• 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?

Personally, yes. I'll pay a bit higher taxes, if I can be assured that it will go to paying down the national debt. I personally think EVERYONE, in ALL tax brackets, should pay about 2% or 3% more than what they're paying now--because half of Americans aren't paying ANYTHING.

I am still shocked that we've just gone through a decade that has seen our brave men and women sent off to war in two dangerous hot spots, and I have not been asked to contribute a DIME more to help fund those war efforts. Why aren't the American people being asked to make ANY sacrifices?
 
Punish Success--Reward Failure........thats the spirit comrade.
.
.
.

Well lets first start with making the rich pay what poor and middle class pay. Then we can talk about upping their taxes as they are not paying anywhere near what the middle class pay and I proved this in another thread.

Cry me a river for the poor rich folks:roll:
 
@TurtleDude
I know, if you want higher taxes then you must pay them and if you do not, you do not have to pay higher taxes! :mrgreen:
 
Well lets first start with making the rich pay what poor and middle class pay. Then we can talk about upping their taxes as they are not paying anywhere near what the middle class pay and I proved this in another thread.

Cry me a river for the poor rich folks:roll:

I agree with you totally - I am wondering in what post you proved that the middle class is paying most - thanks :)
 
Except when they didnt.......

Federal Tax Revenue After The Bush Tax Cuts
usgs_linephptitleTotalDirectRevenueyear2003_2007snameUSunitsbbar0stack1sizemcolcspending0178231_188011_215361_240687_2567.png


Federal Tax Revenue After The Reagan Tax Cuts
usgs_linephptitleTotalDirectRevenueyear1982_1988snameUSunitsbbar0stack1sizemcolcspending061777_60056_66644_73404_76916_85429_909.png


Federal Tax Revenue After The JFK/Johnson Tax Cuts
usgs_linephptitleTotalDirectRevenueyear1964_1970snameUSunitsbbar0stack1sizemcolcspending011261_11682_13084_14882_15297_18688_192.png


Reality and your contentions do not get along........
.
.
.

Again, you are showing total revenue, not income tax revenue, which actually fell after the Reagan tax cuts and Bush tax cuts, as previously shown.
Revenue increased in the short-run because payroll tax revenue increased. Tax revenue has increased in every decade just because the economy grows and because of inflation.... in in the case of the 1960's and 1980's, there are tax increases peppered in there as well (BTW. your graph even shows a decrease in total tax revenue in the two years following the Reagan cuts... granted they were phased in, but then followed by a tax increase in 1984). The rate of tax revenue increases in the 1980's (95%) was the lowest increase of any decade since the 1920's...

Your graphs are pretty, but prove nothing. You asked why does the total revenue increase after tax cuts, implying causation. You have had this explained to you numerous times by numerous people, yet you keep asking the same question and keep implying causation.

(nice why of saying your are not "listening", probably because you don't want to listen, you just want to believe what you want to believe...)
 
Last edited:
great-so that means who? when your dem masters limit their tax hike schemes to the 400 or so billionaires then maybe your rants will have relevance

last I checked the dems keep wanting to use 200K as the threshold

All I ask is that the investors (the super wealthy-multi millionaires and up) pay the same as everyone else. That's exactly why I support a flat tax. I do NOT support raising taxes on the upper middle class. I don't know how else to say it. Also, I do NOT support the democrats.
 
You mean when you didn't make a relevent post??

Dude!! How about showing some increased due to tax increases?? You are so lame for leaving out half the picture!! Let's see the Clinton years!!! Put up our shut up dude!! If you aren't going to post the full picture then what good are you??

You just don't want to show that Clinton almost doubled the nations income during his time in office.. Did Bush even come close?? Not even!!!

Ask and you shall receive......

Federal Tax Revenue After The Clinton Tax Hike
usgs_linephptitleTotalDirectRevenueyear1993_1999snameUSunitsbbar0stack1sizemcolcspending0115434_125857_135179_145305_157923_172173_1827.png


Revenues grew at a relative or slower pace when compared to revenue growth after The Bush, Reagan, and JFK Tax Cuts. Time to take off the Clinton knee pads......for now that its been put up......well you know what to do......
.
.
.
 


Ask and you shall receive......

Federal Tax Revenue After The Clinton Tax Hike
usgs_linephptitleTotalDirectRevenueyear1993_1999snameUSunitsbbar0stack1sizemcolcspending0115434_125857_135179_145305_157923_172173_1827.png


Revenues grew at a relative or slower pace when compared to revenue growth after The Bush, Reagan, and JFK Tax Cuts. Time to take off the Clinton knee pads......for now that its been put up......well you know what to do......

I always get a kick out of your over simplistic, one dimension data set, truncated graphs..

How about one with more data....

recgro11.jpg


It should be noted that the above graph shows "real" growth rates, that is, the growth rates corrected for inflation. The actual numbers and sources for the graph can be found at recgro11.html. As can be seen in the first table, total receipts increased 76.05 percent from 1981 to 1991. However, this was the slowest 10-year growth rate since a 75.41 percent growth in total receipts from 1956 to 1966. Of course, these results are likely skewed by the high inflation that occurred during the 70's. Hence, it makes more sense to look at the "real" (inflation-adjusted) rates. The second table shows that the real growth rate from 1981 to 1991 was 17.72%. The 10-year growth rate increased in the following years to a high of 37.75% from 1984 to 1994. However, the real growth rate of total receipts reached higher highs of 42.63% in 1971 to 1981 and 53.11% from 1990 to 2000.

Another serious flaw in the doubling of revenues argument is that it looks at all revenues. The FICA tax rate increased from 6.13 percent in 1980 to 7.65 percent in 1990. To include an increase in revenues gained through a tax hike in order to argue in favor of tax cuts would seem extremely hypocritical. Hence, we need to look only at revenues obtained from individual income taxes. According to the second table, the real growth in individual income tax receipts was 9.41% from 1981 to 1991 and 10.41% from 1982 to 1992. These were the lowest growth rates of any of the 58 10-year spans from 1940 to 2007. However, these record lows were surpassed by 1998 to 2008 (5.77%) and 1999 to 2009 (-19.36%).

Hence, the evidence is that the Reagan tax cuts DECREASED revenues over what they would have been, at least over the short (10-year) term. The only remaining argument in favor of the Reagan tax cuts, at least from a revenue point of view, would seem to be that they permanently raised the level of the GDP, thus bringing in slightly higher revenues far into the future. According to the graph and second table, the GDP reached a high 10-year growth rate of 35.2% from 1983 to 1993. However, it reached higher highs of 37.5 from 1992 to 2002, 45.71% from 1947 to 1957, and 50.28% from 1958 to 1968. In fact, the above graph shows that the 10-year growth rate in the GDP has been relatively stable since 1975 to 1985 though it began to drop in 2008 and is projected to stay weak through 2015. Hence, these figures don't provide any strong evidence that the Reagan tax cuts permanently affected the GDP one way or the other.

Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts
 
Again, you are showing total revenue, not income tax revenue, which actually fell after the Reagan tax cuts and Bush tax cuts, as previously shown.

Individual and Corporate Income Tax After The Reagan Tax Cuts
usgs_linephptitleVariousItemsyear1982_1989snameUSunitsbbar0stack1sizemcolcspending029774_28894_29842_33453_34896_39256_40118_44569spending14.png


Individual and Corporate Income Tax After The Bush Tax Cuts
usgs_linephptitleVariousItemsyear2003_2007snameUSunitsbbar0stack1sizemcolcspending079370_80896_92722_104391_116347spending113178_18937_27828.png


The thing with Liberalism.......is its the complete lie and utter fraud it has always been.

But even if the lies you believe were true......the income tax is not the only apparatus by which government sucks the blood out of the people.....albeit is one of the most damaging. There is a clear benefit to allowing We The People to keep and spend our own money.........and doing so gives liberal government more opportunites and a bigger vein.
.
.
.
.
 
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

No I do not want higher taxes. Solving a spending problem with more taxes amounts to smoking more cigarettes to solve a smoking problem.
 
Individual and Corporate Income Tax After The Reagan Tax Cuts
usgs_linephptitleVariousItemsyear1982_1989snameUSunitsbbar0stack1sizemcolcspending029774_28894_29842_33453_34896_39256_40118_44569spending14.png


Individual and Corporate Income Tax After The Bush Tax Cuts
usgs_linephptitleVariousItemsyear2003_2007snameUSunitsbbar0stack1sizemcolcspending079370_80896_92722_104391_116347spending113178_18937_27828.png


The thing with Liberalism.......is its the complete lie and utter fraud it has always been.

But even if the lies you believe were true......the income tax is not the only apparatus by which government sucks the blood out of the people.....albeit is one of the most damaging. There is a clear benefit to allowing We The People to keep and spend our own money.........and doing so gives liberal government more opportunites and a bigger vein.
.
.
.
.

Again!! Dude!!! You leave out the Clinton years and don't even show all of the Bush years!! Seriously!! How lame can you be?? Bush leaves office in Jan 2009 and his Budget is in effect through 2009!! Any graph absent those years is simply misleading and wrong!! Get a clue dude!! You know the economy crashed in 2008 which is why you stop in 2007.. See what your tax cuts did!! Where are the jobs?? Show the facts or get lost!!
 
Last edited:
So you are just being disingenuous when using the buzz word cliches about big government.


BTW life ain't fair just ask Charles Goodyear.;)


what are you complaining about? the point is clear-those who pay too much taxes should not pay even more. If you libs and socialists and other fans of more taxes want to tax someone then tax someone who isn't paying his share. And that is certainly not anyone in the top 2 percent
 
Again!! Dude!!! You leave out the Clinton years and don't even show all of the Bush years!! Seriously!! How lame can you be?? Bush leaves office in Jan 2009 and his Budget is in effect through 2009!! Any graph absent those years is simply misleading and wrong!! Get a clue dude!! You know the economy crashed in 2008 which is why you stop in 2007.. See what your tax cuts did!! Where are the jobs?? Show the facts or get lost!!

Post #157 Stevie WOnder......

Federal Tax Revenue After The Clinton Tax Increase
usgs_linephptitleTotalDirectRevenueyear1993_1999snameUSunitsbbar0stack1sizemcolcspending0115434_125857_135179_145305_157923_172173_1827.png


Revenues grew at a similar or even slower rate than revenues after The Bush, Reagan, and JFK Tax Cuts.....

..........and your not implying tax cuts caused the Recession are you?
.
.
.
 
success? like Bernie Madoff? and all the other criminals/leeches on Wall Street?

If Social Security is a Success.......then so is Bernie Madoff........and vice versa.
.
.
.
.
 
Could it be that the reason tax revenues went up after the Bush tax cuts is because the rich saw an opportunity to sell at a lower capital gains tax rate?
Certainly if I was sitting on many millions in stock and the tax rate went down substantially, I would start selling.....
 
what are you complaining about?

I'm complaining? What ever.....it is more like pot thy name is kettle.
the point is clear-those who pay too much taxes should not pay even more.

Nice opinion of yours as to who does and doesn't pay to much in taxes. It means diddly squat to me though.

If you libs and socialists and other fans of more taxes want to tax someone then tax someone who isn't paying his share. And that is certainly not anyone in the top 2 percent

Oh you mean the guys like Warren Buffet paying what....17% vs his secretary that pays 30% or something like that......
 
Last edited:
Could it be that the reason tax revenues went up after the Bush tax cuts is because the rich saw an opportunity to sell at a lower capital gains tax rate?
Certainly if I was sitting on many millions in stock and the tax rate went down substantially, I would start selling.....

Well when people are selling, there are usually people also buying, manufacturing, building, creating, and expanding.........and the government gets more revenue to boot.

Sounds like a win win.... win win win.... win win.......which is why most Democrats oppose it.
.
.
.
.
 
success? like Bernie Madoff? and all the other criminals/leeches on Wall Street?

NOw that is a really valid example that should be used to set tax policy
 
I'm complaining? What ever.....it is more like pot they name is kettle.


Nice opinion of yours as to who does and doesn't pay to much in taxes. It means diddly squat to me though.



Oh you mean the guys like Warren Buffet paying what....17% vs his secretary that pays 30% or something like that......

i guess you cannot understand the fact that different sorts of income is taxed differently and Buffett structures his compensation so his salary is artificially low

yet he pays more taxes than 60 million americans combined- and you whine he ought to pay more.
 
i guess you cannot understand the fact that different sorts of income is taxed differently and Buffett structures his compensation so his salary is artificially low

yet he pays more taxes than 60 million americans combined- and you whine he ought to pay more.


And you obviously don't understand the marginal value.
 
And you obviously don't understand the marginal value.

I certainly understand taxes far more than you do. Why should Buffett pay even more than 60 million who don't pay anything? Buffett makes a lot of money because he provides much value. He benefits society immensely. Many of those on the public dole are a drag on society and their existence imposes costs on others
 
I certainly understand taxes far more than you do. Why should Buffett pay even more than 60 million who don't pay anything? Buffett makes a lot of money because he provides much value. He benefits society immensely. Many of those on the public dole are a drag on society and their existence imposes costs on others


About all you have here is some purely opinionated ideological garbage that at best is sophomoric.
 
In a word no.

In many words, I dont want to pay for my enemies to live (national/universal/single payer health care), I dont want to pay for mindless bloodshed (current foreign policy and abortion), I'm tired of my money getting stolen and given to foreign nations under the bull**** premise of "foreign aid", Im tired of the welfare/warfare state and finally Im tired of the class warfare bull****.
 
Back
Top Bottom