• 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"

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...

That's been the case the last two recessions...which tells me something. But that's another story; my point is that one cannot coherently hold that some class of people pays the largest share of total revenue, and that increasing taxes on that group would have no effect on the deficit. That's an inherently contradictory position unless the group is taxed at 100% of its wealth. If some group, by giving 30% of their income, foots over half the bill, increasing their taxes to 60% would double the revenue generated. That's simple math.

Please note: I am not advocating that tax rates increase to those proportions. I'm merely demonstrating a point, and it's a point which shows there is a logical inconsistency in the rhetoric coming from the right on the taxes issue.
 
KevinKohler said:
Taxes have done nothing but increase since the end of the civil war. That tells me that spending is what caused the deficit.
Click to expand...
Well, I suppose if you look at it that way, of course spending causes deficits; but in just the same way, the laws of physics caused the death of John Kennedy.
KevinKohler said:
We live in a subsidized nation. There is not one facet of your life that is untouched by state or federal subsidies.
Click to expand...
So what? Human beings manipulate their environment to acheive some goal or other. This seems to be just a species of that.
KevinKohler said:
It's a house of cards whose base is smaller than it's top.
Click to expand...
If this means what I think it means, I'm not sure why this should necessarily be the case. I agree that it is, but that seems accidental (in the archaic sense). The government receives some amount of revenue, which is variable and can be varied more or less at will. The government spends money also, and that can be varied with something like the same range of stricture. Ergo, if taxes were increased to match or exceed spending, we'd have no deficit.
KevinKohler said:
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.
Click to expand...
It would be if spending were kept under the amount of revenue generated. Since no one is taxed at 100%, raising taxes to cover spending would have the same effect.
 
Rapunzel52 said:
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.
Click to expand...
There may be fewer young people working now than ever before in our history (don't have depression-era stats) - we can say it's lowest rate since at least WWII and the first time since the mid 60's that a majority aren't working:

ep_16_24.jpg
 
ashurbanipal said:
That's been the case the last two recessions...which tells me something. But that's another story; my point is that one cannot coherently hold that some class of people pays the largest share of total revenue, and that increasing taxes on that group would have no effect on the deficit. That's an inherently contradictory position unless the group is taxed at 100% of its wealth. If some group, by giving 30% of their income, foots over half the bill, increasing their taxes to 60% would double the revenue generated. That's simple math.
Click to expand...
That's math that's too simple. If you increase taxes to 60%, a lot of people aren't going to work as hard and the economy will slow, reducing revenue and offsetting any gains you might receive. Tax revenue is largely a function of economic growth, not marginal tax rates.

[then there's the problem with assuming that increased revenue equals smaller deficits, but that's yet another story]
 
Rapunzel52 said:
To add more pain we'll most likely see a VAT tax and carbon tax come into existence.
Click to expand...

For sure on the Carbon Tax. As Obama will the Demos will be looking to re-visit this issue over and over again.
 
Dpetty said:
My personal opinion is there should be no income tax at all... For anyone, of any class...
Click to expand...

And how do you propose to pay for the government, or are you one of those loony no-government anarchists?
 
MMC said:
For sure on the Carbon Tax. As Obama will the Demos will be looking to re-visit this issue over and over again.
Click to expand...


The next tax will be one on marijuana.
 
ashurbanipal said:
That's been the case the last two recessions...which tells me something. But that's another story; my point is that one cannot coherently hold that some class of people pays the largest share of total revenue, and that increasing taxes on that group would have no effect on the deficit. That's an inherently contradictory position unless the group is taxed at 100% of its wealth. If some group, by giving 30% of their income, foots over half the bill, increasing their taxes to 60% would double the revenue generated. That's simple math.

Please note: I am not advocating that tax rates increase to those proportions. I'm merely demonstrating a point, and it's a point which shows there is a logical inconsistency in the rhetoric coming from the right on the taxes issue.
Click to expand...

In terms of revenue to expenditure, a 2% blip means relatively nothing. For that matter, a 100% increase (moving from 30% to 60%) would still have such a negligible effect as to not be anywhere close to "enough". We are upside down by over a trillion dollars every year. How do you feasibly take another trillion from those that are already contributing the lion's share? At some point you do start to remove the incentive for being wealthy. And even if "being rich" is an unfair state and should be eradicated by itself, how would you deal with the lag time for the economy to come back into equilibrium? Even the rich had nowhere else to go (which they do), they could simply retire and continue being filthy rich. They just wouldn't be producing anything anymore.
 
johnny_rebson said:
The next tax will be one on marijuana.
Click to expand...

Didn't you hear about Mexico speaking out about Colorado and Washington State Legalizing such? Mexico and 4 other Central American States told Obama they need to re-analyze the situation and get back with them. As legalizing it will affect a Change in their Country's Policies!
 
iguanaman said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, it's in Obama's court. He needs to significantly reduce spending and allow the private sector, i.e. small businesses and middle class wage earners, to thrive. Increasing their taxes, which is what I'm sure he wants, will send the economy into another recession.

Obama has no intention of reaching an agreement. He just wants more taxpayer dollars he can spread around.

Let the economy fall off the physical cliff and his legacy is shot. In 20 years the asteric next to his name won't acknowledge a Republican House ever existed.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1061225609 said:
No, it's in Obama's court. He needs to significantly reduce spending and allow the private sector, i.e. small businesses and middle class wage earners, to thrive. Increasing their taxes, which is what I'm sure he wants, will send the economy into another recession.

Obama has no intention of reaching an agreement. He just wants more taxpayer dollars he can spread around.

Let the economy fall off the physical cliff and his legacy is shot. In 20 years the asteric next to his name won't acknowledge a Republican House ever existed.
Click to expand...


Yeah and I'd cash out my 401K if I were anyone. I'm cashing out mine and paying the taxes for now because they will be much more in the future and they are still eying taking over the 401k's. If I want to trade stocks I'll take part of that and put it in something like Ameritrade.
 
lpast said:
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
Click to expand...



I disagree, at least until the economy recovers. The CBO has stated letting the tax cuts for the wealthy expire will have little effect on the economy, whereas they have said that letting the middle class tax cuts expire could throw us back into recession.

Actually, I don't think either party really thinks we have a debt problem. If they did, I don't see how both parties could have just unanimously voted to authorize $650 billion in military spending. No dissent! The vote was 98 -0.

I will not be supporting any middle class tax increase until that wasteful spending is stopped.
 
It should be fairly obvious by now that the fiscal cliff is intentional, and that the compromise was already reached - higher taxes for everyone coupled with reduced social and defense spending. Everybody gets what they want, and has ammunition to volley at the other side for the next twenty years, enough to keep us divided and stupid for the foreseeable future.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
It should be fairly obvious by now that the fiscal cliff is intentional, and that the compromise was already reached - higher taxes for everyone coupled with reduced social and defense spending. Everybody gets what they want, and has ammunition to volley at the other side for the next twenty years, enough to keep us divided and stupid for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...


I can almost believe that, were it not for the cuts to defense spending that would happen automatically. I don't think they would do that intentionally. If the sparring was for affect, why abandon the guise by recently voting 98 - 0 on passing $650 billion in military spending authorization.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1061225609 said:
No, it's in Obama's court. He needs to significantly reduce spending and allow the private sector, i.e. small businesses and middle class wage earners, to thrive. Increasing their taxes, which is what I'm sure he wants, will send the economy into another recession.

Obama has no intention of reaching an agreement. He just wants more taxpayer dollars he can spread around.

Let the economy fall off the physical cliff and his legacy is shot. In 20 years the asteric next to his name won't acknowledge a Republican House ever existed.
Click to expand...

Actually Howard Dean and alot of Progressives will be overjoyed if no deal is made. Cutting $800 Billion from Defense is like the holy grail. You hear alot about it but it never shows up. This way it's foolproof, like the taxes going up significantly more on the top 2% then the rest of us. Be careful what you wish for.
 
Cephus said:
And how do you propose to pay for the government, or are you one of those loony no-government anarchists?
Click to expand...

With no income tax, we could raise sales tax dramatically and still generate plenty of revenue, while at the same time, keeping much more of our hard earned dollars where they belong, in our pockets. There are lots of examples of countries out there that have no income tax, and they are doing just fine. As far as paying for the government, the government could exist on a fraction of the money they are taking in right now. Of course it would take shrinking it down to the size it was originally intended to be. Getting rid of these useless redundant branches that do nothing but waste money. No im not an anarchist, but i certainly don’t believe that government solves our problems either.
 
Catawba said:
I can almost believe that, were it not for the cuts to defense spending that would happen automatically. I don't think they would do that intentionally. If the sparring was for affect, why abandon the guise by recently voting 98 - 0 on passing $650 billion in military spending authorization.
Click to expand...

What was difficult to understand. One could have looked at the House and specifically at the Democrats when Obama submitted his budget proposals. Twice Obama submitted and he could not get one Democrat to vote for it. Which doesn't include the Senate. Do you think they had a different agenda than what Obama was looking for? Why would his own party not back such proposals? Or at least why Not the Demos even in the State of Illinois.
rolleyes.png
 
lpast said:
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
Click to expand...

No, no, no. What we need to do it slash defense spending, and eliminte social security and medicare/medicaid. That, coupled with the return of a sound monetary policy, is the only way to solve our fiscal problems.
 
Guy Incognito said:
No, no, no. What we need to do it slash defense spending, and eliminte social security and medicare/medicaid. That, coupled with the return of a sound monetary policy, is the only way to solve our fiscal problems.
Click to expand...

Ya think ?
 
lpast said:
Id rather stick with common sense and reality :) you should try THAT sometime :)
Click to expand...

I'm applying common sense to the situation. There is simply no way to tax our way out of this, even 100% confiscation won't work. We need to reduce welfare by such a large amount that is will be effectively an elimination of these programs, so might as well go all the way. I suppose we could responsibly continue to pay an ineffectual pittance to social security, but nothing more than that.

And let me explain this to you very clearly, that is what is going to happen either way. Either we eliminate these programs and the economy will recover or we continue these programs and the dollar will decline in value in order for the government to fund its nominal welfare obligations. These programs are going away, either actually or effectively.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I'm applying common sense to the situation. There is simply no way to tax our way out of this, even 100% confiscation won't work. We need to reduce welfare by such a large amount that is will be effectively an elimination of these programs, so might as well go all the way. I suppose we could responsibly continue to pay an ineffectual pittance to social security, but nothing more than that.

And let me explain this to you very clearly, that is what is going to happen either way. Either we eliminate these programs and the economy will recover or we continue these programs and the dollar will decline in value in order for the government to fund its nominal welfare obligations. These programs are going away, either actually or effectively.
Click to expand...

Short and sweet...I nor even Howard Dean called to just tax our way out of it...he said EVERYONE should pay more taxs to get out the debt and yes there needs to be some spending cuts...Like close loopholes which are the BIGGEST spending and subisidies to corporations that pocket MY money as profit...like big oil...big pharma and big farms....then we can go from there...but no one said not to cut spending
 
lpast said:
Short and sweet...I nor even Howard Dean called to just tax our way out of it...he said EVERYONE should pay more taxs to get out the debt and yes there needs to be some spending cuts...Like close loopholes which are the BIGGEST spending and subisidies to corporations that pocket MY money as profit...like big oil...big pharma and big farms....then we can go from there...but no one said not to cut spending
Click to expand...

I'm not just saying cut spending, I am saying completely eliminate social security, medicare/medicaid, and slash defense to skeleton crew status. That's the only way out. Anything else is pissing in the wind, including any tax suggestion up to and including 100% confiscation.

If 100% confiscation could get us out of this mess, I would advocate just that. But the only sensible solution is elimination of the Big Three government expenses. Have you seen the numbers?? It is staggering. The welfare payouts and defense spending dwarf anything else out there. Increasing revenue is great (I'm being ideologically neutral here, just talking in terms of solutions), but it won't work.

We are junkies. A junkie can try to increase he revenue, maybe he sends out job applications or searches for scrap metal or panhandles or something. That is analogous to taxes. What the junkie needs is to get off the junk. The junk is analogous to medicare, medicaid, and defense overspending. Until the junkie is clean, there is no way that revenue increases can even make a dent.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
I can almost believe that, were it not for the cuts to defense spending that would happen automatically. I don't think they would do that intentionally. If the sparring was for affect, why abandon the guise by recently voting 98 - 0 on passing $650 billion in military spending authorization.
Click to expand...

Because if Republicans don't, they catch flack for being "unpatriotic." And if Democrats don't, it starts another debate and they don't want to distract from the current class warfare rhetoric. So, feed the monkey while it's still on your back, right before you shoot it in the face.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom