• 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 middle class tax cut extension

haymarket said:
You may be jumping up and down in sheer glee that we have a growing national debt which will be passed on to our children and future generations to pay. I imagine in some sick way, that is your right. Many of us are not happy about saddling our children and grand-children with massive debt and feel it is profoundly unfair to them.

And yet again I mention Luntz & Faris and that little rubber hammer swings and hits home producing the expected knee jerk response s you have to dig down and counter with Soros. That is sad.

And yet again, for a time beyond calculation, you pervert my position on tax increases. I am not advocating that YOUR taxes be raised. I am advocating that OUR taxes - as in ALL Americans who earn dollar one - be raised.

That is the responsible adult position for someone who believes we should hand our children a better nation that the one we were handed on the day we became Americans. Paying our bills is a major part of that.
Click to expand...

you need to find new analogies. your fixation with rubber hammers and two pollsters is pretty well beyond rotted. Adults realize promising the children that they can have all they want while others are tasked to pay for it is idiotic. and that is the dem strategy. The deems treat their dependent minions like little children-relieving them of responsibilities and rights and telling them that momma government and big brother will give them all they want as long as they keep voting den

We have seen your schemes to make the rich pay two-three-four times as much taxes as they do now
 
haymarket said:
I am talking about the tax on money or wealth that a person gets from another.
Click to expand...

you are being dishonest then. the tax is not based on what someone gets but what someone has at the time of their death

If a man has 10 million in wealth when he dies it matters not if he gives all ten million to one person, a million to ten people or ten dollars to a million, his wealth is still taxed the same
 
TurtleDude said:
you need to find new analogies. your fixation with rubber hammers and two pollsters is pretty well beyond rotted. Adults realize promising the children that they can have all they want while others are tasked to pay for it is idiotic. and that is the dem strategy.
Click to expand...

I would love to never again use the little rubber hammer hitting your knee line. Please help. You as a long time standing right winger can prevent this by simply not making the typical and predictable knee jerk responses by mentioning somebody from the left every time you are impotent to defend the actions of one of your icons on the far right.

Its all up to you Turtle.
 
TurtleDude said:
you are being dishonest then. the tax is not based on what someone gets but what someone has at the time of their death

If a man has 10 million in wealth when he dies it matters not if he gives all ten million to one person, a million to ten people or ten dollars to a million, his wealth is still taxed the same
Click to expand...

Where did I put that worlds smallest violin?

You example FAILS to take into account the generous exemptions that the law extends.

Exemptions and tax rates
Year Exclusion
Amount Max/Top
tax rate
2001 $675,000 55%
2002 $1 million 50%
2003 $1 million 49%
2004 $1.5 million 48%
2005 $1.5 million 47%
2006 $2 million 46%
2007 $2 million 45%
2008 $2 million 45%
2009 $3.5 million 45%
2010 Repealed
2011 $5 million 35%
2012 $5.12 million 35%

* under current law
As noted above, a certain amount of each estate is exempted from taxation by the federal government. Below is a table of the amount of exemption by year an estate would expect. Estates above these amounts would be subject to estate tax, but only for the amount above the exemption.
For example, assume an estate of $3.5 million in 2006. There are two beneficiaries who will each receive equal shares of the estate. The maximum allowable credit is $2 million for that year, so the taxable value is therefore $1.5 million. Since it is 2006, the tax rate on that $1.5 million is 46%, so the total taxes paid would be $690,000. Each beneficiary will receive $1,000,000 of untaxed inheritance and $405,000 from the taxable portion of their inheritance for a total of $1,405,000. This means the estate would have paid a taxable rate of 19.7%.
As shown, the 2001 tax act would have repealed the estate tax for one year (2010) and would then have readjusted it in 2011 to the year 2002 exemption level with a 2001 top rate. However, on December 17, 2010, Congress passed the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. Section 301 of the 2010 Act reinstates the federal estate tax. The new law sets the exemption at $5 million per person.[22] A top tax rate of 35 percent is provided for the years 2011 and 2012.[23]
Click to expand...
Care to try again?
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
you are being dishonest then. the tax is not based on what someone gets but what someone has at the time of their death

If a man has 10 million in wealth when he dies it matters not if he gives all ten million to one person, a million to ten people or ten dollars to a million, his wealth is still taxed the same
Click to expand...

Might want to add that this tax for all intents and purposes starts before death. If someone were to give is children all of his money six months before he died the government will go back and assess the estate or death tax anyway. This is called a gift in contemplation of death.

So folks who say it is not a tax on an individual either are lying or don't know the law.
 
washunut said:
Might want to add that this tax for all intents and purposes starts before death. If someone were to give is children all of his money six months before he died the government will go back and assess the estate or death tax anyway. This is called a gift in contemplation of death.

So folks who say it is not a tax on an individual either are lying or don't know the law.
Click to expand...

This is simply done to prevent tax avoidance.
 
Aberration said:
Yawn. Yes apparently I don't know the difference. There is no rational way you could have come to that conclusion based on what I wrote, but yes. Obviously.

Just as you obviously don't know how you get into debt. It is obviously not through spending right?
Click to expand...
I know if I'm already deficit spending that I can decrease my spending and still be deficit spending. Are you so ignorant of accounting and simple arithmetic that you need examples to prove it? :roll:

Income year 1: $50k
Spending year 1: $60k
Increase in debt year 1: $10k

Income year 2: $50k
Spending year 2: $55k
Increase in debt year 2: $5k

There is an increase in debt year 2 but a decrease in spending.


Again, no one was asking for an increase in Fed spending. The deal was to decrease spending at an amount equal to an increase in taxation and the Repos wouldn't do it.
 
Last edited:
For some reason, few seem to be discussing the reality of Obama's spending, preferring the raw numbers without the context of population growth and costs inherited by the President.

Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Somerville said:
For some reason, few seem to be discussing the reality of Obama's spending, preferring the raw numbers without the context of population growth and costs inherited by the President.
Click to expand...
That's because they are not discussing facts; they are propagating propaganda. Unfortunately there are too many that are insufficiently astute to determine the difference.
 
God forbid that he actually pushed for tax equality instead of his tired mantra of punish the rich. Of course, during his whole regime, he has only tried to help those who might keep him in power instead of trying to fix problems for all Americans. His whole punish the sucessful to support the lazy would be funny if it wasn't so bad for so many.
 
The Democrats will let the Bush tax-cuts expire on Dec. 31st, and then on January 1st propose a tax-cut for the Middle class.

this will keep the GOPers from violating the Norquist Pledge.
 
This whole "punish the sucessful" meme is getting old. It's just another fine example of Luntz-style redefinition of reality for the learning-impaired.

Raising taxes on that percent of the population which has profited so greatly over the past 10 years is hardly "punishment"
 
Somerville said:
Raising taxes on that percent of the population which has profited so greatly over the past 10 years is hardly "punishment"
Click to expand...

Easy words when you are not in that 10 percent...
 
Somerville said:
This whole "punish the sucessful" meme is getting old. It's just another fine example of Luntz-style redefinition of reality for the learning-impaired.

Raising taxes on that percent of the population which has profited so greatly over the past 10 years is hardly "punishment"
Click to expand...

asking the wealthiest Americans to have their tax rate increased by 3%, isn't "punishment".

they will still be able to buy their fancy cars, yachst, tanning beds, and Yankees box-seats.

infact, there is no evidence whatsoever that not extending their current tax-rates, would effect their spending one bit.
 
Somerville said:
This whole "punish the sucessful" meme is getting old. It's just another fine example of Luntz-style redefinition of reality for the learning-impaired.

Raising taxes on that percent of the population which has profited so greatly over the past 10 years is hardly "punishment"
Click to expand...

LOL, that is funny coming from a Socialist who are normally the extreme in the arguement of equality. You do realize that you claim to be a Socialist but you are arguing against treating people equally?
 
Thunder said:
asking the wealthiest Americans to have their tax rate increased by 3%, isn't "punishment".

they will still be able to buy their fancy cars, yachst, tanning beds, and Yankees box-seats.

infact, there is no evidence whatsoever that not extending their current tax-rates, would effect their spending one bit.
Click to expand...

But does it treat all Americans equally under the tax laws? Nope. I wouldn't be so against it if someone simplified the tax code, made everyone pretty much equal in the percent they pay and didn't spend so much of it giving benefits to stupid people to midigate them having to live or die with their own choices. Perhaps if I quit seeing comercials to give these morons cell phones at pretty much no cost and see some progress made in making them actually earn what they get, then, if spending was still too high, I could possibly support higher Taxes. But, even then, it should be distributed equally, based upon percentage, not targeted at a specific group of Americans.
 
lpast said:
Finally Someone trying to do something for the class that carries this country, in WARS and economically by doing the LABOR and actual WORK...that produces our economy.
Its refreshing to have someone care about those that really need a break and not just slobbering all over themselves sniveling about how very bad the 1% that has 99% has it....
Click to expand...

You know, it occurs to me. Are you aware as you write this that Romney has called for even greater tax breaks for the middle class than Obama has? Or are you just copy/pasting whatever rant your union sent you?
 
cpwill said:
You know, it occurs to me. Are you aware as you write this that Romney has called for even greater tax breaks for the middle class than Obama has? Or are you just copy/pasting whatever rant your union sent you?
Click to expand...
You mean this ...
The Obama campaign has criticized Romney for not saying how he would offset the cost of the tax rate cuts.
“He refuses to say how he’d pay for that massive tax cut for the wealthy, which means he’s either exploding the deficit or, according to independent analysts, raising taxes on the middle class by closing tax breaks for mortgages, health care, retirement and other benefits the middle class rely on,” Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman, said in a statement July 9.
Click to expand...
Romney-Style Plan Means Sharp Tax-Break Cuts, Study Says - Bloomberg


Doesn't do much good to lower the percent for the middle class if home mortgage interest and health insurance starts getting taxed and drives the actual Fed tax even higher than it is. :roll:
 
Last edited:
actually the "massive" portion of those tax cuts are the ones going to the middle class - that, after all, is where the money is :) and the majority of the middle class take the standard deduction. it's the rich that see larger returns from the mortgage interest deduction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom