• 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!

The Income Inequality Hypocrisy Of Obama And Clinton

ludin said:
you normally don't go after those that support you.
the fact is that all those evil 1%'ers are mostly business people that create jobs
and invest in peoples companies etc ...
it is easy to demonize people that allow people the freedom of not depending on the government.

envy is not a good argument and I wish liberals would just admit that is all this is.
Click to expand...

But business people don't create jobs, their companies do. And, the jobs could not be created unless there was demand from the poor. LOL
 
Moderate Right said:
But business people don't create jobs, their companies do. And, the jobs could not be created unless there was demand from the poor. LOL
Click to expand...

There are more than poor people that need and require goods and services.
Umm yes business people do create jobs. Without them there would be no businesses
 
ludin said:
Why? It won't help the poor.

The only thing that moves people out of poverty is job skills and education.
If they refuse to do either then how is taxing the rich going to help them?

The government doesn't get anyone out of poverty it keeps people there.
Click to expand...

ok do it then, and stop complaining about how to pay for it.
 
Moderate Right said:
I've never been against raising taxes on the rich but all of the rich, not just business owners and CEO's.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

But, everyone over the poverty line should be paying at least some taxes, not zero.
Click to expand...

You keep saying that but I don't understand why? 1) there is still plenty of taxes that everybody pays (outside of just FIT). 2) who says a progressive system must start positive? 3) What exactly would make you happy? .1%? What arbitrary floor are you going to choose?
Frankly it's easy to get around from the aspect of public sector employment - they can just raise wages so they can afford your taxes - but their net will be exactly the same.

It is ridiculous to claim that someone who pays millions in taxes is not paying their fair share while 43% pay zero.
Click to expand...
I'm going to ask this again since you never answered before. What would you rather have 30k at a 0% tax rate or 10M at a 90% tax rate? Conservatives are always so quick to point out that "life isn't fair" when pointing out the plight of the poor and the futility of an equal society and I'm mostly ok with that. The question is when you turn that idea around, why does fairness jump back into the conversation so quick.

And, we should not raise taxes to spend more.
Click to expand...
Why not? We're wasting human capital right now.

We should raise taxes to cut down on the budget deficit.
Click to expand...
We might be able to do both.
 
Moderate Right said:
Yep. That is hypocrisy at it's finest. They rail against the CEO's for making so much money at the expense of the little guy while these very same rich actors demand multi-millions per movie, at the expense of the little guy who has to pay inflated prices to see their movies.
Click to expand...

"Little guys" *have* to see their movies?
 
mmi said:
Outstanding, pdog!

MR is on a campaign in this community to delegitimise the call for efforts to address the extremely unjust and highly dysfunctional explosion in income inequality that has developed over the past thirty-five years. In this thread, he plays the simple-minded game of claiming that the wealth accumulated over the years by the Clintons makes them hypocrites. (Fwiw, I have no idea why he includes the Obummers in this. What information does he have that irks him regarding their income? The only thing I've heard about it is that they have given a LOT more to charity over the years than the grotesque pig that's been put up to run against Hellory by the ignorant toads that voted for him in the GOP primaries.)

Excellent job of exposing the … hypocrisy … of the point raised in this thread. OK, MR, let's raise the taxes on those crooked, scheming, murdering Clintons a few percent. Are you saying they oppose that proposal?
Click to expand...
Seriously, he walked right into that one. Honestly, this is the crap that made me abandon the idea that I was an "independent". It usually takes just one post to expose some serious flaw in any logic they might have. The really bad part is they never care. They add in some other anecdote, some strawman, some random statement that nobody was talking about etc.

The good news is that while it is probably an impossible task to convert these rigid right wingers, there's still a bunch of independents out there that simply need a little depth to their political knowledge before they realize that the "center" isn't what they thought it was.
 
mmi said:
Is there any point to this thread? I mean other than an opportunity to post mindless attacks on Democratic politicians? I suppose that's standard fare for some in this community.
Click to expand...
Particularly since the left never attacks republican politicians. ;) I understand since the subject of the thread is hypocrisy.
 
pdog said:
there is still plenty of taxes that everybody pays (outside of just FIT). So what? It is FIT that funds most government expenses, therefore EVERYONE over the poverty line should be contributing something. The rich pay all of these other taxes as well, and probably more dollars to boot. SS and Medicare are a different category.


I'm going to ask this again since you never answered before. What would you rather have 30k at a 0% tax rate or 10M at a 90% tax rate? This is stuff for liberal dreams. Why don't we talk about reality instead of talking about dreams? The fact is that the top 60% pay 60% of all FIT, the top 80% pay 80% of all FIT and the top 90% pay 90% of all FIT. What could be more fair than that?
Click to expand...

It's ridiculous to have a national debt of 20 trillion dollars, adding at least another 500 billion to it every year so if we are going to raise tax revenues those should go toward lowering the deficit, not spending more money. That's why the Republicans are against raising taxes - because they know that for every dollar in extra tax revenues that are collected, the Democrats will spend two dollars.
 
Moderate Right said:
It's ridiculous to have a national debt of 20 trillion dollars, adding at least another 500 billion to it every year so if we are going to raise tax revenues those should go toward lowering the deficit, not spending more money. That's why the Republicans are against raising taxes - because they know that for every dollar in extra tax revenues that are collected, the Democrats will spend two dollars.
Click to expand...

If you want to have a lower deficit then be my guest. Just make sure you do that by taxing the rich - that's the only way to get additional revenue without hurting the economy (low marginal propensity to consume).

So what? It is FIT that funds most government expenses, therefore EVERYONE over the poverty line should be contributing something. The rich pay all of these other taxes as well, and probably more dollars to boot. SS and Medicare are a different category.
Click to expand...
Oh, we're throwing the poverty line in there now eh? Exactly how many people above the poverty line don't pay FIT?

This is stuff for liberal dreams. Why don't we talk about reality instead of talking about dreams? The fact is that the top 60% pay 60% of all FIT, the top 80% pay 80% of all FIT and the top 90% pay 90% of all FIT. What could be more fair than that?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. I also don't know what "dream" you are talking about. You don't think that there are people making 30k and 10M? It was an insanely simply question to answer, and you sidestepped it because it hurts your point. Fairness has nothing to do with anything.
 
pdog said:
I say we raise taxes on them. You game?
Click to expand...

Why should we have to?

Why aren't Hillary and Obama donating their money so they make an average of 15.00 an hour?
 
jaeger19 said:
Why should we have to?

Why aren't Hillary and Obama donating their money so they make an average of 15.00 an hour?
Click to expand...

I don't know, don't really know what the op is looking for on this thread.
 
ludin said:
If they made the money honestly I don't care how much money they have. it has no affect on me. just as if bill gates or warren buffett make another billion dollars. it has no affect on me my wife or what I make.
the fact that you think it does shows that you need to do more studying on how economics actually works.
Click to expand...
Teens from less privileged backgrounds face numerous barriers to finding jobs. They are less likely to own a car (or have access to one), and often live in areas where jobs are scarce. Their parents are less likely to be able to help them get a foot in the door at a local business. They may attend schools that are, or are perceived as, inferior, making them less attractive to prospective employers. And they may face discrimination based on race, class or other factors. None of those barriers is new, of course, but they may have grown higher as the U.S. has become more unequal and more segregated by class.

Unfortunately, low-income teens are also the ones who most need summer jobs. They need the money, of course — a job that might provide pocket-money to a middle-class teen could be a key source of income for someone from a poorer family. But they also need the experience. Young people from low-income backgrounds can’t count on family connections, expensive extracurricular activities or, in most cases, degrees from private colleges to help them land jobs as adults. So they are particularly dependent on work experience to get ahead. Past research has found that at-risk teens who work perform better academically, are less likely to get into trouble with the law and earn more as adults than those who don’t.
 
pdog said:
If you want to have a lower deficit then be my guest. Just make sure you do that by taxing the rich - that's the only way to get additional revenue without hurting the economy (low marginal propensity to consume).


Oh, we're throwing the poverty line in there now eh? Exactly how many people above the poverty line don't pay FIT?



I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. I also don't know what "dream" you are talking about. You don't think that there are people making 30k and 10M? It was an insanely simply question to answer, and you sidestepped it because it hurts your point. Fairness has nothing to do with anything.
Click to expand...

I've always thrown the poverty line in there. It is not something new for me. The poverty line is around 15% of the population and 43% pay no federal income taxes. That means approximately 28% could be paying something instead of zero. It doesn't have to be much but it should be more than zero. Then they get bitch about the rich not paying their fair share because they won't be paying zero. Fairness has nothing to do with anything, while you guys constantly gripe about the rich not paying their fair share, even though they are paying the huge majority of the taxes?
 
pdog said:
I don't know, don't really know what the op is looking for on this thread.
Click to expand...

Well.. it would seem to me.. that when you make millions of dollars.. and you think that you making millions of dollars is "unfair" and needs to be addressed.. then it would behoove you to start with yourself.. and divest yourself of all those millions of dollars that are making you unequal.

So why hasn;t Obama and Hillary given all those millions up for charity? Or given it to the government.

Its seems a little odd.. that when you make millions of dollars and complain about the inequity of it all.. that you then call to raise taxes on those making 250,000.

See.. the real issue is that when these rich folks talk about raising taxes.. they are generally NOT talking about raising their taxes.. they are talking about raising other peoples taxes. Like the small businessman making 250,000.

Or raising marginal rates on earned income.. while meanwhile.. they make their money with capital gains. etc.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Teens from less privileged backgrounds face numerous barriers to finding jobs. They are less likely to own a car (or have access to one), and often live in areas where jobs are scarce. Their parents are less likely to be able to help them get a foot in the door at a local business. They may attend schools that are, or are perceived as, inferior, making them less attractive to prospective employers. And they may face discrimination based on race, class or other factors. None of those barriers is new, of course, but they may have grown higher as the U.S. has become more unequal and more segregated by class.

Unfortunately, low-income teens are also the ones who most need summer jobs. They need the money, of course — a job that might provide pocket-money to a middle-class teen could be a key source of income for someone from a poorer family. But they also need the experience. Young people from low-income backgrounds can’t count on family connections, expensive extracurricular activities or, in most cases, degrees from private colleges to help them land jobs as adults. So they are particularly dependent on work experience to get ahead. Past research has found that at-risk teens who work perform better academically, are less likely to get into trouble with the law and earn more as adults than those who don’t.
Click to expand...

uh huh.. that's nice.. now please explain how its relevant to Ludins post:

Ludin said:
If they made the money honestly I don't care how much money they have. it has no affect on me. just as if bill gates or warren buffett make another billion dollars. it has no affect on me my wife or what I make.
the fact that you think it does shows that you need to do more studying on how economics actually works.
Click to expand...
 
jaeger19 said:
uh huh.. that's nice.. now please explain how its relevant to Ludins post:
Click to expand...
No, actually, I don't have to explain ANYTHING to you....that is NOT addressed to YOU. If YOU cannot figure out the connection between the effects of inequality and the ability for the poor to gain employment, then you once again prove you are NOT a cohort of doctors.
 
jaeger19 said:
Well.. it would seem to me.. that when you make millions of dollars.. and you think that you making millions of dollars is "unfair" and needs to be addressed..
Click to expand...

I have never heard any politician say that it is unfair for people to make millions of dollars. Can you quote any politician who said that?

Or is this another right wing myth?
 
Moderate Right said:
I've always thrown the poverty line in there. It is not something new for me. The poverty line is around 15% of the population and 43% pay no federal income taxes. That means approximately 28% could be paying something instead of zero.
Click to expand...

ok, so what percentage would you be happy with? Would it be the same for the whole group?
 
jaeger19 said:
Well.. it would seem to me.. that when you make millions of dollars.. and you think that you making millions of dollars is "unfair" and needs to be addressed.. then it would behoove you to start with yourself.. and divest yourself of all those millions of dollars that are making you unequal.

So why hasn;t Obama and Hillary given all those millions up for charity? Or given it to the government.

Its seems a little odd.. that when you make millions of dollars and complain about the inequity of it all.. that you then call to raise taxes on those making 250,000.

See.. the real issue is that when these rich folks talk about raising taxes.. they are generally NOT talking about raising their taxes.. they are talking about raising other peoples taxes. Like the small businessman making 250,000.

Or raising marginal rates on earned income.. while meanwhile.. they make their money with capital gains. etc.
Click to expand...

I guess I would need to see something that says they're specifically excluding themselves from their policy changes.
 
jaeger19 said:
Its seems a little odd.. that when you make millions of dollars and complain about the inequity of it all.. that you then call to raise taxes on those making 250,000.
Click to expand...

Where does Hellory's tax plan focus on raising taxes on $250K+ hpuseholds?

Her reforms would raise taxes slightly and collect billions over the next decade. Here’s what she’s proposing:

  • Create a 4 percent surcharge on incomes over $5 million and impose a 30 percent minimum rate on adjusted gross incomes above $1 million
  • Limit itemized deduction benefits at 28 percent; raise rates on medium-term capital gains to between 27.8 percent and 47.4 percent; increase the top estate tax rate to 45 percent and reduce the threshold to $3.5 million; limit the value of tax-deferred retirement accounts
  • Create a new caregiver tax credit up to $1,200
The Tax Policy Center estimates that most Americans wouldn’t be affected by Clinton’s proposed tax hikes, which target the highest income earners. The increases would average $78,000, equal to a 5 percent increase in after-tax income, for the top 1 percent of taxpayers and $520,000 or about 7.6 percent for the top 0.1 percent.

Middle-income households would pay about $44 more on average, equal to a tenth of a percent of change. The poorest filers would lose an additional $4, equal to no change.

Clinton’s reforms to the corporate tax code aim to tax profits earned by multinational businesses in the United States and U.S. companies earned abroad. Clinton is also seeking to penalize excessive risk taking in the financial sector while incentivizing business programs that help workers and distressed communities.

Analysts say Clinton’s proposals would increase feder,al revenues by $500 billion to $1.1 trillion in the first decade. — "PolitiFact's guide to the 2016 presidential candidate tax plans" PolitiFact, April 4, 2016​

tax_plans.jpg
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No, actually, I don't have to explain ANYTHING to you....that is NOT addressed to YOU. If YOU cannot figure out the connection between the effects of inequality and the ability for the poor to gain employment, then you once again prove you are NOT a cohort of doctors.
Click to expand...

So in other words.. you have no explanation of how your post is relevant to ludins post.

Just checking.. when you want to debate in an intellectual manner and not make insults.. please get back to the group.
 
mmi said:
Where does Hellory's tax plan focus on raising taxes on $250K+ hpuseholds?

Her reforms would raise taxes slightly and collect billions over the next decade. Here’s what she’s proposing:

  • Create a 4 percent surcharge on incomes over $5 million and impose a 30 percent minimum rate on adjusted gross incomes above $1 million
  • Limit itemized deduction benefits at 28 percent; raise rates on medium-term capital gains to between 27.8 percent and 47.4 percent; increase the top estate tax rate to 45 percent and reduce the threshold to $3.5 million; limit the value of tax-deferred retirement accounts
  • Create a new caregiver tax credit up to $1,200
The Tax Policy Center estimates that most Americans wouldn’t be affected by Clinton’s proposed tax hikes, which target the highest income earners. The increases would average $78,000, equal to a 5 percent increase in after-tax income, for the top 1 percent of taxpayers and $520,000 or about 7.6 percent for the top 0.1 percent.

Middle-income households would pay about $44 more on average, equal to a tenth of a percent of change. The poorest filers would lose an additional $4, equal to no change.

Clinton’s reforms to the corporate tax code aim to tax profits earned by multinational businesses in the United States and U.S. companies earned abroad. Clinton is also seeking to penalize excessive risk taking in the financial sector while incentivizing business programs that help workers and distressed communities.

Analysts say Clinton’s proposals would increase feder,al revenues by $500 billion to $1.1 trillion in the first decade. — "PolitiFact's guide to the 2016 presidential candidate tax plans" PolitiFact, April 4, 2016​

View attachment 67203767
Click to expand...

Obama stated that he would raise taxes on those making over 250,000. Even your own graph points out that Hillary w ould increase taxes on those making 217,000.

Which includes a LOT of small businessman that do a lot of hiring in the US.

And we don;t need the revenue.. we already tax at about 18% of GDP which is about our historical norm. and in fact somewhat higher even higher when we had "those high marginal rates".. because in some of those years.. we were taxing at 17% of GDP.
 
sangha said:
I have never heard any politician say that it is unfair for people to make millions of dollars. Can you quote any politician who said that?

Or is this another right wing myth?
Click to expand...

Oh.. so if its not unfair.. why does Hillary think I need to pay more taxes? Why should I have to pay a higher percentage than anyone else?

Please explain the liberal point of view.
 
pdog said:
I guess I would need to see something that says they're specifically excluding themselves from their policy changes.
Click to expand...

Well.. if they are so concerned.. why aren;t they simply giving their own money away?

Its like their complaining of racism while putting a confederate flag on their door.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom