• 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!

Do You Want Higher Taxes?

TurtleDude said:
Your post is either the product of ignorance or willful blindness. This board teems with people who are whining about the rich and whether you want to call it envy, class hatred or just butt hurt boo hoo whining because they are mad others are rich and they are not, its the same thing
Click to expand...

The rightwings ideas are the product of ignorance or willful blindness. This board teems with people who are whining about the middle clase and whether you want to call it envy, class hatred or just butt hurt boo hoo whining because they are mad others are productive and they are not, its the same thing
 
TurtleDude said:
that last comment is really stupid. you cannot prove it and your constant rants about the rich are pathetic

the "war on poverty" has cost billions more than any real war since that nonsense started and all it has done is created millions of dependent addicts
Click to expand...

How do you propose society deal with poverty?
 
The ONE and ONLY reason the wealthy are wealthy...is because of the blood, sweat, and tears of the poor & middle class.

And yet, the wealthy have the nerve to attack, demean, and seek to extinguish those who are responsible for their great wealth.

Talk about chutzpah.

the wealthy REALLY need to take heed, for without the middle-class, they are doomed.
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
OK. Let me ask you this Utah. If politicians had less power over us, i.e. were less able to "run our lives", would that not be a reasonable solution to your proposed problem?
Capitalist run politicians, but politicans can't effectively run our lives...problem solved? For that matter, why would they invest so much time and energy into controlling politicians if it didn't get them results anyway.

Consider the federal budget, can we cut that by 50% and still keep strong corporate regulation and enforcement, considering the largest budget items are not related to regulation and enforcement?
Click to expand...

Politicians are running our lives at the direction of the super rich.....don't you get that?
Sure, they gave us the IRA and other deferred savings plans, but then limited the investment options to suit Wall street, not main street....
We blindly gave our money to Wall Street and they used it against us....
The rich got richer, as they almost always do.
The wife and I are doing well, a bit over 6 figures retirement income, about $750K in assets, but there are many who weren't as paranoid as we have always been. Yes, they should have been smarter, but at the same time, Wall Street could have been less greedy.
How does it do anything for us as a nation when 5% of the country owns 65% of the wealth? Isn't it obvious that 1000 millionaires is better for the economy than having ONE billionaire?
 
sangha's childish mimicry is getting out of hand.

Thunder said:
The ONE and ONLY reason the wealthy are wealthy...is because of the blood, sweat, and tears of the poor & middle class.
Click to expand...

Don't forget purchases.

And yet, the wealthy have the nerve to attack, demean, and seek to extinguish those who are responsible for their great wealth.
Click to expand...

Horsesh*t. The rich in general are not "attacking" anybody. They're involved in businesses that do or make things ordinary people buy.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
many of those not paying any federal income taxes are not poor
Click to expand...

Could you provide sources please? Perhaps those in the upper brackets aren't paying their share of taxes, but are you referring to those in the lower brackets?
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
what about the supposed rich-folks who whine about paying an additional.....OMG....3% in income taxes?
Click to expand...

that is not accurate and you know it. A 3% increase in a tax rate-unless the rate is 100% results in a higher percentage increase in the marginal tax rate. In the case of 36% to 39.6%3.9% increase is more than a 10% increase

and you willfully ignore that Obama wanted dividend income tax rates to go from 15% to 39.6% do the math
 
Thunder said:
evidence?

source?
Click to expand...

is it your position that 47% of the USA is poor using whatever government labels you want? I suspect you have never been to south america, east asia or sub saharan africa but you really have no clue how well off our "poor" are compared to most of the rest of the world
 
sangha said:
1) many of those not paying any FIT are Fortune 500 corporations
2) allowing the rich to demand more and more government without making them pay anything for that only leads to increased deficits and debt, and lower job creation
Click to expand...

I thought you socialists claim corporations are not persons. dividend recipients are paying taxes on their income-and those who work for those corporations are paying taxes on their income so you are lying. Corporations don't pay income taxes they pay corporate profit taxes.
 
sangha said:
that last comment is really stupid. you cannot prove it and your constant rants about the middle class are pathetic

the "war on poverty" has cost trillions less than real war since that nonsense started and all it has lifted millions out of poverty
Click to expand...


that last comment is really stupid. You cannot prove it and your parroting other posters is a clear sign we are dealing with a kid.

The war on poverty has cost more than any war that has taken place since the W on P began and has created a dependent class and has not changed the percentages of people in poverty
 
TurtleDude said:
that last comment is really stupid. You cannot prove it and your parroting other posters is a clear sign we are dealing with a kid.

The war on poverty has cost more than any war that has taken place since the W on P began and has created a dependent class and has not changed the percentages of people in poverty
Click to expand...


Hogwash, poverty rates have declined under various administrations.
 
TurtleDude said:
is it your position that 47% of the USA is poor using whatever government labels you want? I suspect you have never been to south america, east asia or sub saharan africa but you really have no clue how well off our "poor" are compared to most of the rest of the world
Click to expand...

refusal to provide evidence or sources for your claim, noted.
 
TurtleDude said:
is it your position that 47% of the USA is poor using whatever government labels you want? I suspect you have never been to south america, east asia or sub saharan africa but you really have no clue how well off our "poor" are compared to most of the rest of the world
Click to expand...

So your ideal situation would be to have our poorest citizens poorer ... like those of your beloved "south america, east asia or sub saharan africa" ... ? I am trying to understand what moral code would support poverty, no matter how severe, while only a handful of people own the world's wealth. Please give me a moral argument that would support that ... I've been waiting to hear one from you for a while now.
 
winston53660 said:
Hogwash, poverty rates have declined under various administrations.
Click to expand...

really? yet some of your confederates claim those who pay no income taxes (47% of the USA) are poor
 
TurtleDude said:
really? yet some of your confederates claim those who pay no income taxes (47% of the USA) are poor
Click to expand...

A quick technical note ... why do your (and some other people's) posts take up so much writing space on the forum, such as this one above which contains one 2 small quotes one line of content and around 9 or 10 blank lines? I am new to the forum so this may sound like a silly question, but my posts do not take up that much space. Am I missing something?
 
MusicAdventurer said:
So your ideal situation would be to have our poorest citizens poorer ... like those of your beloved "south america, east asia or sub saharan africa" ... ? I am trying to understand what moral code would support poverty, no matter how severe, while only a handful of people own the world's wealth. Please give me a moral argument that would support that ... I've been waiting to hear one from you for a while now.
Click to expand...


I will try to explain this to you once more since you are a newbie and apparently have missed my most recent 10=15 posts on this issue where I explain my point-a point no one has ever even tried to rebut

right now we have a problem. Most of America is not charged with paying federal income taxes in a significant amount. the top 5% pay more than the rest of the country combined. 47% pay no income tax and about 60% get more directly from the government than they actually pay.

Right now politicians win elections by

a) promising the many more and more spending, benefits, government services

b) telling the many that they won't have to pay higher federal income taxes (GOP) or only that the rich will (Dems)

This ploy works because most of the voters don't see a connection between more spending and having to pay for it. Its like giving a bunch of teenage mall rates a credit card in return for their love and then telling some other guy he has to pay the bills. There is nothing to restrain the kids from running up the debt. right now there is no real reason for the majority of voters to NOT vote for the big spending politicians--the voters get more stuff and they aren't tasked with paying for it

that is a main reason why we have runaway debt and a massively expanding federal government

the only way to stop this is to either have the courts actually roll back the new deal precedents or to have a tax system that reminds all the voters that if they want more spending THEY (and not the top 2 percent) will have to pay for it
 
Thunder said:
who here said that ALL 47% of Americans who don't pay income taxes, are poor?

just another Con strawman.
Click to expand...


spend some of the time you spend machine gunning posts and look around plenty have said that those 47% can afford no more taxes and have no disposable income
 
MusicAdventurer said:
So your ideal situation would be to have our poorest citizens poorer ... like those of your beloved "south america, east asia or sub saharan africa" ... ? I am trying to understand what moral code would support poverty, no matter how severe, while only a handful of people own the world's wealth. Please give me a moral argument that would support that ... I've been waiting to hear one from you for a while now.
Click to expand...

NOpe, if the middle class and lower were not seduced by the government tit, I suspect far less would wallow in squalor and a lack of ambition. If you subsidize something you increase it and we subsidize dependence
 
Musicadventurer .. Turtle posted this to you

I will try to explain this to you once more since you are a newbie and apparently have missed my most recent 10=15 posts on this issue where I explain my point-a point no one has ever even tried to rebut
Click to expand...

All of Turtle's points have been rebutted to death over and over and over again in thread after thread after thread no matter what the actual subject of that thread is.
 
TurtleDude said:
spend some of the time you spend machine gunning posts and look around plenty have said that those 47% can afford no more taxes and have no disposable income
Click to expand...

just because you can't afford to pay more in taxes, does not make you poor.

this is just your silly Con strawman.
 
TurtleDude said:
NOpe, if the middle class and lower were not seduced by the government tit, I suspect far less would wallow in squalor and a lack of ambition. If you subsidize something you increase it and we subsidize dependence
Click to expand...

yes, with corporate welfare, tax-loopholes, and useless subsidies.
 
TurtleDude said:
the only way to stop this is to either have the courts actually roll back the new deal precedents or to have a tax system that reminds all the voters that if they want more spending THEY (and not the top 2 percent) will have to pay for it
Click to expand...

Somehow, I sense that this is not the only way to cut out useless spending. 1st off, we need to identify what we consider useless spending (and I think this is the crux of the issue). So, according to you, what areas need less funding? Do any areas need more?
 
TurtleDude said:
NOpe, if the middle class and lower were not seduced by the government tit, I suspect far less would wallow in squalor and a lack of ambition. If you subsidize something you increase it and we subsidize dependence
Click to expand...

Thanks TD, what ever you did to diminish that technical issue with taking up too much space on posts worked. :) Ooops, spoke too soon (this is an edit to my OP), its back again .. what up with that?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom