• 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!

Tentative agreement reached on tax cuts

Z3n said:
That's not the point. People have much more potential than just working physical grunt labor. Liveable wage? OHSA? 8 hour work day(anarchist imposed)? There's a lot of arguments to be made.
Click to expand...

I understand your point about potential. That is why I support progressive taxation. I believe if some sort of benefit can be given in our society it should be given to those who are less well off. I believe a progressive tax not only benefits those who make less money but also helps them work their way up in society. I support the minimum wage to a point. A living wage, while it sounds good, will most likely do more harm than good, for economic reasons. OSHA and other laws that protect employees are important. I support them. They are part of the reason why I think it is absurd that someone in the USA would feel like they literally are participating in wage slavery.

I would argue that employers dont treat employees well at all. Look at labor being moved to India and China for 60 cents an hour and in horrid working conditions. These are American companies...:p
Click to expand...

I agree, working conditions in developing nations are not comparable to that of a first world nation such as the US. But, opening these countries up to investment is important to their development. There low wages are not because of theiving capitalists but because of lower productivity. Labor in developing nations simply is not worth as much. This is just a fact of life.
 
Barbbtx said:
I hope not, but I'm hearing it already from callers on talk radio.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they'll bitch about even the most mild concession for a couple days. Then they'll go on to bitching about something else. No serious conservative is going to seriously object to a small extension of unemployment benefits when it is coupled with huge tax cuts that won't expire until after Obama's term is over.

Barbbtx said:
Some were even pissed that there was only a 2 yr extention. Personally I think the Republicans did a good job on this and I'm proud of them. Obama did the right thing too. It's a win win.
Click to expand...

A win-win for the Republicans, yes. But let's not pretend that there was some give-and-take here. Obama gave the Republicans everything they wanted, and all he got in exchange was an extension of unemployment benefits, valued at $56 billion. Sorry if I'm not impressed.
 
Last edited:
drz-400 said:
I understand your point about potential. That is why I support progressive taxation. I believe if some sort of benefit can be given in our society it should be given to those who are less well off. I believe a progressive tax not only benefits those who make less money but also helps them work their way up in society. I support the minimum wage to a point. A living wage, while it sounds good, will most likely do more harm than good, for economic reasons. OSHA and other laws that protect employees are important. I support them. They are part of the reason why I think it is absurd that someone in the USA would feel like they literally are participating in wage slavery.



I agree, working conditions in developing nations are not comparable to that of a first world nation such as the US. But, opening these countries up to investment is important to their development. There low wages are not because of theiving capitalists but because of lower productivity. Labor in developing nations simply is not worth as much. This is just a fact of life.
Click to expand...

HOw does a progressive tax help people work their way up into society

that sounds like complete and utter BS

the main reason for progressive income taxes is to buy the votes with the many by telling them that only the most heavily taxed citizens will have to pay more taxes
 
TurtleDude said:
I thought we were an autonomous collective!
Click to expand...

You're fooling yourself! We're living in a dictatorship, a self perpetuation autocracy where the working classes....
 
Ockham said:
You're fooling yourself! We're living in a dictatorship, a self perpetuation autocracy where the working classes....
Click to expand...

we are DOOMED

doomed we are!!
 
TurtleDude said:
HOw does a progressive tax help people work their way up into society

that sounds like complete and utter BS

the main reason for progressive income taxes is to buy the votes with the many by telling them that only the most heavily taxed citizens will have to pay more taxes
Click to expand...

I think it helps people move up in society because it lets people who earn less money keep a larger amount of it. It lets people take on more risk than they otherwise would. This means that some people who make less money might go to school longer, or might start their own business, when otherwise they might not have. Also, things like the earned income tax credit incentivize work even more and give people a larger incentive to find a job. People typically do not like their income to go down, so when the earned income tax credit expires people will work harder to keep their income high.

You like to focus on the voting side of it. I don't really believe that is the case though. For example, colorado has a system where taxes can only be changed through referendum. Yet colorado still has a flat income tax and I don't see it changing any time soon.
 
drz-400 said:
I think it helps people move up in society because it lets people who earn less money keep a larger amount of it. It lets people take on more risk than they otherwise would. This means that some people who make less money might go to school longer, or might start their own business, when otherwise they might not have. Also, things like the earned income tax credit incentivize work even more and give people a larger incentive to find a job. People typically do not like their income to go down, so when the earned income tax credit expires people will work harder to keep their income high.

You like to focus on the voting side of it. I don't really believe that is the case though. For example, colorado has a system where taxes can only be changed through referendum. Yet colorado still has a flat income tax and I don't see it changing any time soon.
Click to expand...

a flat tax wouldn't change that either.
 
The dems are spineless. They sicken me almost as much as the republicans.

American politics: giving more money to those who don't need it since 2000.
 
Obama lashed out at Democrats today, and had the nerve to compare this "compromise" to giving up the public-option in the health care bill. Let me explain the difference: It's one thing to give up an important concession if it leads to a positive result (e.g. a solid health care bill) with enough votes to pass. I fully supported that. It's another thing to concede everything the other side wants, without getting anything substantial in exchange.

There is no reason that Obama needed to be so weak on this issue. He was in a stronger position than the Republicans politically (Democrats control half of Congress and the White House...and until January, ALL of Congress and the White House). He was in a stronger position than the Republicans structurally (the bill was going to expire in the absence of action, which would have been less acceptable to the Republicans than the Democrats). And he was even on the side of public opinion (the majority of voters didn't want to see tax cuts for the rich extended).

I can only draw two conclusions: A) Obama is incompetent and doesn't know how to negotiate, or B) he actually agrees with the Republicans about tax cuts for the rich. I'm not sure which conclusion pisses me off more.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Obama lashed out at Democrats today, and had the nerve to compare this "compromise" to giving up the public-option in the health care bill. Let me explain the difference: It's one thing to give up an important concession if it leads to a positive result (e.g. a solid health care bill) with enough votes to pass. I fully supported that. It's another thing to concede everything the other side wants, without getting anything substantial in exchange.

There is no reason that Obama needed to be so weak on this issue. He was in a stronger position than the Republicans politically (Democrats control half of Congress and the White House...and until January, ALL of Congress and the White House). He was in a stronger position than the Republicans structurally (the bill was going to expire in the absence of action, which would have been less acceptable to the Republicans than the Democrats). And he was even on the side of public opinion (the majority of voters didn't want to see tax cuts for the rich extended).

I can only draw two conclusions: A) Obama is incompetent and doesn't know how to negotiate, or B) he actually agrees with the Republicans about tax cuts for the rich. I'm not sure which conclusion pisses me off more.
Click to expand...

Or, C) he knows he's going to get his ass spanked in 2012. He's trying to make it a slim victory for his opponent, rather than a politically embarressing blood letting. Or, D) he's just hoping to actually be the Democratic paty's candidate for 2012...:rofl
 
TurtleDude said:
a flat tax wouldn't change that either.
Click to expand...

All you need to know about the flat tax is who is trying to push it down the throats of the rest of us. Once you see who gains the most from it, it tells you all you need to know.

btw - that would be the wealthy.
 
haymarket said:
All you need to know about the flat tax is who is trying to push it down the throats of the rest of us. Once you see who gains the most from it, it tells you all you need to know.

btw - that would be the wealthy.
Click to expand...

God forbid taxes be fair.

It's a lot easier to hate rich people for their hard work, intellect, and success.
 
Erod said:
God forbid taxes be fair.

It's a lot easier to hate rich people for their hard work, intellect, and success.
Click to expand...

And somehow, someway I bet you have a definition of FAIR that just happens to coincidently benefit the rich also?
 
haymarket said:
And somehow, someway I bet you have a definition of FAIR that just happens to coincidently benefit the rich also?
Click to expand...

327.jpg


FAIR assumes fair for everyone. By definition, FAIR is inclusive, meaning it applies to all including the rich. Why wouldn't it? If it was "FAIR" for everyone but the rich, it can't really be called "FAIR" now could it....


Dunno what your deal is with rich people but you should talk to a professional about it.
 
Ockham said:
327.jpg


FAIR assumes fair for everyone. By definition, FAIR is inclusive, meaning it applies to all including the rich. Why wouldn't it? If it was "FAIR" for everyone but the rich, it can't really be called "FAIR" now could it....


Dunno what your deal is with rich people but you should talk to a professional about it.
Click to expand...

I suspect your definition is THE SAME and intentionally and deliberately ignores ability to pay and what it takes to live in this nation.
 
haymarket said:
I suspect your definition is THE SAME and intentionally and deliberately ignores ability to pay and what it takes to live in this nation.
Click to expand...

Where it takes to live WHERE in this nation exactly? You see, generalizing the entire nation and the cost of living as the same isn't very honest or accurate.
 
Ockham said:
Where it takes to live WHERE in this nation exactly? You see, generalizing the entire nation and the cost of living as the same isn't very honest or accurate.
Click to expand...

Really? The people who know more about this than you and I and do it for a living manage quite nicely to take those things into consideration when they evaluate cost of living. Which is probably good that you do not have that job.
 
haymarket said:
All you need to know about the flat tax is who is trying to push it down the throats of the rest of us. Once you see who gains the most from it, it tells you all you need to know.

btw - that would be the wealthy.
Click to expand...

All yo uneed to know about the progressive tax is who is trying to push it down the throats of the rest of us. Once you see who gains the most from it, it tells you all you need to know.

btw - that would be the poor.

Wow Haymarket! What amazing logic there. Who would've EVER guessed that people would push for something that benefits them more, that's astounding insight. You mean the "Wealthy" would rather a tax system that treated them like everyone else than one that was overly punative agaisnt them. And wow, the Poor would rather not have a system where they don't have to contribute at all, can get a bunch of free stuff, and can continually just demand other people give up more and more of their money?

Yes, a flat tax would benefit the wealthy more than the current tax, which benefits the poor better. That's not an argument in and of itself as to whether it would be better or not. I know this may shock your sensabilities, but wealthy != evil.
 
haymarket said:
And somehow, someway I bet you have a definition of FAIR that just happens to coincidently benefit the rich also?
Click to expand...

And somehow, someway I bet you have a definition of "FAIR" that just happens to coincidently benefit the poor also?
 
haymarket said:
Really?
Click to expand...
Really.

haymarket said:
The people who know more about this than you and I and do it for a living manage quite nicely to take those things into consideration when they evaluate cost of living. Which is probably good that you do not have that job.
Click to expand...
Which means what exactly other than you made a bad assumption lumping everyone and everything together. Fact is, cost of living is fairly wide in this country.

Here's a tool that may help educate you to not generalize so blatantly.

Cost of Living Comparison: compare Trenton, New Jersey to Fort Smith, Arkansas
 
TurtleDude said:
there will be blood? is that some sort of threat? what are you gonna do-start a revolution. I got news for you buddy. its people like me who know how to use weapons-

not leftwing radical schoolteachers who are mad that the rich aren't going to get as screwed over as you want.

But knock yourself out trying

it will be fun to watch
Click to expand...

Funny, that's what Southerners thought at the start of the civil war. They believed their familiarity with guns and hunting would allow them to easily beat the the city-dwelling yankees. They learned the hard way that individual skill with a weapon is hardly a factor in how wars are won.
 
Ocean City said:
Funny, that's what Southerners thought at the start of the civil war. They believed their familiarity with guns and hunting would allow them to easily beat the the city-dwelling yankees. They learned the hard way that individual skill with a weapon is hardly a factor in how wars are won.
Click to expand...

A most excellent point Ocean City. Most excellent. And it was one reason why the Southerners believed that the population advantage the North held would not be a factor in the war. We know what happened there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom