• 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

TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

How does a constant repetition of the exact same talking points in post after post after post and in thread after thread after thread constitute anything other than spamming? Your same talking points have been refuted so often and by so many people that I am surprised even you can still type the words without bursting into laughter knowing the utter ridiculousness of what you are saying.

You keep saying that the issue is that the rich pay more but you have been shown over and over and over that the rich now pay a LOWER PERCENTAGE of thier income in taxes than at any time in the last seven decades.

You keep saying that the rich pay the highest rate on capital gains but you have been shown over and over and over that the rate itself - 15% - is tremendously preferential and discriminatory since well over 80% of the breaks from it go to the very wealthy.

You do not want FICA taxes considered in the over all tax burden percentage a person pays and you keep saying it was not suppose to be a progressive tax but you ignore that over and over and over again the other side is NOT asking for FICA to be progressive. They are merely advocating that 100% of American earners pay the SAME FICA percentage on 100% of their income. Nobody is asking FICA be made a progressive tax. NOBODY.

You keep whining that rich people pay more tax that non rich people but you have been told over and over and over that when one calculates ALL taxes a person pays, many rich people pay an over all SMALLER percentage of their income to government than some working people do.

You keep whining about the rich paying more but you conveniently play ostrich to the economic reality that a very tiny percentage of rich Americans control a very large percentage of money and wealth in America.

You follow the orders of your corporate and ideological masters (how do you like it when others claim you have masters) and keep using the neologism DEATH TAX long after even your yourself cannot provide on name of one person whose death was taxed without a transfer of significant wealth to another.

If you have been schooled on these realties once, you have been schooled on them hundreds of times Turtle. Hundreds and hundreds of times by many many different posters.

But you keep coming back and posting the exact same talking points over and over and over again in thread after thread after thread in your cause celebre to lower your own personal tax bite and the nation be damned.

That is not debate. It is a broken record. And its got a lousy beat and you can't dance to it either.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
How does a constant repetition of the exact same talking points in post after post after post and in thread after thread after thread constitute anything other than spamming? Your same talking points have been refuted so often and by so many people that I am surprised even you can still type the words without bursting into laughter knowing the utter ridiculousness of what you are saying.

You keep saying that the issue is that the rich pay more but you have been shown over and over and over that the rich now pay a LOWER PERCENTAGE of thier income in taxes than at any time in the last seven decades.

You keep saying that the rich pay the highest rate on capital gains but you have been shown over and over and over that the rate itself - 15% - is tremendously preferential and discriminatory since well over 80% of the breaks from it go to the very wealthy.

You do not want FICA taxes considered in the over all tax burden percentage a person pays and you keep saying it was not suppose to be a progressive tax but you ignore that over and over and over again the other side is NOT asking for FICA to be progressive. They are merely advocating that 100% of American earners pay the SAME FICA percentage on 100% of their income. Nobody is asking FICA be made a progressive tax. NOBODY.

You keep whining that rich people pay more tax that non rich people but you have been told over and over and over that when one calculates ALL taxes a person pays, many rich people pay an over all SMALLER percentage of their income to government than some working people do.

You keep whining about the rich paying more but you conveniently play ostrich to the economic reality that a very tiny percentage of rich Americans control a very large percentage of money and wealth in America.

If you have been schooled on these realties once, you have been schooled on them hundreds of times Turtle. Hundreds and hundreds of times by many many different posters.

But you keep coming back and posting the exact same talking points over and over and over again in thread after thread after thread in your cause celebre to lower your own personal tax bite and the nation be damned.

That is not debate. It is a broken record.
Click to expand...

we know your goals

a permanent majority beholden to the dems for hand outs means the dems will always win elections while America loses by having so many people sucking on the public teats
 
TurtleDude said:
we know your goals

a permanent majority beholden to the dems for hand outs means the dems will always win elections while America loses by having so many people sucking on the public teats
Click to expand...

More with the Turtle Mind Reading Schtick and Trick. When did I ever advocate for the utter nonsense that you just posted?

Do you get some kick out of repeatedly using that metaphor the way some fifth grade boy would seem to do?

Why are you impotent to address each of the points that I just crushed and flushed you on?
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
More with the Turtle Mind Reading Schtick and Trick. When did I ever advocate for the utter nonsense that you just posted?

Do you get some kick out of repeatedly using that metaphor the way some fifth grade boy would seem to do?

Why are you impotent to address each of the points that I just crushed and flushed you on?
Click to expand...

its so obvious. make the rich pay more and more so the money can be used to buy votes for dem masters



I love your self awarded accomplishments
 
Lets see about some of the idiocy

how is a 15% rate on investment income unfair? because Haymarket thinks that it is too low compared to taxes on earned income

but most people never pay even an effective rate of 15% on earned income and those who pay higher effective rates on earned income aren't complaining

the unfairness it that earned income is taxed at 35% for some and zero for others

since the wealthy pay a huge amount of the taxes-whining that the rates on earned income "benefits" the rich" is a specious comment

its all is based on Haymarkets belief the rich should always be taxed more than others NO MATTER WHAT FORM OF TAX IS INVOLVED
 
some more idiocy to deal with: we have an income tax NOT A WEALTH TAX

many forms of wealth do not generate income

many forms of wealth were purchased with after tax dollars

taxing wealth-another Haymarket goal since he whines about the rich having so much "wealth"-is unfair and idiotic because it clearly would be taxing income TWICE. If I have 100K of after tax income and I buy a painting with that which is worth 100K being taxed merely for owning that painting each year would be taxing that 100K over and over and over and over.
 
haymarket said:
You do not want FICA taxes considered in the over all tax burden percentage a person pays and you keep saying it was not suppose to be a progressive tax but you ignore that over and over and over again the other side is NOT asking for FICA to be progressive. They are merely advocating that 100% of American earners pay the SAME FICA percentage on 100% of their income. Nobody is asking FICA be made a progressive tax. NOBODY.
Click to expand...
And it has been explained to you over and over that the reason their is a cap on FICA taxes is because there is a cap on FICA payouts. Evil millionaires and billionaires do not get higher SS checks than do those who make $100,000. If you think it right to demand people pay more for zero benefit, perhaps you should put new batteries in your fairness meter.
 
Fletch said:
And it has been explained to you over and over that the reason their is a cap on FICA taxes is because there is a cap on FICA payouts. Evil millionaires and billionaires do not get higher SS checks than do those who make $100,000. If you think it right to demand people pay more for zero benefit, perhaps you should put new batteries in your fairness meter.
Click to expand...

the best way to explain it to those who are blinded by a desire to whine about the rich is that a rich guy who buys a 1 million dollar policy and pays 5K year on it is the same as a guy making 65K a year who buys the same thing
 
TurtleDude said:
taxing wealth-another Haymarket goal since he whines about the rich having so much "wealth"-is unfair and idiotic because it clearly would be taxing income TWICE. If I have 100K of after tax income and I buy a painting with that which is worth 100K being taxed merely for owning that painting each year would be taxing that 100K over and over and over and over.
Click to expand...
Property taxes? LOL!
 
Fletch said:
And it has been explained to you over and over that the reason their is a cap on FICA taxes is because there is a cap on FICA payouts. Evil millionaires and billionaires do not get higher SS checks than do those who make $100,000. If you think it right to demand people pay more for zero benefit, perhaps you should put new batteries in your fairness meter.
Click to expand...
And as long as some right-wingnut isn't trying to lump SS retirement with welfare I'm good with keeping it a separate issue. But once you start down that slope there's no reason to exclude FICA from Fed income tax comparisons.

What's YOUR position on SS retirement? Is it a retirement plan run by the government or just Old People Welfare?
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
And as long as some right-wingnut isn't trying to lump SS retirement with welfare I'm good with keeping it a separate issue. But once you start down that slope there's no reason to exclude FICA from Fed income tax comparisons.

What's YOUR position on SS reitrement? Is it a retirement system or just Old People Welfare?
Click to expand...
I dont believe it should exist at all. If you want to retire--meaning not work to support yourself--you have to prepare for that day by saving. If I had had the 12% of my lifetime income to invest myself rather than have it taken by the state for SS taxes, I would be retired now. But as it is now, I dont consider it welfare since what you take out is based upon what you paid in. As far as government programs go, it is hardly the worst, but like most things, I dont believe the state should be involved in that sort of thing.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Property taxes? LOL!
Click to expand...

real property is taxed under the assumption that state functions are used to maintain or protect that property such as fire, police and garbage

nice try but fail

why should a painting, firearm collection or a 100K in stock be taxed merely for being owned


and its fun watching liberals on these issues

you all will engage in massive evasion or quibbling to defend an idiotic claim by a fellow traveler

you apparently understand that whining about wealth has no relevance to income taxes but you will divert because you don't want to allow a pro freedom poster to correct a member of the Tax the rich more crowd
 
Fletch said:
I dont believe it should exist at all. If you want to retire--meaning not work to support yourself--you have to prepare for that day by saving. If I had had the 12% of my lifetime income to invest myself rather than have it taken by the state for SS taxes, I would be retired now. But as it is now, I dont consider it welfare since what you take out is based upon what you paid in. As far as government programs go, it is hardly the worst, but like most things, I dont believe the state should be involved in that sort of thing.
Click to expand...
I understood your libertarian bent for what you think should be, I was more concerned about your take on what is. Thank you for your input. :)
 
TurtleDude said:
real property is taxed under the assumption that state functions are used to maintain or protect that property such as fire, police and garbage

nice try but fail

why should a painting, firearm collection or a 100K in stock be taxed merely for being owned


and its fun watching liberals on these issues

you all will engage in massive evasion or quibbling to defend an idiotic claim by a fellow traveler

you apparently understand that whining about wealth has no relevance to income taxes but you will divert because you don't want to allow a pro freedom poster to correct a member of the Tax the rich more crowd
Click to expand...
No, I've had the same opinion about taxing wealth ever since you started your "pay for what you use" nonsense. If we pay for what we use then at least half of the cost of the military should be based on wealth since that's a large part of what they're defending. You started me thinking along those lines, so don't blame it on anyone else. LOL!
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
No, I've had the same opinion about taxing wealth ever since you started your "pay for what you use" nonsense. If we pay for what we use then at least half of the cost of the military should be based on wealth since that's a large part of what they're defending. You started me thinking along those lines, so don't blame it on anyone else. LOL!
Click to expand...

opinion noted and rejected as moronic.

the military isn't defending "wealth" but the nation as a whole.
and generally the poor are less mobile than the rich
 
TurtleDude said:
the military isn't defending "wealth" but the nation as a whole.
and generally the poor are less mobile than the rich
Click to expand...
Of course the military are defending the wealth - what kind of nonsense is it to claim otherwise?
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Of course the military are defending the wealth - what kind of nonsense is it to claim otherwise?
Click to expand...

they are defending the country as a whole-what happens-the chinese attack the use and the commanders tell our military to guard mansions?

can you prove that the military spends more money defending my house as opposed to yours
 
TurtleDude said:
they are defending the country as a whole-what happens-the chinese attack the use and the commanders tell our military to guard mansions?
Click to expand...
I'll be sure to let everyone know if they bomb something in America it's OK. As long is it doesn't kill anyone the most we'll do is sue them for damages because the military doesn't care about the wealth of the nation. LOL!
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
I'll be sure to let everyone know if they bomb something in America it's OK. As long is it doesn't kill anyone the most we'll do is sue them for damages because the military doesn't care about the wealth of the nation. LOL!
Click to expand...

you have to prove your claim that the military is tasked with defending the rich more when they only make up a small percentage of the country yet pay more for the military than the bottom 65% combined
 
TurtleDude said:
can you prove that the military spends more money defending my house as opposed to yours
Click to expand...
If we're getting down to that they don't spend anything to defend my house since it's not accessible from foreign territory. Someone would have to go through several other states before getting to mine, so I'll forgo military defense. I don't need it, thanks. :)
 
TurtleDude said:
you have to prove your claim that the military is tasked with defending the rich more when they only make up a small percentage of the country yet pay more for the military than the bottom 65% combined
Click to expand...
:lamo Nice try with that phony 65% number! Your "source" already killed your claim to that. :lamo
 
MoSurveyor said:
:lamo Nice try with that phony 65% number! Your "source" already killed your claim to that. :lamo
Click to expand...

does the bottom 65% pay as much as the top 2 percent in federal income taxes? we know the top 5% pays more than the bottom 95% combined
 
TurtleDude said:
does the bottom 65% pay as much as the top 2 percent in federal income taxes? we know the top 5% pays more than the bottom 95% combined
Click to expand...
Is the military only paid from federal income taxes or are they paid from the general fund, which gets money from many different sources?


Also, how much wealth is the Top 2% sitting on compared to the bottom 65%?
How about the Top 5% compared to the other 95%?
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Is the military only paid from federal income taxes or are they paid from the general fund, which gets money from many different sources?


Also, how much wealth is the Top 2% sitting on compared to the bottom 65%?
How about the Top 5% compared to the other 95%?
Click to expand...

nice squid action

lots of ink

good evasion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom