• 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"

lpast

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
13,663
Reaction score
4,633
Location
Fla
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I agree with this statement, that everyone that can needs to pay a bit more taxs and not just the rich.
This is a primer to prepare for an ultimate compromise that does include tax increases on the middleclass..it might come in the form of no more tax deductions on mortgages..which im against.


he only problem is -- and this is initially going to seem like heresy from a progressive is -- the truth is everybody needs to pay more taxes, not just the rich. And it's a good start. But we're not going to get out of this deficit problem unless we raise taxes across the board, to go back to what Bill Clinton had and his taxes. And if we don't do that, the problem is the pressure is going to be on spending even more.


Howard Dean: "The Truth Is Everybody Needs To Pay More Taxes, Not Just The Rich" | RealClearPolitics
 
i agree. i'd be fine with going back to the Clinton tax rates for all brackets, and the SS discount has got to go. these changes would be a serious financial strain on me, but so would recession, default, and currency devaluation when i am getting no raises.

what is key is that we phase in the tax increases year by year, rather than enact them all at once.
 
At the end of the day, raising taxes on just the rich will have all but no effect on revenue. It will not narrow our deficit, it will not move us towards a balanced budget. It's an empty gesture designed to convince the American middle class (and largest voting block), that politicians are "in our corner". At the end of the day, tax revenue needs to increase significantly. The best way to do that, IMO, is to simplify the tax code and eliminate loopholes that allow very large, very profitable corporations to pay absolutely nothing, that allow me to pay an effective rate below 8% on income that puts me damn close to the U.S. median, that allows the "rich" to pay 12-13%.

If we streamline the tax code with progressive rates and no deductions we'll be better off. Hell, even graduated deductions would be simpler than what we have now. How hard would it be to create deductions inverse to tax rates? If you're "rich", your dependent deduction would be say 1/4 as large as it is for somebody in the lowest bracket, for example.

Either way, we're never going to pull in the revenue we need simply by taxing the rich and closing a few corporate loopholes. Everybody's going to have skin in the game eventually...whether it takes the form of a higher tax or a lower deduction, or a lower SS pay out, or high Medicare out of pocket, or whatever else.
 
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.
 
I agree with this statement, that everyone that can needs to pay a bit more taxs and not just the rich.
This is a primer to prepare for an ultimate compromise that does include tax increases on the middleclass..it might come in the form of no more tax deductions on mortgages..which im against.


he only problem is -- and this is initially going to seem like heresy from a progressive is -- the truth is everybody needs to pay more taxes, not just the rich. And it's a good start. But we're not going to get out of this deficit problem unless we raise taxes across the board, to go back to what Bill Clinton had and his taxes. And if we don't do that, the problem is the pressure is going to be on spending even more.


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

Dean's main point has been that the $800 billion Defense cut sequester needs to stay and that will only happen if Obama does not make a deal with Republicans. This is the only good reason to agree with him on taxes. We won't get the defense cuts we need if we deal with Republicans.
 
Dean's main point has been that the $800 billion Defense cut sequester needs to stay and that will only happen if Obama does not make a deal with Republicans. This is the only good reason to agree with him on taxes. We won't get the defense cuts we need if we deal with Republicans.

The word compromise means that no one gets all they want for the common good
 
The word compromise means that no one gets all they want for the common good

So you DON'T agree with Dean after all. It's a package deal, taxes got up on everyone and $800 billion is cut from defense.
 
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.

There is no contradiction at all.

Democrats are lobbying to increase taxes on the wealthy while simultaneously looking to increase spending as a whole.
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
Imagine a country where if one segment of the voters base's taxes were increased/decreased that everyone elses did to by the same percentage. I have a strong feeling that a majority of voters would not be as supportive of many of our governments programs.
 
So you DON'T agree with Dean after all. It's a package deal, taxes got up on everyone and $800 billion is cut from defense.

Relax thats not the final deal
 
i agree. i'd be fine with going back to the Clinton tax rates for all brackets, and the SS discount has got to go. these changes would be a serious financial strain on me, but so would recession, default, and currency devaluation when i am getting no raises.

what is key is that we phase in the tax increases year by year, rather than enact them all at once.

I would rather see the government loosen the reins on the private sector and try raising more revenue through more private sector profits.
 
Relax thats not the final deal

I'm confused. Your OP was praising Dean for NOT wanting any deal. Doing nothing will also mean $800 billion in defense cuts and is Deans prime reason for allowing all tax rates to go up.
 
If the dems are stupid enough to push through an across the board tax increase the repubs will own the house and the senate in 2014. That simple.
 
Imagine a country where if one segment of the voters base's taxes were increased/decreased that everyone elses did to by the same percentage. I have a strong feeling that a majority of voters would not be as supportive of many of our governments programs.

Imagine a country where all workers made enough to afford to pay taxes and still not starve. That's my dream
 
If the dems are stupid enough to push through an across the board tax increase the repubs will own the house and the senate in 2014. That simple.

Sorry but the ball is in the Republicans court, the House needs to pass the bill in front of them or 98% of voters will know who to blame.
 
Sorry but the ball is in the Republicans court, the House needs to pass the bill in front of them or 98% of voters will know who to blame.

And they know precisely who to blame if their taxes go up (and they're not part of the so-called 1%).
 
Imagine a country where if one segment of the voters base's taxes were increased/decreased that everyone elses did to by the same percentage. I have a strong feeling that a majority of voters would not be as supportive of many of our governments programs.

I've been advocating for a tax sctucture on this forum for a while that will never realistically happen, but is meant to bridge the tax gap a bit on various peoples issues.

These aren't the exact numbers from when I was researching it, but for explanation sakes i'll put some here.

You have 5 tax brackets, each set with a %.

Bracket 1 - 0.5%
Bracket 2 - 1%
Bracket 3 - 2%
Bracket 4 - 4%
Bracket 5 - 7%

The percentage rate for each bracket is locked, with it being stated that you can't change one without a reduction/increase to all. You then have what would be called the Tax Multiplier. The Tax Multiplier would be a number that congress would set that is applied to all the various brackets. The number can go as low as "1" and as high as "10". So if you set the tax modifier at 5 you'd have these brackets:

1 - 2.5%
2 - 5%
3 - 10%
4 - 20%
5 - 35%

What this would do is make it so tax policy can still be argued back and forth between the parties all they wish, but it'd be an over arching thing not something that could be tailored to one particular group or not. To raise taxes will raise taxes on everyone. By even the lowest bracket having a small base percentage, it assures that tax policy affects EVERYONE to some degree and everyone has some skin in the game. However, it also does use a "progressive" scale where the higher points of money being earned end up getting taxed more.
 
Last edited:
Donahue said:
There is no contradiction at all.

Democrats are lobbying to increase taxes on the wealthy while simultaneously looking to increase spending as a whole.

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.
 
zyphilin said:
I've been advocating for a tax sctucture on this forum for a while that will never realistically happen, but is meant to bridge the tax gap a bit on various peoples issues.

These aren't the exact numbers from when I was researching it, but for explanation sakes i'll put some here.

You have 5 tax brackets, each set with a %.

Bracket 1 - 0.5%
Bracket 2 - 1%
Bracket 3 - 2%
Bracket 4 - 4%
Bracket 5 - 7%

The percentage rate for each bracket is locked, with it being stated that you can't change one without a reduction/increase to all. You then have what would be called the Tax Multiplier. The Tax Multiplier would be a number that congress would set that is applied to all the various brackets. The number can go as low as "1" and as high as "10". So if you set the tax modifier at 5 you'd have these brackets:

1 - 2.5%
2 - 5%
3 - 10%
4 - 20%
5 - 35%

What this would do is make it so tax policy can still be argued back and forth between the parties all they wish, but it'd be an over arching thing not something that could be tailored to one particular group or not. To raise taxes will raise taxes on everyone. However, it also does use a "progressive" scale where the higher points of money being earned end up getting taxed more.
For some reason, the button to "like" this post isnt' showing up. But I'd like it if I could. I think there is some merit to this kind of proposal. I might quibble with the specifics, but I think in general, it's a good idea.
 
I'm confused. Your OP was praising Dean for NOT wanting any deal. Doing nothing will also mean $800 billion in defense cuts and is Deans prime reason for allowing all tax rates to go up.

No you misunderstood...I was praising the dean actually realized we had to compromise...and we do...also I think everyone that can pay a little more should...in degrees
 
I would rather see the government loosen the reins on the private sector and try raising more revenue through more private sector profits.

The issue there is that there are currently too many perfectly legal ways to prevent profits from being taxed.
 
Imagine a country where all workers made enough to afford to pay taxes and still not starve. That's my dream

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?
 
Back
Top Bottom