ?

Are you trying to confuse somebody with actual facts and the historical record?[/QUOTE]yes, it is easily done...and he won't respond to direct questions...diversions are expected...
 
Sorry for not responding soon, I was out doing some research. Took me forever to find actual credible statistics for US federal income tax revenue (Google was astoundingly little help, and when it did find some, the author never sourced em)

Anyway, I finally found some on Office of Management and Budget website, then I personally standardized the income tax revenue against 2009 dollars. I made a graph and added in the presidents, and the locations of the Bush/Reagan tax cuts.

I'm not trying to make any sort of point. This is just data. Data that I'd been wanting for a while and I thought I'd share with you guys. Sorry for it being a bit large, I couldn't shrink it and it needs the pixels anyway:

TAXREVENUE.jpg


This is only revenue from Federal income tax.

You can find a larger version of my graph here.

You can find the OMB stats on Revenue from 1934-2009 here.

You can find the Seattle.gov stats on Federal CPI here.

A comparison with income rates are suggested, unfortunately there is little way to graph them, as they vary according to income class, nonetheless, I highly recommend you check them out here. This is by far the most detailed review of income tax levels I've seen.

You can find the exact values for Federal income tax revenue adjusted to 2009 dollars here. I created it, so it's hosted here. Unfortunately the forum won't let me post excel files, so I chucked it in a .zip, which can be found below:

View attachment 67113190

Apart from that... good day. If you have any questions just gimme a yell.

No problem, my question however is why you are so concerned about how much revenue goes to the federal govt? The numbers I posted came from bea.gov which gets their data from the U.S. Treasury dept. It is actual revenue.

Here are some good NON PARTISAN sites

BLS link, create own chart
Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

BEA links GDP and Receipts/Expense
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

U.S. Treasury
Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service


Please don't adjust date for current dollars as current dollars today had no affect in the past. If you want to get the true information go to the checkbook of the United States, the U.S. Treasury Dept. Nothing else matters thus I have no interest in the sites listed as they don't change the reality of actual data.
 
special deductions, right? not available to the middle class?

Deductions are available to anyone. Please explain to me why 47% of the U.S. income earners didn't pay any Federal income taxes last year and that number has been high since the Bush tax cuts were signed into law. All this outrage over the rich getting bigger tax cuts but totally ignoring that the rich paid a greater share of the taxes after the Bush tax cuts. Doesn't fit your agenda, does it?
 
Perhaps some did. Perhaps some did not. Perhaps some had more than others.

And today, people also have deductions to lower their tax liability from the top rate.

Yet today, according to the IRS the top 2% are paying a higher share of the taxes than ever before, all with the Bush tax cuts.
 
Yet today, according to the IRS the top 2% are paying a higher share of the taxes than ever before, all with the Bush tax cuts.

and you have evidence of this claim?
 
Are they going to change the deal once they are in charge?

The unemployed should get help until the economy recovers.

The budget deficit is an expense.

Obama said the economy has recovered, he has saved or created millions of jobs so what triggers stopping payments to the unemployed?
 
ask and ye shall receive

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

the first column is the year, the second is the percentage taken by the feds, the third is the level of income needed for that percentage to kick in



1950 84.36 400,000
1951 91 400,000
1952 92 400,000
1953 92 400,000
1954 91 400,000
1955 91 400,000
1956 91 400,000
1957 91 400,000
1958 91 400,000
1959 91 400,000
1960 91 400,000
1961 91 400,000

So what happens between 250k and 400k, again deductions matter and how much govt. revenue was collected. How do you explain tax revenue going up after both the Reagan and Bush tax CUTS?
 
Deductions are available to anyone. Please explain to me why 47% of the U.S. income earners didn't pay any Federal income taxes last year and that number has been high since the Bush tax cuts were signed into law. All this outrage over the rich getting bigger tax cuts but totally ignoring that the rich paid a greater share of the taxes after the Bush tax cuts. Doesn't fit your agenda, does it?

Divert much?
 
And that naturally it would lead to my car being stolen. Cut in money given to states to pay police does not guarantee increase in crime, let alone significant enough that things such as cars being stolen are a routine enough thing that you can throw it out there as an obvious example of why it must not be cut.

I didn't say that it was certain that your car would be stolen. It would be more likely to happen though. It was an example of what could happen. Since we are talking about the future, all we have are hypotheticals. You are trying to make it sound unreasonable when it is perfectly reasonable extrapolation.

Again, you're assuming there's going to be a plethora of potholes that it is so impossible to avoid that i'm guaranteed to have a front end incident. I think that's ridiculous exaggeration.

It's certainly a possibility. Maybe you have never driven in Chicago. :lol:

Like I said, we are talking about hypotheticals. I got this example from a real life incident. Please don't think I mean this will happen to everyone.

Because there was literally 1 month to act before it went up for EVERYONE, regardless of what anyone thought. Things that have a ticking timer on them generally get tackled first.

They still could have handled this differently. It's not like the top 2% were facing a crisis. That's what the GOP was fighting for.

Ahh, yes, I gotcha. The evil wealthy, controlling everything.

Nevermind that by that logic if the tax rates did go up, for the top 2% or for everyone, then it'd still be decided by the Top 2%.

Actually, by that logic, every decision made on every issue every day in the united states is only controlled by the top 2%. Funny though, I don't hear the demonization of them when the "Top 2%" pushes for health care, or the "top 2%" pushes for global warming legislation", or other sort of stuff...since you know, politicians and spin doctors = the top 2%.

I didn't call them evil. You keep reverting back to that strawman. Not facing a crisis is not equal to evil.

There are those in the top 2% that are fine with their taxes going up. I didn't say that those in control were the whole top 2%.

Absolutely agree with you on term limits. Beyond that though, while I agree with you with regards to voter power I think if you're taking it from that angle your use of the top 2% as a complaint is nothing but a bit of a strawman because it would apply to everything, including both sides of this particular issue.

Only if you strawman my statements to mean that the top 2% were a homogenous group ideologically. ;)

I haven't heard much talk of the budget as of yet since, as I said, you had a time sensitive issue right now. Proposing an amendment concerning a balanced budget is something I'm going to watch for in the next year since I believe that was something on the Contract From America that a good deal of new house members signed onto.

That said, you're right, often you can't help someone till they hit rock bottom. You're not going to hit rock bottom by feeding their addiction.

I understand you not wanting to enable them.

Nope, there's not. But, and I know this is likely the difference in mentalities here, I will happily take some bad times for the (large in my mind) chance that it will cause a rebound into long term good times rather than having a long, drawnout, continual decline.

I'll take hitting rock bottom and bouncing back up then slowly floating down, down, down, without ever a hope of rising back to the top.

I think too many people would be harmed by a complete immediate collapse of our economy and government. Of course, they really haven't proposed any remedies either way yet. Time will tell.
 
Obama said the economy has recovered, he has saved or created millions of jobs so what triggers stopping payments to the unemployed?

I think you are being less than honest in your paraphrasing of what Obama has said. :lol:
 
I think you are being less than honest in your paraphrasing of what Obama has said. :lol:

He said he "brought us back from the brink and saved or created millions of jobs" So tell me when we stop extending unemployment payments? Why 99 months and how do we pay for it?
 
I made that graph for you too bro, use it.

I have used the actual data from the Treasury Dept. that is all that I have any interest in seeing and the actual bank account for the U.S. Govt. shows an increase in revenue. Why does any other matter?
 
He said he "brought us back from the brink and saved or created millions of jobs" So tell me when we stop extending unemployment payments? Why 99 months and how do we pay for it?

You seemed unable to differentiate between statements made which apply generally to the entire nation of 310 million people and programs intended to help a small number of persons who are still unemployed and in dire economic straits.
 
You seemed unable to differentiate between statements made which apply generally to the entire nation of 310 million people and programs intended to help a small number of persons who are still unemployed and in dire economic straits.

Small number of people? 16+ million? 4 million more since Obama took office? Those dire economic straits show a recession ending in June 2009.
 
He said he "brought us back from the brink and saved or created millions of jobs" So tell me when we stop extending unemployment payments? Why 99 months and how do we pay for it?
99 months??? didnt realize it was that long..lol
 
Back
Top Bottom