• 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!

CBS News Poll: Most Oppose GOP Tax Plan

TurtleDude said:
tax cuts cost nothing

but since you want to play that game, what does it cost us to have 47% of the people not paying any income tax? and since you are a fan of the death tax, why not expand it way beyond the 1 percent that are saddled with this abomination now?
Click to expand...

Based on your repetition of talking points, I don't think I'm the one playing a game. If you want to beat up the middle class and the poor, then you are not someone with an opinion I'd value anyway. But, for the record, this 47% number folks like yourself bandy about is misleading as hell. The people pounding it in your head know it; I just can't figure out if the far-right masses knows it. I don't think they do, actually. It's complicated.

If only 47% of Americans are paying taxes, then incomes are going down. This trend has been occurring since the introduction of Reaganomics, but you refuse to look at it for what it is: Failed policy, implemented by conservatives, which have systematically destroyed labor and the middle class. As statisticians will tell you, the median is widely accepted as a more accurate way of representing data than the mean, so the median American income, given the same qualifiers, is roughly $33,000 each year, according to the Census. That falls under cutoff for income tax, doesn't it? So are you saying most of us are bums because we don't make at least $40k and pay income tax?

See, for most of us, wages are dropping while the top 2% are increasing earnings exponentially. Big business doesn't create jobs. They destroy jobs. Startups and new business are what create jobs. But they can't get money from big banks while the big boys can. Yet conservatives won't let us do anything about this for fear, apparently, that Obama appears to get a "victory." Utter silliness.

Second, when it comes to payroll, property, and sales tax - among a zillion other little things like sin taxes - nobody contributes more to the treasury than the middle class and working poor. That is no secret. There is no money in the treasury because the middle class is not spending. That should tell you something, no?
 
Hannity - FoxNews.com

gets a little heated. Wiener refuses to say just how much should be taken from the rich. Typical liberal, thinks the rich don't pay enough, no matter how much they are paying.
 
Kev316 said:
Based on your repetition of talking points, I don't think I'm the one playing a game. If you want to beat up the middle class and the poor, then you are not someone with an opinion I'd value anyway. But, for the record, this 47% number folks like yourself bandy about is misleading as hell. The people pounding it in your head know it; I just can't figure out if the far-right masses knows it. I don't think they do, actually. It's complicated.

If only 47% of Americans are paying taxes, then incomes are going down. This trend has been occurring since the introduction of Reaganomics, but you refuse to look at it for what it is: Failed policy, implemented by conservatives, which have systematically destroyed labor and the middle class. As statisticians will tell you, the median is widely accepted as a more accurate way of representing data than the mean, so the median American income, given the same qualifiers, is roughly $33,000 each year, according to the Census. That falls under cutoff for income tax, doesn't it? So are you saying most of us are bums because we don't make at least $40k and pay income tax?

See, for most of us, wages are dropping while the top 2% are increasing earnings exponentially. Big business doesn't create jobs. They destroy jobs. Startups and new business are what create jobs. But they can't get money from big banks while the big boys can. Yet conservatives won't let us do anything about this for fear, apparently, that Obama appears to get a "victory." Utter silliness.

Second, when it comes to payroll, property, and sales tax - among a zillion other little things like sin taxes - nobody contributes more to the treasury than the middle class and working poor. That is no secret. There is no money in the treasury because the middle class is not spending. That should tell you something, no?
Click to expand...

There are a few "conservatives" here who are stuck on stoopid when it comes to the rich. The rich will spend more money than the rest of us, but there are so few rich compared to the rest of us that they don't impact the economy all that much. Yes, they will have more stuff, but if we want people to buy more stuff, we need a larger, and viable, middle class. We all have to eat, wear clothes, have a roof over our heads, those are the basic goods of life. It makes obvious sense that if we have 1000 millionaires instead of one billionaire, more money will enter the economy for the extra goodies we all want.
I can understand the fear that the rich have for losing their preferred tax rates, who knows when it will end if we start boosting their rates? But those that are slogan parroting toadies for the rich, they don't make sense.
certainly we are all happy for the successful rich, but when the rich start thinking they did it all on their own and turn on the middle class that helped make it possible, that makes no sense. Nobody ever got rich in an economic vacuum..
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BWG
Barbbtx said:
It means no one has the right to take your life. It's your job to feed, shelter , and cloth yourself. If you want healthcare, and an education, figure out a way to pay for it. What? You think the government is your Mommy?
Click to expand...

If you incur a serious lifelong ailment (multiple sclerosis, car accident/paralysis, etc) and your insurance company (revising their definition of you from an asset to a big liability) drops you like a hot potato, (other's won't take you with your serious pre-existing conditions) and you're not well able to work, how are you going to "figure out a way to pay for it" (ie, a lifetime of personal & medical care) ????????

Maybe the government could become your Mommy ?
 
UtahBill said:
There are a few "conservatives" here who are stuck on stoopid when it comes to the rich. The rich will spend more money than the rest of us, but there are so few rich compared to the rest of us that they don't impact the economy all that much. Yes, they will have more stuff, but if we want people to buy more stuff, we need a larger, and viable, middle class. We all have to eat, wear clothes, have a roof over our heads, those are the basic goods of life. It makes obvious sense that if we have 1000 millionaires instead of one billionaire, more money will enter the economy for the extra goodies we all want.
I can understand the fear that the rich have for losing their preferred tax rates, who knows when it will end if we start boosting their rates? But those that are slogan parroting toadies for the rich, they don't make sense.
certainly we are all happy for the successful rich, but when the rich start thinking they did it all on their own and turn on the middle class that helped make it possible, that makes no sense. Nobody ever got rich in an economic vacuum..
Click to expand...

If I had a home electronics store, and I was given the choice of who should get tax breaks (the poor, the middle class, or the rich), I'd pick the poor (1), the middle class (2), the rich would be my last choice. Why ? They already have a stereo, big screen TV, DVD palyer, etc. It is the poor who don't have (the "have-nots), who will come into the store to buy what they don't have.
Also, what the rich do spend, they tend to spend a high % of their money outside the country, helping the economies of Europe and the Caribbean, and doing nothing for the American economy except weakening it by removing more cash from it.
 
Kev316 said:
Based on your repetition of talking points, I don't think I'm the one playing a game. If you want to beat up the middle class and the poor, then you are not someone with an opinion I'd value anyway. But, for the record, this 47% number folks like yourself bandy about is misleading as hell. The people pounding it in your head know it; I just can't figure out if the far-right masses knows it. I don't think they do, actually. It's complicated.

If only 47% of Americans are paying taxes, then incomes are going down. This trend has been occurring since the introduction of Reaganomics, but you refuse to look at it for what it is: Failed policy, implemented by conservatives, which have systematically destroyed labor and the middle class. As statisticians will tell you, the median is widely accepted as a more accurate way of representing data than the mean, so the median American income, given the same qualifiers, is roughly $33,000 each year, according to the Census. That falls under cutoff for income tax, doesn't it? So are you saying most of us are bums because we don't make at least $40k and pay income tax?

See, for most of us, wages are dropping while the top 2% are increasing earnings exponentially. Big business doesn't create jobs. They destroy jobs. Startups and new business are what create jobs. But they can't get money from big banks while the big boys can. Yet conservatives won't let us do anything about this for fear, apparently, that Obama appears to get a "victory." Utter silliness.

Second, when it comes to payroll, property, and sales tax - among a zillion other little things like sin taxes - nobody contributes more to the treasury than the middle class and working poor. That is no secret. There is no money in the treasury because the middle class is not spending. That should tell you something, no?
Click to expand...

well said kev.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
Ive been listening to Hannity and Limbaugh and a morning conservative talk radio show lately. It is DISGUSTING how they twist the truth like a pretzel. Or just flat out lie. And none of them call it what it IS!!! They are calling it an economic investment. And a Tax Reinvestment Plan..... those are just TWO spin titles. (cant remember the others)
THEEEN... Hannity calls the unemployeed LAZY! They should just pull themselves up and get a job. Or two...or five jobs. Then he talks about how heroic HE was when HE had *cough* financial trouble *cough* and how he got a job in less than 16 days because of his hard work and dedication. The TOTAL ignorance of this man is HUGE. The spin and BS is also HUGE.

I am soooooooo sick and disgusted at the GOP! They ACT like they are similar to Libertarians but they are just as Socialist as Democrats!!!
Click to expand...

It sounds to you like they are lying because you are used to hearing the truth, my dear friend.

Yeah, they should get a job at those shovel ready jobs that Obama has already created.
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
It's not really that hard if you're considering the aggregate value and looking at broad changes over time.
Click to expand...

Nominal dollars mean nothing.

I believe you, although a few case studies of individuals in the higher income brackets isn't a very convincing case for assessing historical averages.
Click to expand...

It ain't a few. Their marginal effective is roughly half of mine and I don't make anywhere near what they do. Furthermore, the majority of tax expenditures go towards the rich and corporations. Are the poor going to take advantage of the 30% no limit solar credit? No.

They grew and grew and grew and then were cut significantly in 1986 with the Reagan tax cuts, which were designed to lower brackets but bring in the same amount of revenue through a reduction of deductions, credits, and exemptions.
Click to expand...

Not so sure about that. One of the largest expansion of tax expenditures was Reagan's idea. The earned income tax credit has been the #1 in growth in refundable credits. Reagan appeared to have cut them at the time, only to enact a policy that would cause them to grow down the line.

How have they changed over time?

They're no doubt growing again, but we'd really need to take a look at the actual data to be able to make any credible assumptions.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but $1.1 trillion mostly going to corporations and the rich doesn't suggest historically high on average effective marginal.

I can't even imagine the negative consequences of such a proposal... talk about a housing crisis.
Click to expand...

Hard to actually say either way. Each person uses such tax expenditures differently. The only group that would be significantly harmed holding all else equal in terms of the home mortgage deduction would be the middle class. The rich can afford generally to buy homes outright or with affordable mortgages. The poor don't buy. One good argument against the home mortgage is that it creates incentive to buy more then you can actually afford due to the deduction. That's not something we should be encouraging.

In terms of corporate deductions, every industry will react differently. My firm doesn't give a **** about 199 aside from preparing it for manufacturing clients, but GE would go ape **** if they cut that.

Large percent? Especially given that this is net income, I'd guess less than 1% of the population.
Click to expand...

In the 30s yes. Other periods not so much.
 
TurtleDude said:
you libs always want people who pay most of the taxes to pay MORE for their citizenship while never saying anything about the almost 50% of the population that pay almost no federal income taxes. Seems like your anger is misplaced.
Click to expand...

I go out of town for a few days and it's like a really bad Twilight Zone episode where nothing changes. Same old Turtle posts with the same old repetitive right wing talking points that revolve around him and his rich friends being overtaxed while the great unwashed hordes pay nothing of his Precious Income Tax.
 
Kev316 said:
Based on your repetition of talking points, I don't think I'm the one playing a game. If you want to beat up the middle class and the poor, then you are not someone with an opinion I'd value anyway. But, for the record, this 47% number folks like yourself bandy about is misleading as hell. The people pounding it in your head know it; I just can't figure out if the far-right masses knows it. I don't think they do, actually. It's complicated.

If only 47% of Americans are paying taxes, then incomes are going down. This trend has been occurring since the introduction of Reaganomics, but you refuse to look at it for what it is: Failed policy, implemented by conservatives, which have systematically destroyed labor and the middle class. As statisticians will tell you, the median is widely accepted as a more accurate way of representing data than the mean, so the median American income, given the same qualifiers, is roughly $33,000 each year, according to the Census. That falls under cutoff for income tax, doesn't it? So are you saying most of us are bums because we don't make at least $40k and pay income tax?

See, for most of us, wages are dropping while the top 2% are increasing earnings exponentially. Big business doesn't create jobs. They destroy jobs. Startups and new business are what create jobs. But they can't get money from big banks while the big boys can. Yet conservatives won't let us do anything about this for fear, apparently, that Obama appears to get a "victory." Utter silliness.

Second, when it comes to payroll, property, and sales tax - among a zillion other little things like sin taxes - nobody contributes more to the treasury than the middle class and working poor. That is no secret. There is no money in the treasury because the middle class is not spending. That should tell you something, no?
Click to expand...

More BS, the top 1percent pay 40% of the income tax and almost all the death tax. That is ONE PERCENT. the top 5% pay more than HALF the income taxes and ALL the death taxes. that is FIVE PERCENT. the middle class-depending on how you define it is the second, third, fourth quintile of the population or up to 80% of the population. They use the vast majority of government services.

yet they pay less than the top 10% in income taxes which is the main source of revenue to fund those services.

I read a study published in the cincinnati enquirer yesterday. If you complete HS, don't get involved in drugs and don't have children before marrying your chances of being poor decreases to 5% or less. Taxing the rich more doesn't help-its PERSONAL responsibility. If you graduate from college your chances of earning 85K or better a year goes way up.

Poverty mainly comes from doing stupid things. It doesn't come from the rich not being taxed enough
 
haymarket said:
I go out of town for a few days and it's like a really bad Twilight Zone episode where nothing changes. Same old Turtle posts with the same old repetitive right wing talking points that revolve around him and his rich friends being overtaxed while the great unwashed hordes pay nothing of his Precious Income Tax.
Click to expand...

yeah, you are well known for your never repeated parrot squawks! Its people like you who affirmatively want to take money from others, not me.
 
Kev316 said:
I do I do! Tax cuts for the top 2% cost roughly $135 billion over the next 2 years. Estate Tax cuts another few billion. Other than that, you are absolutely correct.

I have said from the beginning this was a good compromise if one were looking to add economic stimulus and not just entitlements. The middle class and small businesses will enjoy a 2% reduction in payroll taxes. What bothers me is the GOP's refusal to pay for any of this. After all, where the top 2% are concerned, we were only talking a return to 39% from the current 36%. And we both know legitimate business concerns can pay much less and often do. In this case, small business tax cuts and incentives by way of investment write-offs for the next decade, plus hiring and payroll tax breaks which more than make up the difference. All in all, not bad.

Of course, I'm not happy about ethanol subsidies, either (ruse!), but rural, conservative congressmen insisted. Oh well, whatcha gonna do?

Has it ever struck folks as funny that the people on their bully pulpits screaming they are abused by taxes (Palin, Beck, Hannity, Pick A Righty Pundit), are the very same people who would benefit most from permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, yet they produce nothing? Because, honestly, middle class Americans should be cheering from the roof tops over this administration's commitment to the middle class and small business. The record is there if you want to honestly look at it.

I never forget: Conservative strategists have always attacked strengths, never weaknesses. If something or someone is being attacked from the bully pulpit, it is probably a decent policy or person, in my experience.
Click to expand...

more lies-tax cuts cost nothing and you have to prove that tax hikes will result in higher revenues which you cannot. The clinton tax hikes were an aberration due to the massive dot com bubble combined with the increased efficiencies that occurred as a result of corporate belt tightening under Bush
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah, you are well known for your never repeated parrot squawks! Its people like you who affirmatively want to take money from others, not me.
Click to expand...

Take away your usual stand up routine about the rich and income taxes and what remains?
 
haymarket said:
Take away your usual stand up routine about the rich and income taxes and what remains?
Click to expand...

I was the first to note that not taxing the middle class enough creates the mindset that it is the duty of others to worry about and shoulder the burden of paying for the increased government spending--a point you and the rest of the parasite enablers never addressed. What do we get from your posts--you are basically nothing more than a dem party propagandists. I bash the GOP all the time. I also have numerous posts on second amendment and other constitutional matters and all the legal system
 
obvious Child said:
Nominal dollars mean nothing.
Click to expand...
Then don't use nominal dollars :confused:


obvious Child said:
It ain't a few. Their marginal effective is roughly half of mine and I don't make anywhere near what they do. Furthermore, the majority of tax expenditures go towards the rich and corporations. Are the poor going to take advantage of the 30% no limit solar credit? No.
Click to expand...
Still isn't a very convincing case for assessing historical averages. And just to reiterate -- I'm talking about tax burden on taxpayers as a whole, not just a certain class.

obvious Child said:
Not so sure about that. One of the largest expansion of tax expenditures was Reagan's idea. The earned income tax credit has been the #1 in growth in refundable credits. Reagan appeared to have cut them at the time, only to enact a policy that would cause them to grow down the line.

How have they changed over time?
Click to expand...
What are you talking about??? What is this mysterious policy Reagan enacted to make tax expenditures "grow down the line" :lamo

It is fact that the Reagan's 1986 tax reform act -- worked out with a democratic congress -- closed tons of loopholes, raised the corporate tax, and reduced individual taxe rates for all Americans, all while maintaining the same level of revenue. It much-simplified the tax process and was the most significant tax reform act of our generation. Yes the EIC was increased, but the cost was offset by eliminating other expenditures.

Also, from you own link:

  • In the 1970s many tax subsidies were provided as business tax breaks and deductions, which higher-income taxpayers found more valuable. The 1986 tax reform significantly cut back on business preferences, particularly through removal of the investment credit.
  • Nonbusiness tax expenditures-those reported on individual income tax returns that do not also benefit businesses-are higher in 2006 than in 1976 (figure shows sharp decline between 1985 and 1990, after Reagan Tax Reform, re-growth through Clinton years)
  • Exclusions that exempt specific kinds of income from tax constitute a substantial share of tax expenditures. Many exclusions benefit a large percentage of the population, including much of the middle class. Between 1948 and 1982 exclusions doubled, from 12 percent of personal income to 24 percent, before falling off to 19 percent in 2004 (more evidence of historic, high rate of expenditures)
 
obvious Child said:
Hard to actually say either way. Each person uses such tax expenditures differently. The only group that would be significantly harmed holding all else equal in terms of the home mortgage deduction would be the middle class.
Click to expand...
Not hard to say at all -- a sudden elimination of tax expenditures is equivalent to a massive tax increase. It's an impossibility. The economy would go into the tank. Not only would people lose their mortgage deductions, they would see huge increases in the cost of health coverage, retirement plans, and medicare.

The poor who you don't seem to think would be affected would lose the EIC and child tax credit.

Something like 70% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. You think people have their asses puckered right now w/r to spending, let's see what happens when your proposal goes through. :mrgreen:

At best, you'd have to offset the elimination of those expenditures with significant tax cuts. I believe Obama's tax commission suggested 92%.
 
Taylor said:
Not hard to say at all -- a sudden elimination of tax expenditures is equivalent to a massive tax increase. It's an impossibility. The economy would go into the tank. Not only would people lose their mortgage deductions, they would see huge increases in the cost of health coverage, retirement plans, and medicare.

The poor who you don't seem to think would be affected would lose the EIC and child tax credit.

Something like 70% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. You think people have their asses puckered right now w/r to spending, let's see what happens when your proposal goes through. :mrgreen:

At best, you'd have to offset the elimination of those expenditures with significant tax cuts. I believe Obama's tax commission suggested 92%.
Click to expand...

Not doubting, or challenging you, but what is the source of 70% living paycheck to paycheck?
That kind of info should be national news, not to mention national shame...
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
I was the first to note that not taxing the middle class enough creates the mindset that it is the duty of others to worry about and shoulder the burden of paying for the increased government spending--a point you and the rest of the parasite enablers never addressed. What do we get from your posts--you are basically nothing more than a dem party propagandists. I bash the GOP all the time. I also have numerous posts on second amendment and other constitutional matters and all the legal system
Click to expand...

You are claiming to be Independent of political party affiliation, but your Lean reads : "Conservative". In contrast, mine reads Independent, and that is what my voter ID card says too (actualy it say NPA - No Party Affiliation). I go with the issue. I'm with the Democrats on taxation, govt. healthcare, workers' rights, environment, Social Security, Medicare, etc. I'm with the Republicans on immigration, Islamization (AKA Stealth Jihad), homeland security, affirmative action, gun rights, political INcorrectness, etc.

I wonder one thing, though, TurtleDude. Are you rich ? How much did you net this year ?

As for how much the rich are paying in taxes, does the name Ughland House mean anything to you ?

Tax Justice Network: 18,857 firms: one registered address. Ugland House goes to Washington.
 
UtahBill said:
Not doubting, or challenging you, but what is the source of 70% living paycheck to paycheck?
That kind of info should be national news, not to mention national shame...
Click to expand...
No problem, I said "something like" 70% because there isn't real good data on this, and it seems to vary quite a bit - but I think it's a good ballpark figure.

From 2009:
Overall, 61 percent said they always or usually live paycheck to paycheck, up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
More Upper-Income Workers Living Paycheck to Paycheck

From 2010:
Today, in 2010, 77% of Americans report living paycheck-to-paycheck
Daily Kos: State of the Nation
 
Protectionist said:
You are claiming to be Independent of political party affiliation, but your Lean reads : "Conservative". In contrast, mine reads Independent, and that is what my voter ID card says too (actualy it say NPA - No Party Affiliation). I go with the issue. I'm with the Democrats on taxation, govt. healthcare, workers' rights, environment, Social Security, Medicare, etc. I'm with the Republicans on immigration, Islamization (AKA Stealth Jihad), homeland security, affirmative action, gun rights, political INcorrectness, etc.

I wonder one thing, though, TurtleDude. Are you rich ? How much did you net this year ?

As for how much the rich are paying in taxes, does the name Ughland House mean anything to you ?

Tax Justice Network: 18,857 firms: one registered address. Ugland House goes to Washington.
Click to expand...

where did I ever say that. I strongly support the party that is against higher taxes on the highest tax payers. I think the dem party sucks, and the GOP sucks far less. How much did I net last year? ALOT more than most but nothing close to say Bill Gates or LeBron James
 
Taylor said:
No problem, I said "something like" 70% because there isn't real good data on this, and it seems to vary quite a bit - but I think it's a good ballpark figure.

From 2009:
Overall, 61 percent said they always or usually live paycheck to paycheck, up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
More Upper-Income Workers Living Paycheck to Paycheck

From 2010:
Today, in 2010, 77% of Americans report living paycheck-to-paycheck
Daily Kos: State of the Nation
Click to expand...

That kind of info is why I think that THIS recession will last longer than previous ones, and there will be more lingering effects.
While our govt leaders fiddle, Rome burns...both parties are guilty of budget deficits and more national debt.

Who will lead us out of this mess? and how many of us will squeal like stuck pigs when the tax rates go up for everybody...

I don't see a way out of this now or in the near future. This mess won't be cleaned up for 10 years , my best guess...
No, I don't have a link, just my gut feeling after reading a lot and comparing this mess to prior messes that happened since 1964...
 
Protectionist said:
If I had a home electronics store, and I was given the choice of who should get tax breaks (the poor, the middle class, or the rich), I'd pick the poor (1), the middle class (2), the rich would be my last choice. Why ? They already have a stereo, big screen TV, DVD palyer, etc. It is the poor who don't have (the "have-nots), who will come into the store to buy what they don't have.
Also, what the rich do spend, they tend to spend a high % of their money outside the country, helping the economies of Europe and the Caribbean, and doing nothing for the American economy except weakening it by removing more cash from it.
Click to expand...

Many of the rich give to charities, universities, hospital wings with their names, and other self-serving investments, but rarely to the poor and needy.

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
Many of the rich give to charities, universities, hospital wings with their names, and other self-serving investments, but rarely to the poor and needy.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

MOre silly lies from you. who do you think hospitals help? What a stupid post
 
ricksfolly said:
Many of the rich give to charities, universities, hospital wings with their names, and other self-serving investments, but rarely to the poor and needy.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

If you are giving to charities, isn't that giving to the poor? Certainly when I want to donate to the poor, I write a check to Goodwill, or the Salvation Army. They are in the business of helping the poor, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom