• 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

MoSurveyor said:
Hey, you guys make the rules and say the work place is all voluntary! No one is forcing people to take jobs at union shops.
Click to expand...

leftwingers constantly complain that "working people" who agree to work for a set wage really have no choice. that the employers hold all the cards and thus the trade of labor for wages is not voluntary. so if your only choice of jobs in your trade is a closed shop-which has happened in states that do not have right to work laws, your choice to "join" a union is not nearly as free as you claim
 
Fletch said:
That is true as well, but you have to ask yourself why. If the government wasnt so involved and wielded so much power there would be no incentive to buy their votes. So long as congressmen have virtually unlimited power to control and regulate business, there will be business leaders who attempt to influence their votes with cash. It is power that corrupts, money is drawn to that power.
Click to expand...
I do ask myself why. Government has always had the power to regulate and control business. In fact, our Founding Fathers had no particular love of "business" except what we would call small businesses. They distrusted Big Business very much and had good reason to do so.
 
TurtleDude said:
leftwingers constantly complain that "working people" who agree to work for a set wage really have no choice. that the employers hold all the cards and thus the trade of labor for wages is not voluntary. so if your only choice of jobs in your trade is a closed shop-which has happened in states that do not have right to work laws, your choice to "join" a union is not nearly as free as you claim
Click to expand...
But right-wingnuts deny such claims and, in fact, their position is the law at this time. As such, union employment is just as "voluntary" as taking a job for $7.50/hour even if you can't really support your family on it.

When we get around to passing living wage laws and making some other labor reforms you let me know and we'll re-hash the union issue.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
But right-wingnuts deny such claims and, in fact, their position is the law at this time. As such, union employment is just as "voluntary" as taking a job for $7.50/hour even if you can't really support your family on it.

When we get around to passing living wage laws and making some other labor reforms you let me know and we'll re-hash the union issue.
Click to expand...


If you want a wage that you consider to be Living wage" (whatever that means) then you best make yourself marketable enough to earn that sort of wage rate
 
TurtleDude said:
the super rich pay a higher rate on like income than you do

you dishonestly compare one form of income with another
Click to expand...
ROFLMAO... talk about dishonesty! :2rofll:

The super rich pay the same capital gains taxes that I do, depending on how our relative regular income tax brackets break. If the super rich has zero regular income, then they pay less in capital gains that I do :shock:

However, they most definitely pay a lower overall FICA than I do (assuming that all their income is taxed as capital gains, which equates to zero FICA).

The longer you argue, the more you lose. Carry on :2razz:

Capital gains tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
TurtleDude said:
LOL, I am a labor attorney-ever heard of a closed shop?

and did you read Beck-it went up to the USSC
Click to expand...
Yes, didn't it say something about NOT being able to use union dues from non-voluntary members as PAC money? If so, that would seem to blow your whole line of bull**** out of the water.
 
TurtleDude said:
MoSurveyor said:
But right-wingnuts deny such claims and, in fact, their position is the law at this time. As such, union employment is just as "voluntary" as taking a job for $7.50/hour even if you can't really support your family on it.

When we get around to passing living wage laws and making some other labor reforms you let me know and we'll re-hash the union issue.
Click to expand...
If you want a wage that you consider to be Living wage" (whatever that means) then you best make yourself marketable enough to earn that sort of wage rate
Click to expand...
I rest my case.
 
Karl said:
ROFLMAO... talk about dishonesty! :2rofll:

The super rich pay the same capital gains taxes that I do, depending on how our relative regular income tax brackets break. If the super rich has zero regular income, then they pay less in capital gains that I do :shock:

However, they most definitely pay a lower overall FICA than I do (assuming that all their income is taxed as capital gains, which equates to zero FICA).

The longer you argue, the more you lose. Carry on :2razz:

Capital gains tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


I didn't think you were actually making enough to get to that rate based on earlier posts

but the rich pay a higher amount of taxes than you do

they pay a higher rate on earned income, investment income as well

FICA is not a progressive tax and its based on earned income not overall income-fail on your part

and most rich people pay more than you do

and if all their income is investment income they won't get as much social security will they?

nice try fail
 
MoSurveyor said:
I rest my case.
Click to expand...

I actually see you as having lost that-what entitles you to a certain wage

its not what you need

its the value of your labor
 
TurtleDude said:
I actually see you as having lost that-what entitles you to a certain wage

its not what you need

its the value of your labor
Click to expand...
I didn't loose anything. You just admitted union employment is voluntary as is any job - so you (all) say.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I didn't loose anything. You just admitted union employment is voluntary as is any job - so you (all) say.
Click to expand...

"loose anything"

YOu claimed that people have a choice. OKIE DOKIE

you have a choice to make a living wage

but that is not someone's duty to pay you what you think you NEED but what you are WORTH
 
TurtleDude said:
YOu claimed that people have a choice. OKIE DOKIE

you have a choice to make a living wage

but that is not someone's duty to pay you what you think you NEED but what you are WORTH
Click to expand...
No, YOU claim people have a choice in what jobs they take. YOU claim the job market is "voluntary" (and at the current time that's the law in America, too). As such, YOU saying union workers are "forced" to do anything is pure crap because that directly conflicts with what YOU claim.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
FICA is not a progressive tax and its based on earned income not overall income
Click to expand...
I'm sure you don't want to talk about FICA because it's a regressive Federal tax on income and makes the rich look terribly bad when comparing Federal taxes on income.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
So earned income isn't income anymore???
Click to expand...

FICA has a limit-you do know that and FICA is not applicable to investment income

are you playing contrarian games?

you know that there is a ceiling on FICA

you do know it isn't based on investment income
 
TurtleDude said:
rich people have complete choice

union members do not

Look up the BECK vs Communications Workers of America case in front of the supreme court

487 US 735 (1988)
Click to expand...
That case illustrates that union members do indeed have a choice. Once again, your argument defeats your position. Odd, but entertaining. . . . .

Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Communications Workers of America v. Beck, union workers subject to a union-security agreement enjoy what are known as “Beck Rights.” You can go to your local union leadership and tell them you’d like to exercise these rights. When you do, the union will recategorize you as an “agency fee payer.” The union will still collect fees to spend on negotiating a contract with employers and collective bargaining, but it can no longer legally spend those fees on political campaigns.

Protecting American Workers
Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
FICA has a limit-you do know that and FICA is not applicable to investment income

are you playing contrarian games?

you know that there is a ceiling on FICA

you do know it isn't based on investment income
Click to expand...
Indeed. Why are the rich getting a free ride on FICA? The middle class has to pay, but the rich don't? What's up with that?
 
TurtleDude said:
FICA has a limit-you do know that and FICA is not applicable to investment income

you know that there is a ceiling on FICA

you do know it isn't based on investment income
Click to expand...
And all this means what? That FICA isn't a Federal tax on income? LOL! You know better than that!

Or does it just mean you don't want to discuss it or have it be a part of any discussion on Fed taxes because it makes your position much, much worse???



Ed:
And I will continue pushing this point until your follow right-wingnuts decide SS retirement is not anywhere close to the same as welfare. SS recipients are not "sucking the teat" when they draw their retirement pay and if they are then FICA is a Federal tax on income and should be included in any discussion of Fed tax rates!


TurtleDude said:
are you playing contrarian games?
Click to expand...
I sometimes do that, yes. Am I doing it now? NO! Your right-wingbut buddies started this one by declaring SS retirement was welfare.
 
Last edited:
Karl said:
That case illustrates that union members do indeed have a choice. Once again, your argument defeats your position. Odd, but entertaining. . . . .
Click to expand...

LOL you fell for it-under the Clinton administration he ordered the DOL not to prosecute those claims meaning if I am a union member and the union violated my BECK Rights the DOL would not help me. Under GHWB the DOL would bring the charges and a federal attorney would go after the union

big difference but as is often the case with the far left you are arguing tangents. the BECK case proved that union member's dues were often USED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES THAT NOT ALL THE MEMBERS WANTED while in the case of rich people its generally purely voluntary

another fail on your part
 
MoSurveyor said:
And all this means what? That FICA isn't a Federal tax on income? LOL! You know better than that!

Or does it just mean you don't want to discuss it or have it be a part of any discussion on Fed taxes because it makes your position much, much worse???



Ed:
And I will continue pushing this point until your follow right-wingnuts decide SS retirement is not anywhere close to the same as welfare. SS recipients are not "sucking the teat" when they draw their retirement pay and if they are then FICA is a Federal tax on income and should be included in any discussion of Fed tax rates!
Click to expand...


more idiocy FICA is a tax with a ceiling therefore it is not progressive. nice misrepresentation of what I said

Where did I say it is not a tax on earned income

stop lying
 
Karl said:
Indeed. Why are the rich getting a free ride on FICA? The middle class has to pay, but the rich don't? What's up with that?
Click to expand...

how many rich have no earned income

so you are lying when you claim the rich are getting a free ride
 
TurtleDude said:
Where did I say it is not a tax on earned income
Click to expand...
You didn't and I didn't say you did.

TurtleDude said:
more idiocy FICA is a tax with a ceiling therefore it is not progressive. nice misrepresentation of what I said
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was progressive. It's the exact opposite - FICA is regressive, which is exactly why you don't want to discuss it. It makes you look bad and makes your case much, much weaker. Add 7.45% to the taxes and tax rates of the bottom 80%, and especially the middle 40-80%, and the rich start to look like they're skating. It doesn't take a whole lot to reach 15% when you've got 7.45% coming off the top. And make no mistake, everyone in the lower 80% pays 7.45% of their income off the top, BEFORE ANY DEDUCTIONS and with zero chance of a refund on that money.



On the flip side, capital gains have no FICA taken out.
Salaries above $106k only get the 7.45% FICA tax until $106k - everything else is gravy.
 
Last edited:
I find the irony delicious that the Republicans voted against tax cuts for the middle class just before the battle between the middle class and the super rich.

"Republicans often try to mislead the public about their true intentions, because they’d be in a lot of trouble if folks realized that the only constituents they ever work for are the very rich. But in a series of votes yesterday, the party made its true stance on taxes clear. They will do everything in their power to prevent tax hikes on the richest of the rich, but they have no objections to raising taxes on the poor and middle class.

Republicans in the Senate voted en masse against a Democratic bill that would have extended the Bush tax cuts, but only up to the first $250,000 in income. Instead, they offered their own bill, which would have kept the tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, but raised taxes on the middle class. I wonder how the voters will feel about that?"

GOP votes against middle-class tax cut - Topix
 
Born Free said:
Do I understand you correctly that if a person makes only one dollar a year they are to at least pay 5% of that dollar to the government. How about if a person makes only one dollar a yr they pay a minimum of 10%, and the rate goes up from there. No one escapes paying some taxes.
Click to expand...

All people who earn money should pay federal income tax. Right now we have the oft demonized 47% who are convenient target as they do not pay federal income tax. I am advocating that ALL Americans who earn at least one dollar a year pay income tax. I would start that at five percent for the very lowest bracket. I would take the current brackets and add five points across the board. In other words the current top 35% bracket becomes 40% and so on.
 
Fletch said:
But your words dont square with your desires. IF everyone was forced to pay income taxes to the federal government, people would be much less inclined to see government grow. The only way the left can increase the power of the state is to use the tax dollars confiscated from one group as a means of purchasing the eternal gratitude, and votes, of another. Your supposed desire for sharing the tax burden does not square with your overarching desire for bigger government. You support a raise in your own taxes for two reasons: 1. you know it wont happen 2. it provides you with a degree of cover for when you go after the real target for tax increases--the rich. But nice try, though.
Click to expand...

My position is my position and it is sincere. In addition to that I want a DECREASE in the federal budget spending of at least $300 billion right now.

Have you also graduated from the Turtle Mind Reading Correspondence Course?
 
TurtleDude said:
LOL, I am a labor attorney-ever heard of a closed shop?

and did you read Beck-it went up to the USSC
Click to expand...

A labor attorney who takes the side of management against the side of labor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom