• 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!

Obama budget resurrects rejected tax increases

You are exactly right:

"A remarkable study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) reveals that Americans have no idea that the wealth distribution (defined for them in terms of "net worth") is as concentrated as it is. When shown three pie charts representing possible wealth distributions, 90% or more of the 5,522 respondents -- whatever their gender, age, income level, or party affiliation -- thought that the American wealth distribution most resembled one in which the top 20% has about 60% of the wealth. In fact, of course, the top 20% control about 85% of the wealth"

"The ratio of CEO pay to factory worker pay rose from 42:1 in 1960 to as high as 531:1 in 2000"

"Most amazing of all, the top 0.1% -- that's one-tenth of one percent -- had more combined pre-tax income than the poorest 120 million people (Johnston, 2006)."

"Furthermore, if the top 20% have 84% of the wealth (and recall that 10% have 85% to 90% of the stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity), that means that the United States is a power pyramid. It's tough for the bottom 80% -- maybe even the bottom 90% -- to get organized and exercise much power."

"only 39 of the 134 countries have worse income inequality."

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power



While those are good statistics, what do they tell us. The founders of these social media companies are worth billions each. In a global world where we can sell an idea not just to americans but all over the world there is a great payday for folks who can create this sort of value. Corp CEOs are a different scenario. Here we do need to be able to put more pressure on the boards of directors to do their jobs and pay these execs more reasonably. You could also change the taxes on stock options where most of the money comes from.
 
Dodge? I just did not feel like responding to you. Between the bonds, derivatives, dividends, and interest these people earn, they make well over the amount of taxes they pay. They make money just by having money.

And I bet they still pay waaaaay more taxes than you do.
 
Poppycock! In order to maintain a budget, you must have enough income to pay your debts. Very few of us get through life without incurring debts. The key is having enough income to pay your bills. If your debt exceeds your income then you have a problem. You can balance your budget in two ways. Increasing income and cutting spending. Beginning with Reagan, the new paradigm in Washington has been to both increase spending and decrease income, by slashing taxes for the top income earners. Our two unfunded wars (over $3 trillion) and the unfunded tax cuts for the rich (almost i trillion over just two years) while we simultaneously cut our income by cutting taxes for the super wealthy are glaring examples of this new paradigm.

No the problem is Obama's out of control spending
 
That's a talking point. Cut spending means what? What spending are they going to cut? Hell, Boehner did not even want to cut spending on an engine that was going to cost 3 billion to make, and everyone admitted was not necessary in anyway.

Why? Because it would cut jobs in Ohio. Everyone wants to cut until it's their program being cut.



Do what? Raise taxes? I wish. I am still not sure to this day why the democrats agreed to extending the tax cuts.

Talk to Obama he is upset about the Gov of Wisconsin going against Obama's cash cow unions
 
As previously posted:

"Obama's new budget puts forward a plan to achieve $1.1 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade, according to an administration official who spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity in advance of the formal release of the budget.

Those reductions -- averaging just over $100 billion each year -- are achieved mainly by squeezing social programs. A deal struck to extend the Bush tax cuts for just two years, meanwhile, increased the deficit by $858 billion dollars. More than $500 billion of that bargain constituted tax cuts, with billions more funding business tax breaks and a reduction in the estate tax. Roughly $56 billion went to reauthorize emergency unemployment benefits.

The president's budget was expected to mostly target "non-defense discretionary spending," which makes up less than one-quarter of the overall budget, making balancing the budget with such cuts mathematically impossible.

Indeed, the driver of the deficit is tax cuts. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that as a result of the tax cut deal, the projected deficit in Obama's budget will reach a "record" level of $1.6 trillion this year, though that figure, relative to the size of the American economy, is far lower than many other governments around the world, according to data compiled by the Central Intelligence Agency. And the relative deficit is well below the levels of the 1940s, a time of economic prosperity. "President Barack Obama's 2012 budget proposal projects this year's deficit will reach $1.6 trillion, the largest on record, as December's tax-cut deal begins to reduce federal revenues, a senior Democrat said Sunday," the Journal reported Sunday evening. (The deficit is only a record if it is neither adjusted for inflation nor considered relative to the size of GDP.)"
Obama Budget Proposal: Cuts To Target Working Poor, Middle Class & Students (LIVE UPDATES)

Will not happen and you know it. Looks good on paper but will not happen that way in reality
 
And I bet they still pay waaaaay more taxes than you do.

Perhaps. Honestly, I did not pay any taxes this year. As a fulltime student who lives below the poverty line, I received all the taxes I paid back (and I received a grant as well so I may have netted out positive).

I, obviously, am extremely happy about this as it is making my education more affordable and viable. Unfortunately, many of the advantages I have now are going to be cut in the upcoming budget. Hopefully people like me will have successful futures and pay back into the pot so that those in the years to come will have the same opportunities.

I will be graduating this fall and with a major in mathematics and a focus in actuarial science. With Exam FM passed and Exam P to be taken this summer, I think you'll find that I will be paying plenty of taxes in the near future.

The best part... you won't hear me bitching about it. If I ever make enough to pay millions in taxes, you won't hear a peep out of me. In fact, I'd probably pay that much and give more in charity.
 
The best part... you won't hear me bitching about it. If I ever make enough to pay millions in taxes, you won't hear a peep out of me. In fact, I'd probably pay that much and give more in charity.

Very good way of thinking about it. I got my degree in civil engineering due in most part to the louisiana TOPP's program paying for most of my tuition along with a federal pell grant covering the rest plus text books. I essentially only payed for my last semester. I don't mind if now I pay a good bit in taxes seeing as how my household makes more than most ( I need to look up what percentile we would be in). I think other's should have the same opportunities I got. I'm not for over taxing people but as a nation even if we were to roll back taxes to what they were in the 90's we wouldn't be what i consider "over taxed".
 
Last edited:
Nobody is stopping rich democrats from giving more to the IRS if they think they are not paying enough
 
While those are good statistics, what do they tell us. The founders of these social media companies are worth billions each. In a global world where we can sell an idea not just to americans but all over the world there is a great payday for folks who can create this sort of value. Corp CEOs are a different scenario. Here we do need to be able to put more pressure on the boards of directors to do their jobs and pay these execs more reasonably. You could also change the taxes on stock options where most of the money comes from.

The study tells us that, "Americans have no idea that the wealth distribution (defined for them in terms of "net worth") is as concentrated as it is." The statistics show the result of the undermining of our progressive tax system that began with Reagan and continued by Bush and the new Congress.
 
Nobody is stopping rich democrats from giving more to the IRS if they think they are not paying enough

That's a mindless red herring. Frankly, even if they did, it wouldn't be enough. That's why we impliment systems.
 
Tax cuts for the "rich" cost $70 billion a year at most. This year's deficit is about $1.6 trillion. Want another try on why we have a deficit. Debating is a lot less fun when one side uses such inept arguments.

.... $70B is 5% of the problem. Given how much they are struggling to come up with $100B though cuts, it seems like its more than a drop in the bucket, its almost 50% of a realistic solution ($70B tax cut repeal + $100B in cuts). It will be very difficult to actually come up with $100B in cuts, given so much of the annual deficit is either fixed or firmly entrenched. Given that, people walked away from a huge down-payment of significant deficit reduction without serious discussion.

The fact that people were so nonchalant about extend tax cuts to the wealthy shows there really is no serious interest in cutting the deficit. Virtually every serious economist will tell you that the budget can not be balanced without tax increases..... and I hate to break it to people, but the whole think is a charade....

BTW... $500B of the fix will come by merely fixing the economy.
 
Last edited:
.... $70B is 5% of the problem. Given how much they are struggling to come up with $100B though cuts, it seems like its more than a drop in the bucket, its almost 50% of a realistic solution ($70B tax cut repeal + $100B in cuts). It will be very difficult to actually come up with $100B in cuts, given so much of the annual deficit is either fixed or firmly entrenched. Given that, people walked away from a huge down-payment of significant deficit reduction without serious discussion.

The fact that people were so nonchalant about extend tax cuts to the wealthy shows there really is no serious interest in cutting the deficit. Virtually every serious economist will tell you that the budget can not be balanced without tax increases..... and I hate to break it to people, but the whole think is a charade....

BTW... $500B of the fix will come by merely fixing the economy.

I would have been fine if congress had allowed all of the Bush tax cuts to expire and also not lower the social security contribution by 2%. Not sure where you get this fantasy $500 billion by fixing the economy.

You really have to be rocky mountain high to think that running a budget deficit is only a charade and not a problem.

As to what economists say about balancing the budget all depends on many assumptions. To say we are not spending more than we can afford should be obvious.
 
The study tells us that, "Americans have no idea that the wealth distribution (defined for them in terms of "net worth") is as concentrated as it is." The statistics show the result of the undermining of our progressive tax system that began with Reagan and continued by Bush and the new Congress.

OK so what if they know it. Now what, what changes? What would any changes to tax laws do to lower the wealth of gates or buffet. Their wealth is mostly stock. Same for the guy who created facebook.

When you complain about tax rates don't forget to include Obama who signed the extension of the bush rates.
 
I would have been fine if congress had allowed all of the Bush tax cuts to expire and also not lower the social security contribution by 2%. Not sure where you get this fantasy $500 billion by fixing the economy.

You really have to be rocky mountain high to think that running a budget deficit is only a charade and not a problem.

As to what economists say about balancing the budget all depends on many assumptions. To say we are not spending more than we can afford should be obvious.

1) the charade is not the deficit, that is very real. Nor is the charade the problems that come with a deficit, that is very real. The charade is action. It is the contrived outrage, mostly by Conservs about the deficit being a problem that they intend to fix. If they really wanted to fix the budget, the raising taxes, if not implemented, would have received at least very serious discussion. They were summarily dismissed. Why? Because the true agenda of the Conservs is to use the deficit to stir up the masses to cut spending on social programs. They are not interested in cuts to their favorite items, such as the military or homeland security, nor will they even talk about tax increases. Its not about the deficit, its about social programs.

2) A recession is a slow down in the economy, which lowers the base upon which taxes are collected. In 2008, the government collected $2.5T in receipts. In 2009, that number was lowered to $2.1T. The 2007 expectation for 2009 was $2.7T. In essence, the recession alone, without any change to the tax structure, lowered receipts by $400 to $600B. Restrating the economy will alone fix that. The recession also caused in increase in annual unemployment benefits paid from $50B to $150B, a difference of $100B. Again, fix the economy and these two things work automatically to close some of the deficit ($500B). That is why you spend a little bit of money to re-start the engine, as the best way to fix your revenue problem is to increase your revenue base (this can be done with expenditures, tax cuts or a mix... aka a Stimulus)
 
Last edited:
OK so what if they know it. Now what, what changes? What would any changes to tax laws do to lower the wealth of gates or buffet. Their wealth is mostly stock. Same for the guy who created facebook.

Since most of America remains ignorant of the situation, my guess is nothing much will change until the pain is great enough for the middle class to use their collective voting powers to restore our progresssive tax system.

A progressive tax system does not seek to eliminate wealth, nor did it during its half century history during one of the most prosperous times in America for the most people..

When you complain about tax rates don't forget to include Obama who signed the extension of the bush rates.

He didn't have much choice now did he? The GOP had made it clear they were willing to sacrifice the tax cuts for the middle class in their fight for tax cuts for the rich. Obama was not willing to make that sacrifice. I am glad to see his new budget addresses that.
 
Last edited:
The should be resurrected. You cannot tackle the bidget deficit without address Medicare, SS, and the military in terms of cuts, and looking at tax increases. To believe otherwise is to be disconnected from reality.

jacking up taxes on the minority that pays most of the taxes makes political sense in the short run but will only cause more bloated government and more spending when those who want the goodies don't have to pay for them
 
jacking up taxes on the minority that pays most of the taxes makes political sense in the short run but will only cause more bloated government and more spending when those who want the goodies don't have to pay for them

By jacking them up you mean returning them to the level they were at a few years ago that was already well lower than they had been in years before that? I already showed that the top money earners in this country only pay a marginal 17%.

Asking for more than 17% is going to far?
 
Might not be my choice, as I woudl support just letting the Bush tax cuts expire. But, the concept that there needs to be an increase in taxes is sound. It is just a matter of which ones.

if we need to raise taxes we need to raise the taxes that will be most likely to CURB more government spending

and that is not more taxes on the 5% that already pay more income and estate taxes than the rest of the nation
 
You know what I think is incompetent? Continuing to give tax breaks to the rich while claiming that you want to balance the budget. Republicans have admitted they do not have a plan to balance the budget yet (Paul Ryan has admitted this), and yet they will not raise taxes. They don't want to cut Defense spending. Cutting medicare/medicaid has proven to be very difficult, especially since it was already trimmed and overhauled during the new Health Care bill that just passed. That leaves non defense discretionary spending - a category that gets picked on every time the budget comes up. Because of this, non defense discretionary spending already runs fairly efficiently and smoothly. There is not much to cut.

So how do you balance a budget when you can't cut anything and you can't raise taxes? That's incompetent.

raising taxes on the rich won't eliminate the cause of the massive deficit. the cause of that is politicians pandering to the majority of voters by giving them what they want without (costing themselves votes) by telling those who want the goodies have to pay for it with tax increases
you tax hikers never want to deal with the long term issues You want to jack up taxes on the rich which only encourages more and more pandering and spending.
 
Poppycock! In order to maintain a budget, you must have enough income to pay your debts. Very few of us get through life without incurring debts. The key is having enough income to pay your bills. If your debt exceeds your income then you have a problem. You can balance your budget in two ways. Increasing income and cutting spending. Beginning with Reagan, the new paradigm in Washington has been to both increase spending and decrease income, by slashing taxes for the top income earners. Our two unfunded wars (over $3 trillion) and the unfunded tax cuts for the rich (almost i trillion over just two years) while we simultaneously cut our income by cutting taxes for the super wealthy are glaring examples of this new paradigm.

how is someone making 300-500K a year "super wealthy"

yet these are the people who are targeted to suffer the brunt of the dem tax hikes
 
By jacking them up you mean returning them to the level they were at a few years ago that was already well lower than they had been in years before that? I already showed that the top money earners in this country only pay a marginal 17%.

Asking for more than 17% is going to far?

that was a jacking up

for more than half of this country's history there was not any income tax-the massive top marginal rates (which created an effective tax rate not really higher than it was under Clinton) were two huge world wars less than a generation apart.

most of those targeted for the clinton obama tax hikes are paying more than 17% marginal rate

but everyone ought to pay the same rate mainly so we don't have the problems that come from majority not having to pay for the stuff they want-which is why we have such massive spending
 
jacking up taxes on the minority that pays most of the taxes makes political sense in the short run but will only cause more bloated government and more spending when those who want the goodies don't have to pay for them

It would not be jacking up taxes on the top income earners, it would be eliminating the tax cuts the wealthiest enjoyed for years. And your claim doesn't hold up to the light of our own history. Our major debt didn't occur until after we cut US revenue by slashing the top tax rates. While no one is arguing that wasteful govenment spending doesn't need to be eliminated, if we are serious about addressing our huge National debt, we will have to address both spending and revenue.
 
We need to scrap the failed tax system and get a new tax system. Income tax does not work and is not fair
 
Back
Top Bottom