• 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!

Poll: Blame GOP for cliff diving

Republicans have to play ball now or they lose the independents. I have my hopes up that the next four years will be relatively constructive. Halting getting things done will not work anymore.

Neither will the 'If Obama's for it, I'm agin' it' approach, which seems to have been the Republican philosophy of governing for the past 4 years.
 
Neither will the 'If Obama's for it, I'm agin' it' approach, which seems to have been the Republican philosophy of governing for the past 4 years.

It was always their goal to win in 2012. Didn't happen. I'm hoping that since Obama won't get re-elected again, we might start to see some work come out of Washington. I hope that Obama has learned how to negotiate instead of starting from a compromise.
 
They're already deciding who is at fault for something that hasn't yet happened, and wouldn't have happened if:

1. the tax cuts had been made permanent in the first place, as proposed.
2. the "compromise" bill creating automatic cuts hadn't been passed and signed.
3. we didn't insist upon spending like drunken sailors on shore leave come hell or high water.

Seems to me like that means everybody's to blame for getting us in this mess. As to who we blame if we don't get out of it? How about "everybody". Ain't nobody's hands clean here.

The Bush tax cuts were never be made permanent because of the CBO estimates on its effect on the defcit. We cant' afford them and NEVER could.
 
Who the hell cares if they were?! There is no proof that Romney ever broke the law (or rather, that his tax preparers ever broke the law), so the fact that he paid a lower effective rate than his marginal rate would suggest is hardly a reason NOT to vote for him...since it appears it was done legally within the parameters of the existing tax code.

How do we know that Romney never broke any laws on his tax returns? He has never released them all.
I beleive he took the Govt. amnesty deal on his Swiss accounts in 2009 which would mean he DID reak the law but was given a pass on it because.....well because he is a RICH SOB.

Romney also gave the impression that he wanted his already meager tax rates to be lowered even further, which was a real vote getter for his billionaire donors. The rest of the country not so much.
 
Last edited:
The Bush tax cuts were never be made permanent because of the CBO estimates on its effect on the defcit. We cant' afford them and NEVER could.

Yet the most recent CBO estimates say that extending all of the cuts would increase GDP by over 2%....while allowing them to expire would cause negative growth.
 
Uh, payroll taxes are federal taxes. The actual number of people paying neither is quite small, largely because they are students, retirees or children.

my error. I should have said federal income tax.
 
my error. I should have said federal income tax.
But your problem now is that that correction of your error kicks the crap out of your argument, because the very regressively structured payroll tax accounts for roughly the same sized slice of Fed taxation.

Da pie.
 
But your problem now is that that correction of your error kicks the crap out of your argument, because the very regressively structured payroll tax accounts for roughly the same sized slice of Fed taxation.

Da pie.

Nope. it does not negate the fact that almost 50% legally pay no federal income tax.
Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Close to half of U.S. households currently do not owe federal income tax. The Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households will owe no federal income tax for 2011. [1] A widely cited figure is a Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that 51 percent of households paid no federal income tax in 2009.[2] (The TPC figure for 2009 also is 51 percent.)

That still leaves the rest who do pay to fund the govt.
 
That still leaves the rest who do pay to fund the govt.
:roll:

Except not, as outlined above. Because you are willfully trying to ignore 40% of the government’s funding. Ergo, your statement I’ m quoting here is false.
 
But that thought process is based on a fallacy. The effective tax rate for Americans is averaging a little less than 9% per the IRS. Romney paid an effective tax rate of 15% (from dollar 1).

They can play with and distort the numbers all they want but when you actually research the facts, you find that both sides greatly exaggerate the numbers when it comes to the effects of the tax code on us for their own benefit.

The stupid among us take what they say as truth without doing the research themselves.

Romney pays less than many middle class people when you figure the TOTAL tax bite one pays to the feds as a percentage of income. This is because 93% of American earners pay a FICA tax on 100% of their income while folks like Romney do not even pay 1%. So when you add that to the federal income tax, you get the results others have mentioned.
 
Busted metaphor alert! Taxing on high school students whoist? Not remotely as silly as there is no taxing going on there at all.

Er, try several hundred million more things, all named Benjamin.

You think that money was GIVEN to him by the government

no wonder your posts are as confused as they are.
 
How do we know that Romney never broke any laws on his tax returns? He has never released them all.
I beleive he took the Govt. amnesty deal on his Swiss accounts in 2009 which would mean he DID reak the law but was given a pass on it because.....well because he is a RICH SOB.

Romney also gave the impression that he wanted his already meager tax rates to be lowered even further, which was a real vote getter for his billionaire donors. The rest of the country not so much.

how do we know that Obama is not a mass murderer or Hillary is not a serial child molestor

innocent until proven guilty

meager tax rates? LOL when the top 1% start paying less than ONE PERCENT Of the taxes than their rates are too low
 
how do we know that Obama is not a mass murderer or Hillary is not a serial child molestor

innocent until proven guilty

meager tax rates? LOL when the top 1% start paying less than ONE PERCENT Of the taxes than their rates are too low


Shouldn't they pay according to their income? Or should we just charge everyone $10?
 
Shouldn't they pay according to their income? Or should we just charge everyone $10?


The from each according to their ability (which is a joke-the middle class don't pay enough because they have too many votes) is the only grounds most on the left want.

To claim the rich aren't paying their fair share is beyond dishonest. a fair share is everyone paying the same amount for the same government services. The rich tend to pay many dollars for one dollar of service, the poor pay almost nothing for often more services
 
The from each according to their ability (which is a joke-the middle class don't pay enough because they have too many votes) is the only grounds most on the left want.

To claim the rich aren't paying their fair share is beyond dishonest. a fair share is everyone paying the same amount for the same government services. The rich tend to pay many dollars for one dollar of service, the poor pay almost nothing for often more services

Nobody can give more than their ability. To pretend otherwise is simply fantasy.

Your definition of fair share - everybody paying the same - is the opposite and a betrayal of positions you have taken on this very site in the past.
 
Nobody can give more than their ability. To pretend otherwise is simply fantasy.

Your definition of fair share - everybody paying the same - is the opposite and a betrayal of positions you have taken on this very site in the past.

most don't give as much as they can.

if votes were based on taxes paid, the middle class would have to pay more

they pay less than their share because they have more votes
 
You think that money was GIVEN to him by the government

no wonder your posts are as confused as they are.
What. The. ****.

Yeah, no wonder when you post bizzaro things like that. What money to who?
 
I think they'll reach a deal.

Re the poll numbers . . . the only thing they don't know is, of the people they polled, which of them are going to actually vote. Seems like lots of conservatives stayed home.

Had dinner with some 20-somethings last week, and the reason they voted Obama? Mitt Romney pays less of a percentage of income tax than they do. Nice job, Dems. It worked.

Just heard a report from Hart(sp), Texas where people didn't vote for Obama because he is a muslim and not born in America. Well done GOP.
 
most don't give as much as they can.

if votes were based on taxes paid, the middle class would have to pay more

they pay less than their share because they have more votes

You do realize the US Constitution has strong language forbidding such a thing?
 
Just heard a report from Hart(sp), Texas where people didn't vote for Obama because he is a muslim and not born in America. Well done GOP.

that actually has a stronger basis in truth than the claims made about Romney's tax rate
 
The from each according to their ability (which is a joke-the middle class don't pay enough because they have too many votes) is the only grounds most on the left want.

To claim the rich aren't paying their fair share is beyond dishonest. a fair share is everyone paying the same amount for the same government services. The rich tend to pay many dollars for one dollar of service, the poor pay almost nothing for often more services

I'm not claiming they're not paying their fair share. But if we're going to raise taxes, it doesn't make any sense to burden the middle-class, as they represent most consumers. More taxes, they consume less. What does that do to the economy?

Guess what? We're going to have to raise taxes.
 
Romney pays less than many middle class people when you figure the TOTAL tax bite one pays to the feds as a percentage of income. This is because 93% of American earners pay a FICA tax on 100% of their income while folks like Romney do not even pay 1%. So when you add that to the federal income tax, you get the results others have mentioned.

And? Your point is what?

Add in FICA and you still only add 2% or so.

So OK...the average person pays 11%+/- effective rate, Romney paid 15% +/- effective rate...

Lets take an income...somewhere around $50K for arguments sake (Thats the number Obama campaign chose so we will use it also)
Campaign ad - "Mitt Romney admitted he thinks it's fair that his $20 million income was taxed at a lower rate than someone making $50,000."

You and others claim Romneys tax rate is less than the rate paid by people making less than $50,000 a year. The claim, though, is open to debate. It only holds up in a particular scenario in which both income and all payroll taxes are counted

You all and president's campaign presumably is referring to Romney's release last week of his 2011 tax returns, which showed he paid an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent.

IRS data, though, shows that Romney's effective income tax rate -- that's what he pays as a percentage of his income once deductions and other benefits are factored in -- is actually far higher than what most Americans pay. And it's certainly higher than what someone making $50,000 pays. IRS data from 2010 shows someone making between $50,000 and $75,000 on average pays an effective rate of 7.8 percent. Even someone making between $100,000 and $200,000 pays a 12.1 percent rate -- also lower than Romney's.

The campaign likely is trying to make the point that Romney's income -- at least the huge chunk of it that is derived from investments -- is taxed at a 15 percent rate, while others who earn their money from a paycheck are taxed at marginal income rates going all the way up to 35 percent.
The latter percentage, though, comes down once deductions and exemptions are included. The Tax Foundation estimated in a report in January that Romney's rate in 2010 -- which was also about 14 percent -- was higher than what 97 percent of Americans pay.
The math works out better for the Obama campaign's claims if all payroll taxes are included in the formula.
Since Romney earns most his income from investments and not from a paycheck, he doesn't have to pay much toward Social Security and Medicare taxes. But if both the employee and employer share of those taxes are included towards the employees marginal tax rate, according to a Tax Policy Center chart, the middle tier of earners would be paying a 15.5 percent effective rate. (As pointed out in an earlier report by FactCheck.org.)

Please, get your facts straight before you post things. Dont listen to the pundits and the politicians....here is a very hush hush secret I am going to share with you, THEY LIE. They will lie to you because they know you will not take the time to research it for yourself. You will not take the time away from Dancing With the Stars and American Idol or Facebook long enough to do the research necessary to find the truth.
 
Back
Top Bottom