• 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!

Two Major Conservative Obstacles Emerge To Tax Cut Compromise

ahhh - so you do want to repeal the 20th century.

Lets talk about fair

if the bottom 98% vote to make the taxes on all income over 200K 100% is that fair?
 
That is silly. I want the precedent that existed through Schechter Poultry to have been respected by the FDR intimidated Supreme Court. if that stare decisis would have remained we would be debating a tax rate of 12% versus 8%

Well the US Supreme Court did not see it that way. Another part of the political events of the 20th century that you want to repeal.

How do you feel about popular election of US Senators?
 
Well the US Supreme Court did not see it that way. Another part of the political events of the 20th century that you want to repeal.

How do you feel about popular election of US Senators?

The supreme court was threatened by FDR and after his landslide victory in 1936, they played politics and turned their back on honest interpretations of the 10th Amendment as it would apply to the New Deal

17th amendment arguably made the senators no longer as accountable to their states. at the time of its passage there were problems but the current problems caused by the change are now worse
 
The supreme court was threatened by FDR and after his landslide victory in 1936, they played politics and turned their back on honest interpretations of the 10th Amendment as it would apply to the New Deal

17th amendment arguably made the senators no longer as accountable to their states. at the time of its passage there were problems but the current problems caused by the change are now worse

That is a conservative right wing excuse for the Courts ruling and is a blatant attempt to claim that it was not based on the law in a act of pure politically motivated revisionist history. The Supreme Court is an independent and co-equal branch of government. The so called "threat" to the Court fell flat on its face with the failure of the Court packing idea.

So are you in support of the popular election of Senators or would you prefer the previous method?
 
That is a conservative right wing excuse for the Courts ruling and is a blatant attempt to claim that it was not based on the law in a act of pure politically motivated revisionist history. The Supreme Court is an independent and co-equal branch of government. The so called "threat" to the Court fell flat on its face with the failure of the Court packing idea.

So are you in support of the popular election of Senators or would you prefer the previous method?

since you are so well educated on the concept of supreme court precedent tell us why the shift after Schecter.
 
Lets talk about fair

if the bottom 98% vote to make the taxes on all income over 200K 100% is that fair?

I wonder if Haymarket will bother to answer this
 
since you are so well educated on the concept of supreme court precedent tell us why the shift after Schecter.

Since I was not on the Court when they rendered that decision, I defer to the authoritative primary source and you can read it for yourself

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
 
I wonder if Haymarket will bother to answer this

I cannot answer it because I do not know what the word FAIR means in the law or in the Constitution. If you could provide the authoritative definition I would certainly read it and then apply it to your example.
 
Last edited:
Since I was not on the Court when they rendered that decision, I defer to the authoritative primary source and you can read it for yourself

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

so what you are saying is you don't have the ability to understand that it clearly was politics to cause such a reversal

I understand that.
 
I cannot answer it because I do not know what the word FAIR means in the law or in the Constitution. If you could provide the authoritative definition I would certainly read it and then apply it to your example.

you and everyone else constantly talk about fairness

would you think (you personally) it is fair--after all you seem to support the system that would allow that
 
so what you are saying is you don't have the ability to understand that it clearly was politics to cause such a reversal

I understand that.

Another Frankenstein monster creation of yours. Can you quote where I said such a thing? NO you cannot.

What I told you is here is the decision. You read it. The Justices speak for themselves. I do not speak for them. Nor do you the last time I looked.
 
you and everyone else constantly talk about fairness

would you think (you personally) it is fair--after all you seem to support the system that would allow that

All you have to do is provide for me the legal definition of FAIR as it applies to your suggestion and to the Constitution and I will be happy to apply it in your hypothetical.
 
Lets talk about fair

if the bottom 98% vote to make the taxes on all income over 200K 100% is that fair?

Franklin D. Roosevelt already did this for those earning over $25,000 for a time with an executive order. He was an incredibly popular president. He was so popular that after his 4 terms (ending in his death in 1945), the 2 term limit was reenacted.

If people like this can get elected over and over and over again it seems like we should do away with the ability of the public to vote for representatives, don't you think? The poor are DRASTICALLY overrepresented compared to the rich.
 
Last edited:
what we have issues with is that a system that once was fair was changed to a system where the many can constantly vote up the rates of the few because the many have more votes. Those in the top 5% are paying most of the federal income taxes and many in the bottom 95% are basically freeloaders

Agrred. I am not sure if this system of government can work much longer.
 
Agrred. I am not sure if this system of government can work much longer.

The pseudo-intellectual liberals who make up the majority of the left on this board have a stock reply that the rich should just bend over and take it. However, reality suggests that rich people tend to leave when they are gouged too much which is why Sweden's famous tennis stars of the 70s and 80s all lived in Monte Carlo as did some of the German pros like Boris Becker. I know, personally, 5 millionaires who have established residences in places such as the Turks and Cacos or Grand Cayman to prevent the death tax from raping their estates. Now some of the less thoughtful libs will say "good riddance" but as this happens more and more the amount of net tax payers decrease which will cause the parasite mindset to demand others who remain pay more and more


it is a system that cannot continue to exist for long
 
The pseudo-intellectual liberals who make up the majority of the left on this board have a stock reply that the rich should just bend over and take it. However, reality suggests that rich people tend to leave when they are gouged too much which is why Sweden's famous tennis stars of the 70s and 80s all lived in Monte Carlo as did some of the German pros like Boris Becker. I know, personally, 5 millionaires who have established residences in places such as the Turks and Cacos or Grand Cayman to prevent the death tax from raping their estates. Now some of the less thoughtful libs will say "good riddance" but as this happens more and more the amount of net tax payers decrease which will cause the parasite mindset to demand others who remain pay more and more


it is a system that cannot continue to exist for long

What are you on about? The rich are making a killing, income inequality is up significantly.

Isn't this what you want?
 
What are you on about? The rich are making a killing, income inequality is up significantly.

Isn't this what you want?

That is not relevant to my point. The "rich" are also paying the greatest share of the income tax ever. Taxing the rich isn't going to make the unproductive better able to compete in a global economy. Making failure or mediocrity more comfortable is what our major problem is. Its not the rich who prevent others from being competitive. its not "low" tax rates on the rich that cause sloth and dependence. what causes such deleterious behaviour is a political system that rewards it
 
What are you on about? The rich are making a killing, income inequality is up significantly.

Isn't this what you want?

Do you think income redistribution is the answer? This country wasn't built on the principles of income redistribution which many on the left seem to support. How does income redistribution affect incentive and creativity? How much of your income do you give to others?

There are no Tax cuts here, the discussion is about extending the current RATES or RATE HIKES.

The top 1% of wage earners make 20% of all income and pay 38% of all taxes.
The top 5% of wage earners make 34.7% of all income and pay 58.7% of all taxes.
The top 10% of wage earners make 45.8% of all income and pay 69.9% of all taxes.

The bottom 50% make 12.8% of all income and pay 2.7% of all taxes.

Currently approximately 47% of all Americans pay nothing and actually get money back making their tax rate negative.
 
Do you think income redistribution is the answer? This country wasn't built on the principles of income redistribution which many on the left seem to support. How does income redistribution affect incentive and creativity? How much of your income do you give to others?

There are no Tax cuts here, the discussion is about extending the current RATES or RATE HIKES.

The top 1% of wage earners make 20% of all income and pay 38% of all taxes.
The top 5% of wage earners make 34.7% of all income and pay 58.7% of all taxes.
The top 10% of wage earners make 45.8% of all income and pay 69.9% of all taxes.

The bottom 50% make 12.8% of all income and pay 2.7% of all taxes.

Currently approximately 47% of all Americans pay nothing and actually get money back making their tax rate negative.

a group that makes 22% of the income should pay only 22% of the income tax to be fair
 
Do you think income redistribution is the answer? This country wasn't built on the principles of income redistribution which many on the left seem to support. How does income redistribution affect incentive and creativity? How much of your income do you give to others?

There are no Tax cuts here, the discussion is about extending the current RATES or RATE HIKES.

The top 1% of wage earners make 20% of all income and pay 38% of all taxes.
The top 5% of wage earners make 34.7% of all income and pay 58.7% of all taxes.
The top 10% of wage earners make 45.8% of all income and pay 69.9% of all taxes.

The bottom 50% make 12.8% of all income and pay 2.7% of all taxes.

Currently approximately 47% of all Americans pay nothing and actually get money back making their tax rate negative.

The bill that was signed by President Bush put into law that the cuts would expire this year. Legislatively we are debating a tax cut. Inaction results in a tax increase, THIS is the default.

I support a progressive tax system, what can I say :p
 
The bill that was signed by President Bush put into law that the cuts would expire this year. Legislatively we are debating a tax cut. Inaction results in a tax increase, THIS is the default.

I support a progressive tax system, what can I say :p

I do not for two reasons. One is my concept of fairness which is objectivist. The second is the fact that a progressive tax system ultimately will collapse
 
The bill that was signed by President Bush put into law that the cuts would expire this year. Legislatively we are debating a tax cut. Inaction results in a tax increase, THIS is the default.

I support a progressive tax system, what can I say :p

You could say what most of us know, you want to penalize individual wealth creation and promote redistribution of their wealth. That makes you a radical leftwing liberal/progressive
 
You could say what most of us know, you want to penalize individual wealth creation and promote redistribution of their wealth. That makes you a radical leftwing liberal/progressive

I think lots of people who aren't radical leftwingers support a progressive tax because it empowers them to vote up the taxes of others. It appeals to those lower on the economic food chain who might not be all that radical but feel a need to punish those above them or demand others carry their share of the load. Its like those who abuse servers in a restaurant. You rarely see a corporate hot shot or some partner at a big law firm be a jerk towards a server. its usually the bottom of the foodchain types who feel a need to boss someone around. I know, I used to live with a TGIF server and I would observe diners constantly. The most abusive were not say the millionaire owner of a nearby auto dealership or Jerry Springer (yeah he used to come there alot) or the County Clerk of Courts who had 300 people who owed their jobs to him.
 
I think lots of people who aren't radical leftwingers support a progressive tax because it empowers them to vote up the taxes of others. It appeals to those lower on the economic food chain who might not be all that radical but feel a need to punish those above them or demand others carry their share of the load. Its like those who abuse servers in a restaurant. You rarely see a corporate hot shot or some partner at a big law firm be a jerk towards a server. its usually the bottom of the foodchain types who feel a need to boss someone around. I know, I used to live with a TGIF server and I would observe diners constantly. The most abusive were not say the millionaire owner of a nearby auto dealership or Jerry Springer (yeah he used to come there alot) or the County Clerk of Courts who had 300 people who owed their jobs to him.



I agree, it is always easier supporting cost increases to others which is why I continue to post the tax data from the IRS showing 47% of the people didn't pay any Federal Income taxes last year. Obviously those 47% don't really care about the affects of higher taxes on someone else as it doesn't affect them. Liberals are always talking about the selfishness of someone else while ignoring their own.
 
I agree, it is always easier supporting cost increases to others which is why I continue to post the tax data from the IRS showing 47% of the people didn't pay any Federal Income taxes last year. Obviously those 47% don't really care about the affects of higher taxes on someone else as it doesn't affect them. Liberals are always talking about the selfishness of someone else while ignoring their own.

Oh I agree with that. One of the secretaries in my office is your typical gen x slacker who is an unmarried female with a slacker live in boy friend. she used to blather that it was ok for people who made more of her to pay far more because she didn't like having to pay any taxes herself. she isn't a radical, just someone who ever grew up
 
Back
Top Bottom