Page 17 of 29 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 288

Thread: House blocks funding for health care law

  1. #161
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: House blocks funding for health care law

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Ok, I'm wrong. But it's still out of whack. Those with higher incomes, pay a larger percentage of total tax than those with lower incomes:
    Yes, exactly. The progressive tax was designed that way to compensate for the greater wealth owned by the top income brackets, and because it was recognized as truth back then that it is not possible to get blood from a turnip.

    If we ever get serious about paying down our National debt, we will have to both cut spending and increase revenue. How much more blood do you think they will be able to squeeze out of the middle class? We will have to return to a more progressive tax system if we are to pay down our national debt.
    Last edited by Catawba; 02-21-11 at 02:42 AM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  2. #162
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    03-23-13 @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,265

    Re: House blocks funding for health care law

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    It was actually closer to 80% for the top tax bracket most of the period, but yes! I've been saying all along that I think we should return to the progressive tax system that served us so well for 50 years by giving us the strongest middle class in history, while keeping the debt at manageable levels.
    Thank you .. now that we have determined that you lied when you said .... "I am talking about equality in taxation. " (your words) we can end this discussion, because you believe in no such thing. You also have no grasp of why we lost and are still losing, the strongest middle class in our history, you must believe that lower taxes equals fewer good paying jobs, and higher taxes create those same good paying jobs, thats your opinion, and there is no sense in trying to change your opinon. Your believe is government takeover of our industry, and government created jobs, My belief is private sector jobs.
    Last edited by The Barbarian; 02-21-11 at 02:50 AM.

  3. #163
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: House blocks funding for health care law

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Thank you .. now that we have determined that you lied when you said .... "I am talking about equality in taxation. " (your words) we can end this discussion, because you believe in no such thing.
    I most certainly do believe in tax equality, and I do not appreciate being called liar.


    You also have no grasp of why we lost and are still losing, the strongest middle class in our history, you must believe that lower taxes equals fewer good paying jobs, and higher taxes create those same good paying jobs, thats your opinion, and there is no sense in trying to change your opinon. Your believe is government takeover of our industry, and government created jobs, My belief is private sector jobs.
    Maybe if I had not witnessed the failure of the trickle down theory and deregulation, and if myself and future generations were not saddled with the resulting debt, I might have more faith in the regressive taxes for highest tax brackets.

    We gave the top tax brackets a 50% tax cut (and special business tax deductions) and the economy is weaker and our debt is larger. Its not really a very good sales pitch for regressive taxes.

    Of course a strong economy is about more than just taxes, but if you have most of the wealth concentrated in just a very small percentage of people, you don't have enough wealth left for people to buy the things they need to but to grow the economy and pay down the national debt as has been painfully demonstrated since Reagan slashed the progressive tax system in this country.
    Last edited by Catawba; 02-21-11 at 03:22 AM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  4. #164
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: House blocks funding for health care law

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Yes, exactly. The progressive tax was designed that way to compensate for the greater wealth owned by the top income brackets, and because it was recognized as truth back then that it is not possible to get blood from a turnip.

    If we ever get serious about paying down our National debt, we will have to both cut spending and increase revenue. How much more blood do you think they will be able to squeeze out of the middle class? We will have to return to a more progressive tax system if we are to pay down our national debt.
    Current taxation matches wealth distribution.

    As I have shown, the Federal government has grown from less than 4% GDP in 1900 to 25% GDP in 2011. **** raising taxes. We need to AGGRESSIVELY cut government spending.

  5. #165
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: House blocks funding for health care law

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Current taxation matches wealth distribution.
    I disagree, because of the 50% cut in the top tax rates together with the loopholes that allow income not to be taxed for the wealthy. Our country and most of its people prospered better under the progressive tax system.

    As I have shown, the Federal government has grown from less than 4% GDP in 1900 to 25% GDP in 2011. **** raising taxes. We need to AGGRESSIVELY cut government spending.
    I agree with you on spending. We need to make big cuts and then set an equitable tax so that we will have enough revenue to pay all our bills and start paying down our debt.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  6. #166
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    03-23-13 @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,265

    Re: House blocks funding for health care law

    Catawba;1059298592]I most certainly do believe in tax equality, and I do not appreciate being called liar.
    you were the one that said you believed in tax equality, and I showed that is what we have, with the upper incomes actually paying a bit more then their income says they should. Now you are saying that is not tax equality, and this should be kicked back up to the 70 to 80% bracket, that would in no way shape or form be tax equality. So to say you want tax equality, certainly isn't the truth.

    Maybe if I had not witnessed the failure of the trickle down theory and deregulation, and if myself and future generations were not saddled with the resulting debt, I might have more faith in the regressive taxes for highest tax brackets.
    I guess you will have to explain to me how a progressive tax that we still have is regressive.


    Of course a strong economy is about more than just taxes, but if you have most of the wealth concentrated in just a very small percentage of people, you don't have enough wealth left for people to buy the things they need to but to grow the economy and pay down the national debt as has been painfully demonstrated since Reagan slashed the progressive tax system in this country.
    you know you really should read down the page further rather then cherry pick from your own sites...

    Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

    in 1982, that would be the very start of the downfall right ?? when the Reagan tax cuts took over.

    In 1983 the top 1 percent owned a total net worth of the wealth, of 33.8%.... in 2007 they owned 34.6 an increase of .8 percent over 24 years,

    in 1983 the top 1 percent owned 42.9% of the financial wealth, in 2007 they owned 42.7% of the financial wealth or a “drop” of .2% over 24 years.

    now from the site you provided, just scroll down to the charts, one could only say that the top 1 percent, with a 50% cut in their tax rate, really haven't added a damn thing to their wealth. kind of blows another hole in your theory doesn't it ? -chuckles- and waits for the next yeah but

  7. #167
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: House blocks funding for health care law

    Quote Originally Posted by Sgt Meowenstein View Post
    What's laughable is your suggestion that Obama won't veto a bill that kills his signature legislation.
    the continuing resolution doesn't kill obamacare, silly

    read the links, catch up

    now, any bicameral repeal of THE MANDATE---guaranteed smooth movement thru boehner's house and increasingly likely to pass upstairs---THAT obstinate obama will be challenged to veto

    but he will only further isolate this most insular of white houses if he does

    ahab obama will have to go against a significant slice of his own party in both houses to do so

    Dems up for reelection under pressure to nix healthcare mandate - TheHill.com

    how ya gonna see a move ahead when you don't know the rules of the game, parliamentary pete?

  8. #168
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: House blocks funding for health care law

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    you were the one that said you believed in tax equality
    Correct.

    and I showed that is what we have, with the upper incomes actually paying a bit more then their income says they should
    .

    Incorrect. You did not address the decreased tax rate for the top income earners, the payroll tax, the tax loopholes or the business deductions for corporations that have been provided.

    Now you are saying that is not tax equality, and this should be kicked back up to the 70 to 80% bracket, that would in no way shape or form be tax equality. So to say you want tax equality, certainly isn't the truth. I guess you will have to explain to me how a progressive tax that we still have is regressive.
    "Over the last 60 years, the U.S. tax code has dramatically shifted away from corporate taxes and toward taxes on individuals, especially through the payroll tax, the financing backbone of Social Security and Medicare. In the 1950s, the corporate income tax brought in, on average, one of every four dollars in federal tax revenues. By the 2000s, however, it raised just one of every 10 tax dollars.

    The shrinking share of corporate taxes was made up by an increase in payroll taxes to fund social insurance and retirement programs. Excise and other taxes—such as fuel taxes, phone taxes, etc.—shrank as well over the last 60 years, while the individual federal income tax rose slightly, from an average of 43% of total federal revenue in the 1950s to 46% in the 2000s.

    This shift is important because of who pays these different taxes. The corporate income tax is significantly more progressive than other taxes. Those with incomes in the top 20% of the income distribution (those making more than about $86,000 a year in 2007) pay four times the average tax rate on corporate income than the middle 20% (those making between $27,000 and $48,000); while, for the payroll tax, those in the top 20% actually pay less than those in the middle as a share of their income.1

    This shift has been one of the factors leading to the drop in average federal tax rates for the very highest earners. Between 1960 and 2004, the average tax rate has fallen by about 14 percentage points (from 44.4% to 30.4%) for the top 1% of earners (those making more than $435,000 in 2007), while it has increased slightly (from 15.9% to 16.1%) for those in the middle 20%. 2

    Without offsets, further erosion of corporate tax revenues—either through lower statutory tax rates or through special preferences—would expand the already wide and growing income inequality in the United States.
    http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20080409/"


    you know you really should read down the page further rather then cherry pick from your own sites...

    Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

    in 1982, that would be the very start of the downfall right ?? when the Reagan tax cuts took over.

    In 1983 the top 1 percent owned a total net worth of the wealth, of 33.8%.... in 2007 they owned 34.6 an increase of .8 percent over 24 years,

    in 1983 the top 1 percent owned 42.9% of the financial wealth, in 2007 they owned 42.7% of the financial wealth or a “drop” of .2% over 24 years.

    now from the site you provided, just scroll down to the charts, one could only say that the top 1 percent, with a 50% cut in their tax rate, really haven't added a damn thing to their wealth. kind of blows another hole in your theory doesn't it ? -chuckles- and waits for the next yeah but
    What I posted before was their conclusions from the study as a whole. What you are doing above is cherry picking. Again, from their conclusions:

    Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007)."

    "And now we have arrived at the point I want to make. If the top 1% of households have 30-35% of the wealth, that's 30 to 35 times what we would expect by chance, and so we infer they must be powerful. And then we set out to see if the same set of households scores high on other power indicators (it does). Next we study how that power operates, which is what most articles on this site are about. Furthermore, if the top 20% have 84% of the wealth (and recall that 10% have 85% to 90% of the stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity), that means that the United States is a power pyramid. It's tough for the bottom 80% -- maybe even the bottom 90% -- to get organized and exercise much power."

    "And the rate of increase is even higher for the very richest of the rich: the top 400 income earners in the United States. According to another analysis by Johnston (2010a), the average income of the top 400 tripled during the Clinton Administration and doubled during the first seven years of the Bush Administration. So by 2007, the top 400 averaged $344.8 million per person, up 31% from an average of $263.3 million just one year earlier. (For another recent revealing study by Johnston, read "Is Our Tax System Helping Us Create Wealth?").

    How are these huge gains possible for the top 400? It's due to cuts in the tax rates on capital gains and dividends, which were down to a mere 15% in 2007 thanks to the tax cuts proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress in 2003. Since almost 75% of the income for the top 400 comes from capital gains and dividends, it's not hard to see why tax cuts on income sources available to only a tiny percent of Americans mattered greatly for the high-earning few. Overall, the effective tax rate on high incomes fell by 7% during the Clinton presidency and 6% in the Bush era, so the top 400 had a tax rate of 20% or less in 2007, far lower than the marginal tax rate of 35% that the highest income earners (over $372,650) supposedly pay. It's also worth noting that only the first $106,800 of a person's income is taxed for Social Security purposes (as of 2010), so it would clearly be a boon to the Social Security Fund if everyone -- not just those making less than $106,800 -- paid the Social Security tax on their full incomes."
    Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
    Last edited by Catawba; 02-21-11 at 02:25 PM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  9. #169
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: House blocks funding for health care law

    income equality is a very small minded goal, at its hungry heart it's envious and divisive

  10. #170
    Educator Sgt Meowenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    07-22-17 @ 06:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    620

    Re: House blocks funding for health care law

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    the continuing resolution doesn't kill obamacare, silly

    read the links, catch up
    Fine, the continuing res doesn't defund health care. But that is the Repub plan. ANd any bill that defunds and essentially kills Obama's signature legislation will be vetoed. Bet on it.

    now, any bicameral repeal of THE MANDATE---guaranteed smooth movement thru boehner's house and increasingly likely to pass upstairs---THAT obstinate obama will be challenged to veto
    If it makes it through the Senate, Obama will veto it.

    ahab obama will have to go against a significant slice of his own party in both houses to do so
    He'll have to go against Repubs, and few (not a significant amount like you said) Dems. Get your own facts straight. And so what? Repubs won't work with him anyway.

    how ya gonna see a move ahead when you don't know the rules of the game, parliamentary pete?
    How you gonna see anything when your head is planted firmly in your ass, conservative cretin?


Page 17 of 29 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •