• 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

randel said:
no, sorry, you are incorrect, as usual....if anyone in this country is overpaid bud, it would be those who are lawyers.
Click to expand...

I agree but the good news is most of them are dems. I want loser pays laws. that would put half the plaintiff's lawyers out of business. One guy who has sued my client 12 times-11 have been thrown out on Rule 12 or Rule 56 motions, one we settled for nuisance value after 85% of the case was thrown out on motion. If he had to pay my fees he'd be out 400K by now. He is up on disbarment charges before the Supreme Court of Ohio-for missing deadlines.
 
TurtleDude said:
its not an estate tax-its a surcharge on the rich

but your rant is noted and rejected by 95% of the public who understand that death tax is an accurate alternative term for the "estate" tax

btw the IRS calls state death taxes DEATH TAXES
Click to expand...
doesnt matter what someone calls it, it is , in fact, NOT A DEATH TAX. try to spin it all you like, it is what it is.
 
TurtleDude said:
corrected

means blathering soak the rich nonsense

YOu also want the rich to pay

massive more FICA taxes

you want the tax on dividend income to go from 40% to over 60% (35+15 to 35 + 40)

you want LTCG to go from 15% to 40%

you want the death tax to go from 35% over 5 Million to 35% on every dollar

so stop the lies-you want the net tax on the rich to go up many times more than 5%
Click to expand...

I advocate that ALL earners pay FICA tax on 100% of their earnings. Right now only the bottom 93% of earners do that. The others enjoy a special preferential break.

I want the tax on dividends to be exactly the same as any other source of money. That would be todays 35% top rate plus my suggested 5 point increase taking it up to 40%. Your math is seriously wrong.

I want to ABOLISH the estate and inheritance taxes. I favor simply taxing all income moneys according to the same schedule.

You are obviously very upset that somebody wants to end the special discriminatory rates you have enjoyed. Tough.
 
since somebody mentioned shipping jobs overseas, I have a question.

If ever single job that was 'shipped' overseas came back to the USA, considering the higher corporate taxes here, and the higher wages, who exactly would be buying the products made, and how much more expensive would they be than a similar item made by someone overseas?
 
randel said:
it is not a death tax turtle, get over it, and move on.
Click to expand...

I'm glad to see you understand the intense P.R. value of calling it The Death Tax! :lol:
 
randel said:
doesnt matter what someone calls it, it is , in fact, NOT A DEATH TAX. try to spin it all you like, it is what it is.
Click to expand...

I guess you are going to play this game as does another enabler of the parasite state, and ignore the obvious.

why do you pretend that the death tax does not exist when all of America knows what it means.

its not an estate tax either. ITs a tax on the wealth of rich people who die
 
wbcoleman said:
I'm glad to see you understand the intense P.R. value of calling it The Death Tax! :lol:
Click to expand...

every day they go to the shrine of the Estate Tax and light a candle. calling it the death tax to them would be akin to the Pope calling Mother Mary a "slut"
 
haymarket said:
Perhaps you can tell us how many Americans died last year and how many of those deaths "were taxed"?
Click to expand...

perhaps you can tell us how many people died with positive "estates" who were taxed.
 
haymarket said:
Perhaps you can tell us how many Americans died last year and how many of those deaths "were taxed"?
Click to expand...

Why? If your interested in those facts, why not just Google them? Good job.
 
haymarket said:
excellent point... and that could well work..... if you had somebody in the White House who knew how to fight with the same determination and ferocity that the Republicans employ.

Sadly, nobody in the White House knows how to use a baseball bat with a nine inch nail in it and aim for the forehead. But the GOP is filled with people who can do it in their sleep.

Obama will give in..... again.
Click to expand...
Why would he do that this time? What would he have to prove and who would he have to impress after winning in November?
 
TurtleDude said:
perhaps you can tell us how many people died with positive "estates" who were taxed.
Click to expand...

I guess that is your way of attempting to both dodge the question and move the goal posts at the same time.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Why would he do that this time? What would he have to prove and who would he have to impress after winning in November?
Click to expand...

I have no idea..... but he will surrender just like before. I sure wish he would not. But he will. The past is prologue to the future.
 
Mycroft said:
If you want to talk about a deal to raise taxes in return for spending cuts, I would say okay...if you reversed the order.

When spending is cut by a particular amount, then taxes could be increased by a certain amount...as long as the tax increases were across the board.

Any time taxes are raised with the promise to cut spending...we only get the tax increases. The spending cuts never seem to happen.

The Republicans would go along with that...probably including the Tea Party guys. But I really don't think the Democrats would like it.

Oh, well.
Click to expand...
That's bull. It's was offered during the budget committee meetings last fall and the Repo's rejected the idea.

Now we'll have "mandatory" budget cuts including the military - yeah, we'll see how that turns out IRL ... :roll:
 
Billy the Kid said:
Why? If your interested in those facts, why not just Google them? Good job.
Click to expand...



I did GOOGLE it before I asked . I could not find one instance where the death of anyone was taxed. NOT A SINGLE ONE.

Not one American death was taxed . I cannot locate one example of it.

You are screaming, whining and moaning about something which does not exist.
 
haymarket said:
I guess that is your way of attempting to both dodge the question and move the goal posts at the same time.
Click to expand...

wrong as usual-its just to show that the term estate tax is as or more inaccurate as death tax. the best name for it is "a surcharge on the wealthy"
 
haymarket said:
I did GOOGLE it before I asked . I could not find one instance where the death of anyone was taxed. NOT A SINGLE ONE.

Not one American death was taxed . I cannot locate one example of it.

You are screaming, whining and moaning about something which does not exist.
Click to expand...


why do you set standards that no one else is using. no one said the act of death was taxed-everyone said that death is what causes the tax to "vest"
 
haymarket said:
I did GOOGLE it before I asked . I could not find one instance where the death of anyone was taxed. NOT A SINGLE ONE.

Not one American death was taxed . I cannot locate one example of it.

You are screaming, whining and moaning about something which does not exist.
Click to expand...


Screaming, whinning and moaning? Rather dramatic IMO.

Tomato/Tomato.

I'll just continue to call it a Death Tax.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I'm good with that!!! :D
Click to expand...

Yeah -its an appeal to class envy that survives only because it isn't applied to more people. any politician who applied it to every estate would be dead within a week
 
Billy the Kid said:
Screaming, whinning and moaning? Rather dramatic IMO.

Tomato/Tomato.

I'll just continue to call it a Death Tax.
Click to expand...
So as long as I don't pay my taxes I won't die?!? Great!!! :D
 
TurtleDude said:
Yeah -its an appeal to class envy that survives only because it isn't applied to more people. any politician who applied it to every estate would be dead within a week
Click to expand...
Like everybody HAS an "estate"! :lamo

Your every post shows how far removed you are from the world in which most people live.
 
MoSurveyor said:
That's bull. It's was offered during the budget committee meetings last fall and the Repo's rejected the idea.

Now we'll have "mandatory" budget cuts including the military - yeah, we'll see how that turns out IRL ... :roll:
Click to expand...

Really? The best that was offered was $1T now for $1T over 10 years.
 
Aberration said:
Really? The best that was offered was $1T now for $1T over 10 years.
Click to expand...
“We feel the ball’s in their court,” said a senior Democratic aide, who like other aides asked not to be named to describe the closed-door negotiations. “They need to put a number on what they’re willing to do on revenue that at least matches where they were in talks between Boehner and the president.”

During this summer’s battle over the debt limit, Boehner offered to accept as much as $800 billion in new taxes over the next decade as part of a rewrite of the tax code that would wipe out expensive incentives and deductions, and lower rates overall.

In his session with reporters, Boehner refused to embrace that figure. There was more discouraging news a few hours later, when 33 Senate Republicans released a letter urging the supercommittee to adopt a plan that would rewrite the tax code “with no net tax increase.”
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)
Debt-reduction supercommittee talks appear to be at an impasse - The Washington Post


This is part of what I remember from the talks. Would you like to post a link showing something different?


Ed:
And keep in mind that's $800B over a decade, a whopping $80B per year. :roll:

Or maybe this one ...
The aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations, said the mortgage tax idea and paring other tax breaks were part of a $1.2 trillion deficit reduction plan proposed by some of the Republican members.

The added revenues from limiting deductions would have amounted to about $250 billion over 10 years, Democratic aides said.

But at the same time, the Republican plan proposed a big tax cut for the wealthiest by lowering the top tax rate to 28 percent, from the current 35 percent.
Click to expand...
Pfft! That's not negotiating.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom