• 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?

Thunder said:
how much spending would we have to cut, to get rid of the entire debt in 15 years?

please consider normal rates of increase for those programs you do not want to cut.
Click to expand...

The 2011 budget is $3.69 trillion, the national debt is 14.5 trillion and the 09 deficit was $1.42 trillion (2010 was no doubt higher.) We would need to cut (the deficit + (14.5 trillion/15years)) which is ~ 2.5 trillion. That's 68% of the budget.

According to this breakdown we would need to ELIMINATE social security (738 billion), all income security (567 billion), medicare (498 billion), medicaid (381 billion) and gut the budgets of near every other agency and department to make the other 500 billion up. That is assuming zero growth, which isn't likely. More likely than not our national debt ceiling will be increased, as will our debt and then the net interest on the debt. This amount is already almost doubling every year, and would cover 1/2 the 500 billion that would warrant gutting. Until we eliminate the deficit we will borrow more too.

So IMO the kinds of departments and agencies, like the Department of Education and teacher salary, that grow every year at an unsustainable exponential rate must be also eliminated. Yes I am for eliminating Public Education. I also don't think that so many cuts would be necessary, as I believe the tax revenue from the ensuing prosperity from the government not meddling would offset the growth, but this would be too difficult to quantify.
 
Last edited:
ashurbanipal said:
There's something you fail to appreciate: sometimes we rightfully punish success and reward failure. For instance, if I am successful at killing a bunch of innocent people, I am punished. If I am unsuccessful, my reward is a much lighter sentence compared to what I would have gotten. Ditto someone who rips a bunch of people off as compared to someone who tries but fails.
Click to expand...

The fact that you have to stretch your argument to include "mass murders" should clearly tell you how insane "Progressive" taxation really is......

I
think it's at least the perception of quite a few people that most of the wealthy people in America got their wealth by theft. Which means that they ought to be punished if that supposition is correct (a principle with which you agree, I would assume).
Click to expand...

If they have broken laws......let them be judged.........

........but for most liberals..........anyone accumulating wealth via Capitalism is a criminal.

As for the poll answer: yes, I believe taxes should be raised on the wealthy and corporations. I'm not in the top tax brackets any more, but I used to be, and I supported those policies then, and willingly donated my money.
Click to expand...

So did you send an extra donation to the IRS?

......WHY NOT?.........
.
.
.
.
 
Thunder said:
can I afford to have my tax-rate increased 3%?

of course I can!!!

if it helps the economy improve, I am more than willing to have my rates return to the pre-Bush cuts rate.
Click to expand...

THE IRS accepts donations.......right now......send your check!


...and since we are on the subject, how much lower would the natonal debt be, if the Bush-tax cuts never went through?
Click to expand...

Probably even higher..........

Federal Government Revenue After The Bush Tax Cuts
usgs_linephptitleTotalDirectRevenueyear2003_2007snameUSunitsbbar0stack1sizemcolcspending0178231_188011_215361_240687_2567.png

.
.
.
.
 
Thunder said:
and what would FIT revenue have looked like, without the tax-cuts?
Click to expand...

That includes FIT revenue.........and revenues were at record high.....

.......thanks for playing.........
.
.
.
 
Thunder said:
and what would the FIT revenue have looked like without the tax cuts?
Click to expand...

Not as much........fewer jobs = fewer people paying income tax......taxes were cut and job growth spurred....and the tax pool grew.
.
.
.
 
SPC said:
OK. I just had to do this since Obama seems to think that 80% of Americans want higher taxes. Well......let's find out.:lamo
Click to expand...

It is wrong for the working class to pay a higher percentage of their income than the rich do, simply because they are rich. It has also helped create our debt problem and placed a greater burden on the working class. Unless we both increase revenues and cut spending our debt will continue to grow. That is why a majority of the country supports the balanced approach of increasing revenues and cutting spending.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Wow! I didn't realize this .. there must be tax loop holes the wealthy are exploiting.
Click to expand...

No, the wealthy do not have to pay as much tax relative to income as the middle class in the areas of payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes etc. Their only worry is income tax.

The system "loophole" is that the effect of cuts to income tax rates on individual income tax receipts have been masked by increases in payroll taxes such that people would have you believe that the increase in tax revenues was because of the income tax rate adjustments, when the reality is that tax revenues have increased in spite of the income tax rate adjustments.
 

Attachments

  • Numbers_Figure-2_What-are-federal-govt-sources-of-revenue_1.jpg
    Numbers_Figure-2_What-are-federal-govt-sources-of-revenue_1.jpg
    12.4 KB · Views: 177
  • Growth in tax revenue.jpg
    Growth in tax revenue.jpg
    48.8 KB · Views: 235
Thunder said:
and what would the FIT revenue have looked like without the tax cuts?
Click to expand...

Yep, you get it.... see above.

Its nice to actually have knowledgeable players playing the game.
 
Badmutha said:
Not as much........fewer jobs = fewer people paying income tax......taxes were cut and job growth spurred....and the tax pool grew.
.
.
.
Click to expand...

Except that cuts in income tax rates lead to less income tax revenue, as per above. Thanks for playing.
 
evanescence said:
This entire economy is not dependent on the super rich investors (the investors I am referring to). I am not referring to small business entrepreneurs here. Also, please quit pretending like the being wealthy automatically equals higher intelligence. Often times, it's the luck of the draw.
Click to expand...

Oh I bet there is a rather strong correlation between high earners and high intelligence. Luck has far less to do with it but that erroneous assumption makes it far easier to justify imposing confiscatory taxes on "lucky people" than talented ones.
 
upsideguy said:
Except that cuts in income tax rates lead to less income tax revenue, as per above. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

and more tax revenue means less money in the hands of those who earned it and more money to be wasted by a wasteful government
 
Thunder said:
thanks dude. :)
Click to expand...

I'll second that :) - it is nice to have people on here who can back up what they are saying with actual data instead of speculation
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
and more tax revenue means less money in the hands of those who earned it and more money to be wasted by a wasteful government
Click to expand...


Your buddies around here have been arguing cutting taxes raises revenue.
 
Leave it to a neocon start a thread in the poll forum and forget to put the poll..

Nice one..

Nobody wants a tax increase.. We all just want everyone to pay their fair share.. If you think GE paying ZERO taxes is fair then you have either rockes in your head or a well lubed butt!!
 
winston53660 said:
Your buddies around here have been arguing cutting taxes raises revenue.
Click to expand...

sometimes they do sometimes they don't and in many cases they can do both depending on the time

what tax increases do (when applied only to the rich) is to give dems cover when they want to spend more and to pander to class envy. Raising taxes on everyone-especially those other than the rich can have an edifying use that could cause the masses to be less enthralled with massive government spending but such hikes would probably cause the enactors to lose elections as well
 
DemonMyst said:
Leave it to a neocon start a thread in the poll forum and forget to put the poll..

Nice one..

Nobody wants a tax increase.. We all just want everyone to pay their fair share.. If you think GE paying ZERO taxes is fair then you have either rockes in your head or a well lubed butt!!
Click to expand...

what about the 47% who get all the citizenship benefits of the top 5% yet they pay NO federal income taxes.

and GE paid plenty of taxes on profits obtained in other nations. they also paid tons of payroll taxes on their domestic workers.
 
TurtleDude said:
sometimes they do sometimes they don't and in many cases they can do both depending on the time

l
Click to expand...


They raise and lower revenue at the same time? Are you getting dizzy yet....
 
TurtleDude said:
Oh I bet there is a rather strong correlation between high earners and high intelligence. Luck has far less to do with it but that erroneous assumption makes it far easier to justify imposing confiscatory taxes on "lucky people" than talented ones.
Click to expand...

Not the investor class, no. They've just learned how to be highly effective parasites. And what's best about it is watching people treat the super wealthy with some kind of ridiculous reverence. The double standard against the poor receiving government aid is astounding, imo.
 
winston53660 said:
They raise and lower revenue at the same time? Are you getting dizzy yet....
Click to expand...

Speaking of dizzy did you miss the comment about TIME

a tax hike often leads to short term increases in revenue. then as people engage in tax avoidance or if the taxes deleteriously affect the economy tax revenues can decrease below the level they were before the tax hikes
 
evanescence said:
Not the investor class, no. They've just learned how to be highly effective parasites. And what's best about it is watching people treat the super wealthy with some kind of ridiculous reverence. The double standard against the poor receiving government aid is astounding, imo.
Click to expand...


I love this sort of bitterness and general hatred. SO investors are all parasitic robber barons?

that really is one of the most stupid comments I have seen. many retirees are investors. when a farmer retires and sells his farm to a developer what does he do? he normally invests the money. what is a 401K plan?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom