• 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

TurtleDude said:
I wonder why the left fixates on an extremely small number of people and try to use them as a prototype for every capitalist or top two percent tax payer. "exploit" is a loaded term and essentially dishonest when applied to such people
Click to expand...

I would disagree. Derivatives trading clearly gets murky and is in general, sort of dirty. Much of it involves trading with out ever having a dime to back it up (short sales) and then hedging your short sales with put or call options. Basically, there is a giant group of people who make money off of money/goods they never owned by swapping it around and gambling.

Unfortunately, these people can use math to hedge their bets and minimize losses causing it to not really be gambling anymore. Long story short... what exactly do they contribute to society? I am not sure, but they are exploiting a loop hole in our stock exchange and making tons of money off of it.

*Edit:

Have you heard of Market Makers? These people get to buy stock at cheaper prices and then sell them at higher prices (like immediately and in broad daylight). They are the ultimate middle men. How do I get into that field?
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
how does the middle class subsidize the wealthy when the wealthiest 5% pay more of the federal income and death taxes than the rest of the nation?

more dishonesty on your part
Click to expand...

Because of the fact that the top 20% income earners own 85% of the wealth in the country. For there to be equal taxation tham the top 20% should pay 80% of the taxes.
 
whysoserious said:
I would disagree. Derivatives trading clearly gets murky and is in general, sort of dirty. Much of it involves trading with out ever having a dime to back it up (short sales) and then hedging your short sales with put or call options. Basically, there is a giant group of people who make money off of money/goods they never owned by swapping it around and gambling.

Unfortunately, these people can use math to hedge their bets and minimize losses causing it to not really be gambling anymore. Long story short... what exactly do they contribute to society? I am not sure, but they are exploiting a loop hole in our stock exchange and making tons of money off of it.
Click to expand...


a semantics battle. anyone forcing you or others to do business with them?

and btw I opposed the games some of them played by pretending their commissions were actually capital gains rather than earned income
 
TurtleDude said:
the facts you post don't make your opinions right
Click to expand...

No they just lend more credibility to one's opinion. You should try it sometime!
 
Catawba said:
Because of the fact that the top 20% income earners own 85% of the wealth in the country. For there to be equal taxation tham the top 20% should pay 80% of the taxes.
Click to expand...

why? they don't use 80% of the stuff the taxes pay for

where do you get off saying that taxes should be based on ability to pay rather than what you use?

you seem ignorant of the problems that are created when some who due to their own fault (or not) cannot pay for stuff and demand others do it for them

WHAT INCENTIVE DOES SOMEONE HAVE TO CUT BACK ON RECKLESS SPENDING WHEN THEY GET BENEFITS FROM THE SPENDING YET DO NOT PAY FOR IT?
 
TurtleDude said:
dislike has nothing to do with it

and teachers are a dime a dozen

its called reality

its an easy profession to enter

that's why the pay is not very high

like or dislike has nothing to do with it
Click to expand...

I disagree. Many of the Math education students take some of the very same Math classes I do. I know they have to make it through Calc IV, Linear Algebra and Matrices, Abstract Algebra and Proofs, and Probability and Statistic (and this is the calculus based Prob and Stat course). I can't vouch for other teachers, but those classes are each harder than any business course.
 
Catawba said:
No they just lend more credibility to one's opinion. You should try it sometime!
Click to expand...

great-let us-YOU AND I compare

academic credentials

professional success

and taxes paid

you game/ You don't even list your trade or profession in your profile
 
whysoserious said:
I disagree. Many of the Math education students take some of the very same Math classes I do. I know they have to make it through Calc IV, Linear Algebra and Matrices, Abstract Algebra and Proofs, and Probability and Statistic (and this is the calculus based Prob and Stat course). I can't vouch for other teachers, but those classes are each harder than any business course.
Click to expand...

we are talking grade and high school teachers

did you know that some of the best colleges in the country don't even have education departments?
 
TurtleDude said:
why? they don't use 80% of the stuff the taxes pay for
Click to expand...

Yes, they do.

where do you get off saying that taxes should be based on ability to pay rather than what you use?
Click to expand...

That's not what I said. The intention of our forefathers when they set up the progressive tax system was to establish equitable tax rates.


you seem ignorant of the problems that are created when some who due to their own fault (or not) cannot pay for stuff and demand others do it for them
Click to expand...

I'm aware of your "opinion" on the causes. However, you ignore the trillions of dollars in waste from our unfunded wars and tax cuts for the rich.

WHAT INCENTIVE DOES SOMEONE HAVE TO CUT BACK ON RECKLESS SPENDING WHEN THEY GET BENEFITS FROM THE SPENDING YET DO NOT PAY FOR IT?
Click to expand...


Exactly, if the rich did not have the benefit of paying less than their fair share of taxes, perhaps they wouldn't support increasing our debt by trillions of dollars for unfunded wars.
 
TurtleDude said:
great-let us-YOU AND I compare

academic credentials

professional success

and taxes paid

you game/ You don't even list your trade or profession in your profile
Click to expand...


No one is doubting your credibility as a braggart! Now do you have any facts to back up your point of view?
 
well mr FACTS prove the top 20% use 80% of the services paid for by the income and death taxes

that will also require you to demonstrate that the both 50% only use about 3% of those same services which you cannot do

and your Moronic-yes moronic-claim that it was the rich who somehow created those wars is well just plain moronic


for someone who yells about your facts as much as you do, you sure post alot of unsupported crap
 
Catawba said:
No one is doubting your credibility as a braggart! Now do you have any facts to back up your point of view?
Click to expand...

I guess that is a concession of failure on your part

you tried to denigrate a moderate liberal by gushing over well known lefty HACK Krugman's award (which is as much a product of the politics of the committee [go ahead-prove Obama really deserved that prize]

so now since you want to go head to head with me=and since you believe an opinion has more merit based on the academic achievements of the person who utters the opinion I am applying YOUR STANDARDS TO YOU

ball's in your court
 
I wonder... when conservatives watch Robin Hood to they pull for King John? After all, King John is a wealthy, powerful man and Robin Hood is a liberal known as the "Prince of Thieves". :)

If only there were more conservatives in Hollywood, we might have a new movie remake, "King John - The Hidden Story" about the hardships he went through when Robin Hood ruined his parties and stole his money and whatnot. "Oh how hard it was for King John when he fell from the graces and could no longer afford to have harems of women and 12 castles. In fact, John had to sell his castle in Sherwood Forest. Oh the humanity!"
 
whysoserious said:
I wonder... when conservatives watch Robin Hood to they pull for King John? After all, King John is a wealthy, powerful man and Robin Hood is a liberal known as the "Prince of Thieves". :)

If only there were more conservatives in Hollywood, we might have a new movie remake, "King John - The Hidden Story" about the hardships he went through when Robin Hood ruined his parties and stole his money and whatnot. "Oh how hard it was for King John when he fell from the graces and could no longer afford to have harems of women and 12 castles. In fact, John had to sell his castle in Sherwood Forest. Oh the humanity!"
Click to expand...
actually King John was the GOVERNMENT and used GOVERNMENT FORCE to take wealth from the people and Robin Hood was taking back from the GOVERNMENT what it had wrongfully taken from those who had PRODUCED the wealth

in modern days the uber rich politicians would be King John-not some entrepreneurs
 
Catawba said:
I have cited facts to back up my opinion. You have not. I'll let others decide who's court the ball is in.
Click to expand...

your opinion means nothing and is not better by citing facts that do not establish one philosophy is better than another

NONE of you have ever demonstrated that your desire to make the rich pay more while giving most of the voters absolutely NO INCENTIVE to curb the growth of government will help what I see as the main problem-too much government spending too much money

your worry is the rich getting richer yet your tax schemes addict too many people to government and sap individual initiative

the only facts you cite are a gap between the rich and the poor-you have never established that cutting taxes on the rich increases this and right now the tax structure is MORE PROGRESSIVE than it was 50 years ago

so tell me-how is your opinion (which holds that the gap is the biggest problem) is more correct based on the facts you have cited than those of us who see the ever expanding government and the ever growing number of those who are dependent on government programs as the main problem

you cannot
 
whysoserious said:
Does it look like I decide? No, the "free market" supposedly does - whatever that means. This free market God is someone that I'd love to meet someday. He/she clearly makes a lot of weird decisions. I am still unsure about his/her infallibility.



Well, unfair this unfair that. I am less of a whiner than you might think. I am not crying, I am on a board that was developed for debating and I am doing just that. You can call it whining, but I would say it is trying to change a flawed system.

People said the same thing about their indentured servants 300 years ago. Why were they whining about being oppressed and forced into underpaid/unpaid work and bad conditions with continual broken promises of freedom. Just like the influx of the Irish, people called them dirty illegal immigrants who did not deserve to live here - now its Latinos. The truth is times are always changing and there is always one group kicking and screaming as they get dragged along into the future.

You can kick and scream or you can be productive in the progression of human history.
Click to expand...

You are the one that said people should not make to much money
 
Catawba said:
Teacher's salaries are an excellent example:

"In 2009, the worst economic year for working people since the Great Depression, the top 25 hedge fund managers walked off with an average of $1 billion each. With the money those 25 people "earned," we could have hired 658,000 entry level teachers. (They make about $38,000 a year, including benefits."
Les Leopold: Why Are 25 Hedge Fund Managers Worth 658,000 Teachers?

Economist Paul Krugman describes what he sees as a return to the Glided Age:

"Income inequality — which began rising at the same time that modern conservatism began gaining political power — is now fully back to Gilded Age levels.

Consider a head-to-head comparison. We know what John D. Rockefeller, the richest man in Gilded Age America, made in 1894, because in 1895 he had to pay income taxes. (The next year, the Supreme Court declared the income tax unconstitutional.) His return declared an income of $1.25 million, almost 7,000 times the average per capita income in the United States at the time.

But that makes him a mere piker by modern standards. Last year, according to Institutional Investor’s Alpha magazine, James Simons, a hedge fund manager, took home $1.7 billion, more than 38,000 times the average income. Two other hedge fund managers also made more than $1 billion, and the top 25 combined made $14 billion.

How much is $14 billion? It’s more than it would cost to provide health care for a year to eight million children — the number of children in America who, unlike children in any other advanced country, don’t have health insurance.

The hedge fund billionaires are simply extreme examples of a much bigger phenomenon: every available measure of income concentration shows that we’ve gone back to levels of inequality not seen since the 1920s."
Krugman on the New Gilded Age « naked capitalism
Click to expand...

$38,000 a year and only work 9 months. Thats more than I make and I am only home 1 week a month
 
Catawba said:
I have cited facts to back up my opinion. You have not. I'll let others decide who's court the ball is in.
Click to expand...

How about we make all that earn money pay taxes instead of having only half the country pay taxes
 
ptif219 said:
How about we make all that earn money pay taxes instead of having only half the country pay taxes
Click to expand...

They do already. It is deducted from their paychecks.
 
TurtleDude said:
your opinion means nothing and is not better by citing facts that do not establish one philosophy is better than another
Click to expand...

That's why I cited facts to back up my opinion. Something you have not done.

NONE of you have ever demonstrated that your desire to make the rich pay more while giving most of the voters absolutely NO INCENTIVE to curb the growth of government will help what I see as the main problem-too much government spending too much money
Click to expand...

What you suggest by cutting revenue without cutting spending is a recipe for increasing the debt. A lesson we learned the hard way by the Reagan/Bush tax cuts. Spending needs to be cut first and then determine the amount of revenue necessary for paying the bills.

your worry is the rich getting richer yet your tax schemes addict too many people to government and sap individual initiative

the only facts you cite are a gap between the rich and the poor-you have never established that cutting taxes on the rich increases this and right now the tax structure is MORE PROGRESSIVE than it was 50 years ago
Click to expand...

You have't been paying attention than:

6a00d83454b17a69e20115711eec3b970b-800wi


so tell me-how is your opinion (which holds that the gap is the biggest problem) is more correct based on the facts you have cited than those of us who see the ever expanding government and the ever growing number of those who are dependent on government programs as the main problem
Click to expand...

One is an opinion based on facts and the other is an opinion not based on facts.
 
ptif219 said:
$38,000 a year and only work 9 months. Thats more than I make and I am only home 1 week a month
Click to expand...

So naturally you defend tax cuts for those that make 800,000 times what you do, at your expense. Sure, that makes perfect sense Ptif. :shock:
 
Catawba said:
Poppycock! In order to maintain a budget, you must have enough income to pay your debts.
Click to expand...
#1 They NEVER maintain their budget!
#2 Many citizens do NOT want them to maintain their budget, they want to CUT SPENDING.
#3 You are forcing a minority to pay for this, its bad to begin with. Get that power out of government hands.

Very few of us get through life without incurring debts.
Click to expand...
Until we grow up, sure. When is government going to grow up? It's regressing.

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.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't be a problem in the first place. Cut entitlements and a broad swath of government services, phase them out to the market, and reduce taxes at the same time. No reason it can't logistically be done. Politically it's hard to do sensible things though...no doubt. That's why you should use government as a last resort, not as the primary means to enact an unrealistic fantasy of enabling people to get something for nothing.

Seriously, why is government seen as they instrument of social change? They are already free to work on social change, to build whatever non-profit empires they want to facilitate it, to raise funds like many good institutions do, to lobby, to generate public awareness, open a volunteer soup kitchen, etc., etc. Why do they have to corrupt government and then turn around and FORCE people to pay for their idealistic nonsense? Why?

I mean, did Bill Gates think "I want to see a PC in every home, so I should work through GOVERNMENT to force a PC into every home, and force the rich to pay for it"? No, he did it voluntarily, and made thousands of millionaires, created countless jobs, etc., etc. Why is freedom just not sufficient for some people? And low and behold some people hate the PC, so they by a ****ing MAC instead. Because they are free to choose.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
That's why I cited facts to back up my opinion. Something you have not done.



What you suggest by cutting revenue without cutting spending is a recipe for increasing the debt. A lesson we learned the hard way by the Reagan/Bush tax cuts. Spending needs to be cut first and then determine the amount of revenue necessary for paying the bills.

your worry is the rich getting richer yet your tax schemes addict too many people to government and sap individual initiative



You have't been paying attention than:

6a00d83454b17a69e20115711eec3b970b-800wi




One is an opinion based on facts and the other is an opinion not based on facts.
Click to expand...


your opinion is one that I don't care about--you whine bout the rich getting richer and i say SO WhaT

you have not given any rational solution to what you whine about

nor have you made a sound argument against my solution for the problem I am most concerned about--too many people wanting too much government that they demand the "rich" to pay for
 
Catawba said:
So naturally you defend tax cuts for those that make 800,000 times what you do, at your expense. Sure, that makes perfect sense Ptif. :shock:
Click to expand...

For someone that supports individual liberty over using government to force peopel to pay for things...yeah, they may support that even though they don't benefit. Oh my god, peopel with a concscionce should be condemned? You mean you think people should only support legislation if it pumps money from someone else and gives it to them? That's sick Catawba. Justice is supposed to be blind, ethics are supposed to apply to everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom