• 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!

Howard Dean: "The Truth Is Everybody Needs To Pay More Taxes, Not Just The Rich"

ashurbanipal said:
This is not the usual rhetoric I hear. I'm too tired right now to go looking for examples, but the usual line seems to be that even keeping spending where it is (the demonstrations usually involve current budgets, not projected ones), raising taxes on the rich wouldn't affect the deficit. But, those who make those claims will also, in different millieaux, claim that the rich foot the largest share of the bill anyway.
Click to expand...

And for both of those statements to be true, the final piece of this apparent puzzle, is SPENDING. Do the wealthy pay the majority of the taxes collected? Yes. Does raising their taxes fix our deficit? Not really, because SPENDING is not being addressed. It was SPENDING that gave us the deficit, not lowering taxes.
 
KevinKohler said:
What's best for a society at large, and whats fair for the individuals within said society are rarely, if ever, the same thing. Don't like, then get out of the society. Cut all strings and attachments to it, become a hermit. Only them might you find it a bit more fair.
Click to expand...

true, one could argue that euthanizing severely retarded individuals and those with incurable but costly diseases and sterilizing low IQ people who have lots of kids would be very good for society-but hardly fair for those so killed or castrated
 
TurtleDude said:
true, one could argue that euthanizing severely retarded individuals and those with incurable but costly diseases and sterilizing low IQ people who have lots of kids would be very good for society-but hardly fair for those so killed or castrated
Click to expand...

So, to you, killing people who are not as bright, or as healthy, is the same as taking more money away from wealthier people than what we take from less wealthy people?
 
What a conundrum. Everyone DOES need to pay more taxes. AND there needs to be a drastic cut in government. AND...uh oh...all those uninsured are going to have to cough up cash for mandated policies too...

So either its going to get bumpy in which case I hope everyone brought their helmet, or congress and the president will do what they always do...cave, jack up the debt, and stick tomorrows generations with a bigger bill.
 
KevinKohler said:
And this is achieved...how? By making taxes low enough for anyone to afford them, or by increases to minimum wages? Neither of those options will work, so you got something better, I hope?
Click to expand...

No, liberals who want that operate by wishful thinking, not with reality.
 
KevinKohler said:
And for both of those statements to be true, the final piece of this apparent puzzle, is SPENDING. Do the wealthy pay the majority of the taxes collected? Yes. Does raising their taxes fix our deficit? Not really, because SPENDING is not being addressed. It was SPENDING that gave us the deficit, not lowering taxes.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating for one specific solution over another. I was responding to another poster's point. However, as long as spending remains constant (i.e. is not increased), the two statements cannot both be true. It cannot be the case that the wealthy contribute the most revenue at a given tax rate, and also be true that raising their rates would have no effect on the deficit.

That said, it seems the issue about spending vs. lowering taxes is more complex than you suggest. Both contributed to the deficit.
 
KevinKohler said:
The issue there is that there are currently too many perfectly legal ways to prevent profits from being taxed.
Click to expand...

There is no legal way to keep profit from being taxed. i.e. if a dollar can't be taxed, it's not profit.
 
iguanaman said:
Imagine a country where all workers made enough to afford to pay taxes and still not starve. That's my dream
Click to expand...

You'll never not have poor people. However, we can reduce the number of poor people by ending government meddling in the private sector.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating for one specific solution over another. I was responding to another poster's point. However, as long as spending remains constant (i.e. is not increased), the two statements cannot both be true. It cannot be the case that the wealthy contribute the most revenue at a given tax rate, and also be true that raising their rates would have no effect on the deficit.

That said, it seems the issue about spending vs. lowering taxes is more complex than you suggest. Both contributed to the deficit.
Click to expand...
Taxes have done nothing but increase since the end of the civil war. That tells me that spending is what caused the deficit. We live in a subsidized nation. There is not one facet of your life that is untouched by state or federal subsidies. It's a house of cards whose base is smaller than it's top. You can tax 100% of Americans for 100% of their incomes, and this issue will not be solved. It's not a taxing issue...it never was.
 
apdst said:
There is no legal way to keep profit from being taxed. i.e. if a dollar can't be taxed, it's not profit.
Click to expand...
Tell that to Warren Buffet, or Mitt Romney.
 
Rapunzel52 said:
Flat tax, no loopholes, no deductions. 15-20% across the board...including those 47% now who pay no federal income taxes. Obama constantly saying we all need to pay our fair share, have skin in the game and fair shot and all that crap has not once mentioned those who pay no federal income taxes. How is that fair??? He doesn't want fair, he just wants to punish those who have been successful.
Click to expand...

15%-20% would be way too high. For it to be reasonable, it would have to be less than 10% and probably in the 4-6% neighborhood.
 
apdst said:
15%-20% would be way too high. For it to be reasonable, it would have to be less than 10% and probably in the 4-6% neighborhood.
Click to expand...

Could be...haven't figured it out. I know what 15% would be for us and does not seem unreasonable.
 
It could be this little ditty from Howard was telling us what Obama is thinking. He's an insider and maybe knows more than us. Could it be that he is telling us that the Obama admin. will not deal with the fiscal cliff and in turn all of us will be taxed more, not just the rich???
 
Rapunzel52 said:
Could be...haven't figured it out. I know what 15% would be for us and does not seem unreasonable.
Click to expand...

It seems very unreasonable to me. A person making 50 grand a year can't afford to pay a $7,500 dollar tax bill. Speaking for myself, there's no way I can afford a $15,000 tax bill. A little more than $1,000 a month coming out of my check every month? There's no way.

Now, at 5% I would be paying about $400 a month...way more reasonable, esepcially when you figure that everybody will be paying 5%, instead of half the country paying nothing.

And, if that's not enough, then entitelment's will have to be cut and some of those people will have to get off their asses and go to work.
 
Rapunzel52 said:
It could be this little ditty from Howard was telling us what Obama is thinking. He's an insider and maybe knows more than us. Could it be that he is telling us that the Obama admin. will not deal with the fiscal cliff and in turn all of us will be taxed more, not just the rich???
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it is. The rich folks are just the first ones to get popped; the rest of us are on the list, too.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I think it's interesting, and bordering on apparent outright contradiction, that many conservatives hold, on the one hand, that the rich pay the largest share of taxes as a percentage of revenue received by the government. This, they do with current tax rates. But on the other hand, raising those rates will have no impact on the deficit. It doesn't seem that a person can coherently hold both points.

I agree that the middle class is likely to end up having to pay more. But the above point is something I think really ought to be clarified before we start talking about raising taxes on everyone.
Click to expand...
It comes from an understanding that our current deficit situation isn't due to low taxes, but low numbers of workers paying taxes. If you want tax revenue, putting people back to work is priority #1 (and 2, 3, 4...). Taxing high earners doesn't put people back to work. Employment has remained flat since the end of the recession - jobs plummeted and we've essentially been holding steady at the low point ever since.
 
Rapunzel52 said:
Flat tax, no loopholes, no deductions. 15-20% across the board...including those 47% now who pay no federal income taxes. Obama constantly saying we all need to pay our fair share, have skin in the game and fair shot and all that crap has not once mentioned those who pay no federal income taxes. How is that fair??? He doesn't want fair, he just wants to punish those who have been successful.
Click to expand...
I am all for the part in red, but I know it won't happen.
 
As a general concept, I'm ok with raising taxes on everybody, so I don't reject Dean's comments out-of-hand (and I generally don't agree with Dean on much of anything). Note that I said I'm ok with it, not that I would like or prefer it.

But, on the flip side... for all the talk I'm hearing about who should pay more, I'm hearing nothing but crickets regarding where the necessary cuts will come from. I need to know exactly what the Dems are proposing as cuts, not some vague promise that will likely be forgotten after the tax hikes are enacted.

If there is a list of specific cuts, please let me know, and show me a link. I honestly have not seen, nor heard of, such a list.
 
My personal opinion is there should be no income tax at all... For anyone, of any class...
 
radcen said:
As a general concept, I'm ok with raising taxes on everybody, so I don't reject Dean's comments out-of-hand (and I generally don't agree with Dean on much of anything). Note that I said I'm ok with it, not that I would like or prefer it.

But, on the flip side... for all the talk I'm hearing about who should pay more, I'm hearing nothing but crickets regarding where the necessary cuts will come from. I need to know exactly what the Dems are proposing as cuts, not some vague promise that will likely be forgotten after the tax hikes are enacted.

If there is a list of specific cuts, please let me know, and show me a link. I honestly have not seen, nor heard of, such a list.
Click to expand...

Me either. As I have stated before we've been waiting for those 2.5 dollars in spending cuts for every 1 dollar in taxes for decades now.
 
Taylor said:
It comes from an understanding that our current deficit situation isn't due to low taxes, but low numbers of workers paying taxes. If you want tax revenue, putting people back to work is priority #1 (and 2, 3, 4...). Taxing high earners doesn't put people back to work. Employment has remained flat since the end of the recession - jobs plummeted and we've essentially been holding steady at the low point ever since.
Click to expand...

Well it's the young who mostly are not working and now they can stay on their parents insurance until 26 which lowers the incentive to do so. Lots of them are also getting their college paid for by grants, loans and their parents, another de-incentiviser to get out to work and fend for yourself.
 
To add more pain we'll most likely see a VAT tax and carbon tax come into existence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom