• 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!

Where do you land

Where do you land?

  • I am wealthy, and favor tax hikes for the wealthy

    Votes: 8 11.4%

  • I am not wealthy, and favor tax hikes for the wealthy

    Votes: 27 38.6%

  • I am wealthy, and against tax hikes for the wealthy

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I am not wealthy, and against tax hikes for the wealthy

    Votes: 23 32.9%

  • Other

    Votes: 12 17.1%

  • Unsure

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    70
BDBoop said:
That's lovely, but has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't consider myself wealthy, but I don't consider myself poor - and on this board (you know who they are), if you're not wealthy, you just get accused of being a lazy shiftless nogoodnik wanting to take rich people's money from them...

Because today, striving to give your family a decent life isn't enough - that means you're worthless and must be abhorred by rich elites as they build their cash forts around them.
 
Henrin said:
But they never support tax increases for themselves. Isn't that just so cute? I think so.
Click to expand...

If the Tea Party freshman really wanted to make a statement about government spending, the first thing they should've done was cut their own salaries and make them equal to the median salary in the country - but they didn't do that, did they? Because they are only against government spending that doesn't go into their own pockets (like Bachmann and all of her government-sponsored income).
 
digsbe said:
I'm not wealthy. I am against tax hikes for the wealthy. Why should we forcibly restrict their financial freedoms to pay for a failing and foolish budget?
Click to expand...

If we already tax them the most and its not making things better, why do we think taxing them more will work?

I'm not rich by any definition, and certainly not wealthy. I just like tax cuts for everyone. Except for left handed people. It's part of my master plan to make them no more than a passing interest in history books.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Because today, striving to give your family a decent life isn't enough - that means you're worthless and must be abhorred by rich elites as they build their cash forts around them.
Click to expand...

Who has ever said such a thing?
 
WI Crippler said:
If we already tax them the most and its not making things better, why do we think taxing them more will work?

I'm not rich by any definition, and certainly not wealthy. I just like tax cuts for everyone. Except for left handed people. It's part of my master plan to make them no more than a passing interest in history books.
Click to expand...
ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....the drama....the drama.......
 
WI Crippler said:
If we already tax them the most and its not making things better, why do we think taxing them more will work?

I'm not rich by any definition, and certainly not wealthy. I just like tax cuts for everyone. Except for left handed people. It's part of my master plan to make them no more than a passing interest in history books.
Click to expand...

That's it! It's time for a lefty revolt!! *grabs guns and armor*
 
I put other, I dont consider myself wealthy by my standards of what wealthy is...but I am comfortable and need for nothing. I was always the type of person that was against any kind of class warfare and I had no envy of the rich. I am a working class guy that came from very humble working class parents...I made some right choices and worked hard and made it to where I am. HAVING SAID THAT. My attitude has entirely changed by the teaparty and their OBVIOUS assault on the working class and THEIR classwarfare on public workers.
Its the far right in the republican party that wants and IS raising taxs on the middle class while they whine that they need a tax cut....Ive heard enough of their bull**** and I am utterly totally and completely against them and their BIG LIE about Oh if we dont pay any taxs and have no regulations so we can screw our workers lots more we will create MILLIONS of jobs...Honest injun....really...cross my heart and I REALLY MEAN IT.....pfffffffffffffft
 
WI Crippler said:
If we already tax them the most and its not making things better, why do we think taxing them more will work?

I'm not rich by any definition, and certainly not wealthy. I just like tax cuts for everyone. Except for left handed people. It's part of my master plan to make them no more than a passing interest in history books.
Click to expand...

Actually, before we lowered taxes, the economy was moving along quite smoothly. We had a brief recession post 9/11 - but would've been fine with the rates the way they were before Bush came into office. The vast majority of our debt is due to wartime expenditures and the Bush tax cuts.

Our tax to GDP ratio is lower than anytime since Truman was in office. Our taxes are far from being too high.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Actually, before we lowered taxes, the economy was moving along quite smoothly. We had a brief recession post 9/11 - but would've been fine with the rates the way they were before Bush came into office. The vast majority of our debt is due to wartime expenditures and the Bush tax cuts.

Our tax to GDP ratio is lower than anytime since Truman was in office. Our taxes are far from being too high.
Click to expand...

any moron can see it was the increase in government spending that caused the economy to tank.
bush increased the budget by $700 billion. wanna guess how much obama has outspent bush?
 
lpast said:
I put other, I dont consider myself wealthy by my standards of what wealthy is...but I am comfortable and need for nothing. I was always the type of person that was against any kind of class warfare and I had no envy of the rich. I am a working class guy that came from very humble working class parents...I made some right choices and worked hard and made it to where I am. HAVING SAID THAT. My attitude has entirely changed by the teaparty and their OBVIOUS assault on the working class and THEIR classwarfare on public workers.
Its the far right in the republican party that wants and IS raising taxs on the middle class while they whine that they need a tax cut....Ive heard enough of their bull**** and I am utterly totally and completely against them and their BIG LIE about Oh if we dont pay any taxs and have no regulations so we can screw our workers lots more we will create MILLIONS of jobs...Honest injun....really...cross my heart and I REALLY MEAN IT.....pfffffffffffffft
Click to expand...

Its people like you that have the Republicans nervous.

I haven't seen lifelong Republicans jumping ship in such an angry, absolute fashion in my entire life.

Is there anything the current party could realistically do to get you to change your mind? I'm sincerely interested.
 
What if...? said:
Its people like you that have the Republicans nervous.

I haven't seen lifelong Republicans jumping ship in such an angry, absolute fashion in my entire life.

Is there anything the current party could realistically do to get you to change your mind? I'm sincerely interested.
Click to expand...


They have to stop the assault on the working class foremost the fat pigs like christie that has never done a days work in his life...and walker and scott and kasich giving huge tax breaks to the rich and corporations and then verbally ripping the working class to shreds and then trying to strip them of every dime they can...and give it to the rich..
Its not the democrats or liberals waging class warfare its fully the teaparty far right....Ill come back when the far right has been stifled and I intend to do whatever I can to make that happen...they are greedy lieing ****bags...

If im the only republican that you believe feels the way I do and as strongly....then you have to be living in a very closed world....
 
Last edited:
BDBoop said:
Let 'em go. It's not like they're contributing. I refuse to respond to fear tactics.
Click to expand...



I don't think you've thought this through.

They ARE contributing. They don't just sit on that money, they INVEST it. That means it is available for capital or loans, to expand businesses and start new ones, thereby creating more jobs (and preserving existing ones).

If they take their money to another state, or to another country (an island republic, or one of those little countries with no income tax), and we lose out on the capital investment they represent.... then yeah, we're going to have problems. That wealth is no longer going to be there to use to create MORE prosperity, as in for you and me.

I don't know where people get the idea that a man worth 400 million dollars, simply has a stack of money that he's sitting on, hoarding it, and it isn't doing anything. I know a number of wealthy people, though I'm working-poor myself, and none of them do that. They own businesses (that employ people!), they INVEST in businesses (that EMPLOY people!!), they buy stock in businesses (that EMPLOY people!!!), etc.

Why do businesses sell stock? To increase capital so they can do more biz, which often means hiring more people.

When you lose the wealthy, you're hurting your own economy, and everybody down to the dirt-farmer and the ditch-digger.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
If the Tea Party freshman really wanted to make a statement about government spending, the first thing they should've done was cut their own salaries and make them equal to the median salary in the country - but they didn't do that, did they? Because they are only against government spending that doesn't go into their own pockets (like Bachmann and all of her government-sponsored income).
Click to expand...

That's already happened in the House of Representatives - January 2011. Seems you made an assumption....

H. Res. 22

House Resolution 22 - Passed 1/6/2011 said:
Latest Title: Reducing the amount authorized for salaries and expenses of Member, committee, and leadership offices in 2011 and 2012.
Sponsor: Rep Walden, Greg [OR-2] (introduced 1/6/2011)

SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN MEMBERS' REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCE.

(a) Allowances Adopted in 2011 and 2012- The amount of any Members' Representational Allowance established in accordance with section 101 of the House of Representatives Administrative Reform Technical Corrections Act (2 U.S.C. 57b) for 2011 or 2012 may not exceed 95 percent of the amount of the Allowance so established for 2010.

(b) Interim Reduction Pending Adoption of New Allowance- Until a Members' Representational Allowance is established in accordance with section 101 of the House of Representatives Administrative Reform Technical Corrections Act (2 U.S.C. 57b) for 2011, the amount of such Allowance, as in effect on the date of the adoption of this resolution, is reduced by 5 percent.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN AMOUNT AUTHORIZED FOR SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF HOUSE LEADERSHIP OFFICES IN 2011 AND 2012.

(a) Reduction- The head of any House leadership office may not authorize the disbursement of any amounts appropriated for salaries and expenses of such office during calendar year 2011 or fiscal year 2012 at a rate exceeding 95 percent of the rate provided for such salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2010.

(b) Definition- In this section, a `House leadership office' is any office whose salaries and expenses were appropriated for fiscal year 2010 under the heading `House leadership offices' in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2010.

SEC. 3. REDUCTION IN AMOUNT AUTHORIZED FOR EXPENSES OF COMMITTEES IN 2011 AND 2012.

(a) Primary Expense Resolutions- The aggregate amount authorized for expenses of committees of the House of Representatives for 2011 and 2012 under primary expense resolutions adopted by the House under clause 6 of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives may not exceed 95 percent of the aggregate amount provided for expenses of committees under such resolutions for 2009 and 2010.

(b) Interim Funding Pending Adoption of Primary Expense Resolutions- Notwithstanding paragraph (c) of clause 7 of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, each committee described in paragraph (a) of such clause shall be entitled for each month during the period specified in paragraph (a) of such clause to 95 percent of the amount otherwise determined under paragraph (c) of such clause.

SEC. 4. REDUCTION IN AMOUNT AUTHORIZED FOR SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS IN 2011 AND 2012.

The chair of the Committee on Appropriations may not authorize the disbursement of any amounts appropriated for salaries and expenses of the Committee during fiscal year 2011 or fiscal year 2012 at a rate exceeding 91 percent of the rate provided for such salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2010.
Click to expand...
 
As much as it sucks, I believe eventually we will all need tax hikes, at least to Clinton era rates. However, I believe it should be slowly done over a 8-12 year period starting with a new tax bracket on the billionaire, then millionaire, then go down to 250K and above, then the upper middle class, middle class, working class, and then poor. However I am also in favor of "regressive" social security taxes meaning the more you make the less you have to pay. So if the billionaire is paying 40% of his earnings federally, he is paying 5% or less into social security. If the poor is paying 10% of his earnings and I think and I think should only get a certain percentage back at the end of the year and it SHOULD NOT get ANY back for state and local taxes he should also pay much more into Social Security as a percentage than a billionaire.
 
BDBoop said:
Bill Clinton is right.
Click to expand...

I agree. The concept of NO tax raises is unrealistic and the Republican's know it. NO TAX hikes is simply a people-pleaser meant to rally favor.

Canell said:
Liberty, Equaluty, Fraternity

That said, the flat tax is the only thing that can qualify as "equality". Anything else is just jiberish. Imho. :)
Whether you are wealthy or poor, you have to pay your fair share. If you don't, you are subjected to persecution.
Click to expand...

I also agree with this, ideally. The rich shouldn't be taxed simply because they are rich. However, business owners and people who have shares and the like in a large business or profiting organization are different I think. A huge corporation or business does not equal one person, just as the House of Representatives does not function of the One Vote for One State principle. If you are simply rich, no I don't think they should be taxed, but if you are a considerably large business or something, yeah, I think your taxes would naturally rise proportionately.
 
BDBoop said:
So much talk about how the wealthy deserve this, and the rich need that. Where do you fall in all this?
Click to expand...

I am not wealthy, and against tax hikes for the wealthy.To be fair I am against tax hikes for every income bracket because the more money you give the government the more they will waste it.
 
I am fairly wealthy. I am in favor of significant tax increases to pay down the debt (and God help the Hollywood types or ANYONE that earns their income in the US and runs and hides it in other places). Im in favor of a specific and targeted plan to cut spending and pay down the debt with the tax increases sundowned within a set time limit. Im also VERY MUCH in favor of gutting social services and limiting them (payable ONLY at the state level) to thse TRULY in need and VERY MUCH in favor of promoting personal responsiblity so there are less parasites on the system.
 
On a federal level, you bet I think it's time the wealthiest 1% pony up their share. For decades, these are the people who have literally bought their tax loopholes and favorable tax breaks by bribing congress with campaign contributions in return for favorable legislation. They pay a fraction of the percentage of gross income that the middleclass pays, because they can use these breaks and loopholes to get their taxable income down to a pittance.

Do I resent hell out of the fact that these people have the government in their very deep pockets? Oh, you bet I do.
 
DiAnna said:
On a federal level, you bet I think it's time the wealthiest 1% pony up their share. For decades, these are the people who have literally bought their tax loopholes and favorable tax breaks by bribing congress with campaign contributions in return for favorable legislation. They pay a fraction of the percentage of gross income that the middleclass pays, because they can use these breaks and loopholes to get their taxable income down to a pittance.

Do I resent hell out of the fact that these people have the government in their very deep pockets? Oh, you bet I do.
Click to expand...

Other than the usual rhetoric, can you cite examples of wealthy individuals bribing congressmen (sounds like a tax if ya ask me) to avoid paying which taxes? And what exactly does 'their fair share' mean? Are you willing to discuss a flat tax...no loopholes, no writeoffs and across the board for individuals? Cuz...Game on!
 
Define wealthy? I'm well off but I wouldn't say "wealthy".
 
ElijahGalt said:
What happens to the wealthy tax base when states implement a massive tax hike on the wealthy? It disappears. They move.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's a very good rationale for a small government approach...at the state level. But whereas (I'm assuming) you see that as a model for the federal government to emulate, I see it as a good reason for a stronger federal government, to make up for the relative dearth of spending that inevitably will occur at the state level. It's harder to move to another country than to move to another state, and most people have no desire to do so even if they're paying more taxes in this country than elsewhere.

To answer the poll question: Yes, I support higher taxes on the wealthy. It's not a matter of "class warfare," it's a matter of the federal government being able to pay its bills. And it makes more sense to tax people who actually HAVE money to tax, than to tax people who don't.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
I'm not wealthy. I am against tax hikes for the wealthy. Why should we forcibly restrict their financial freedoms to pay for a failing and foolish budget?
Click to expand...

So we don't have to add even more stress to the working class via alternative methods of revenue. The money is either going to come out of the pockets of the rich or off of the dinner tables of the poor. If we can solve the debt problem without doing either, I'm all for that. But this isn't realistic as defense/military spending cuts seem to be off the table entirely. If I had the choice of wether to raise taxes so that the rich have 4% less spending money or to cut social programs for people who are already just barely getting by, I would leave the social programs.
 
I'm for a flat tax above a certain amount (however much it takes to 'live comfortably') and a progressive tax below that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom