• 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!

What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

LesGovt said:
I would think that the very few companies who actually dump waste into rivers should be heavily fined and probably made to pay for the clean up.
.
Click to expand...

GE dumped huge amounts of PCBs into the Hudson before regulation.

The the PCBs in the Hudson are still having an impact.
 
gmeyers1944 said:
these people should not have a say in the spending of tax moneys.
Click to expand...

OK, I see where you are coming from, however, many programs that are meant to give the poor at least some chance to better themselves, are funded by the government. Would it not be dangerous to trust the wealthy to continue these programs? I am not saying you yourself are a greedy person, but many people are and are often looking out for their own interests. Taking away the poors ability to vote is not only anti-American, it is also unethical.

Right now, voting on a small handful of policies and voting for candidates whose pockets are padded by the wealthy, is the only inkling of power those born into less fortunate circumstances have; I don't believe we should take that away from them. If you want better decisions in voting, start supporting government funded college educations like other countries are doing. Education and enlightenment are the answer, not tyranny.

gmeyers1944 said:
Equality of opportunity, yes. Most libs want equality of outcome, which is impossible.
Click to expand...

I am glad that you believe in equality of opportunity, however, I am not sure that most liberals want communism (that is what you are implying by saying equality of outcome right?). I think most people understand the difference between equal opportunity and equal outcome. The whole equal outcome accusation is just a straw man, and I have a feeling you know this. I cannot see how anyone would support equal outcome as there is no reward for success and thus no way to ensure better quality products and services.

However, it is possible to put in place a system that keeps our citizens fed and sheltered while rewarding every step up the ladder that they make. Currently we have a welfare system to keeps people on the system. If a welfare recipient makes a few bucks extra one year they are suddenly kicked off welfare. What this means is that between all the medical bills and other services that are covered under welfare programs, that the person does not have enough money to pay their bills simply because they got a raise. This is similar to the problem with tax brackets. I know someone who got a raise and that wasn't a raise at all because they were paying more in taxes due to being in a higher bracket.

These system glitches are very easy to fix, yet people pay no attention to them. Anyone who knows anything about psychology could design a system that rewards making more money; either our government are a bunch of complete morons, or their is some conspiracy to keep the poor on welfare.
 
Catawba said:
Not a bit, you said, you value money more than some people. Why, are you embarrassed you said that now?




Taxation and the government it provides are why we don't resemble Somalia. Although, for libertarians, there is no country on the planet that embodies more of the libertarian ideals than Somalia.
Click to expand...

I value my family's wealth more than people I have never met. I would not be willing to lose all my wealth to say save you. I take care of me and mine and if you pretend you wouldn't than you are not being honest.
 
TurtleDude said:
I value my family's wealth more than people I have never met. I would not be willing to lose all my wealth to say save you. I take care of me and mine and if you pretend you wouldn't than you are not being honest.
Click to expand...

It is comforting to know that our nations judicial system rejects your values of placing property over human life.
 
TurtleDude said:
I value my family's wealth more than people I have never met.


I would not be willing to lose all my wealth to say save you. I take care of me and mine and if you pretend you wouldn't than you are not being honest.
Click to expand...


At least you are honest in your disregard for your fellow citizens. We obviously were raised different. I value my fellow citizens lives more than I do a 3% difference on all the money I make over $250,000.
 
haymarket said:
It is comforting to know that our nations judicial system rejects your values of placing property over human life.
Click to expand...
really?

educate me on your expansive knowledge of the judicial system

if someone breaks into my home I am legally allowed to terminate them with extreme prejudice


and I still value my property more than I value your existence. If someone came to me and said turtle-would you give up your property so that haymarket would live I would say no and the government couldn't do a damn thing about that. that was the point I was making
 
Catawba said:
At least you are honest in your disregard for your fellow citizens. We obviously were raised different. I value my fellow citizens lives more than I do a 3% difference on all the money I make over $250,000.
Click to expand...

its a false choice that the dishonest spew.
 
TurtleDude said:
I value my family's wealth more than people I have never met. I would not be willing to lose all my wealth to say save you. I take care of me and mine and if you pretend you wouldn't than you are not being honest.
Click to expand...

You are taking for granted that the order of the society you inhabit played no role in the accumulation or maintenance of your wealth and that, on account of that wealth, you don't have to perform special actions to preserve that society.

In truth, due to your wealth, you have far more compelling motives to care about the community than, say, a homeless man would have.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
You are taking for granted that the order of the society you inhabit played no role in the accumulation or maintenance of your wealth and that, on account of that wealth, you don't have to perform special actions to preserve that society. Because the continuing existence and value of your capital depends on that society.

Due to your wealth, you have far more compelling motives to care about the community than, say, a homeless man would have.
Click to expand...
I reject that nonsense

so does this guy

The Inequity of the Progressive Income Tax | Hoover Institution

Historically, the use of the benefits principle to advocate progression relied on the “protection theory” of benefits, which asserts that the government’s primary function is the protection of property. The theory focuses on income as property, and analogizes the protections of government to an insurance company that insures property against loss. Those who cite protection theory as an argument for progression assert that individuals with higher incomes should pay a disproportionately greater share of the cost of government than lower-income individuals because the higher-income group would have disproportionately more to lose if the protections of government were withdrawn. Implicit in this interpretation of the principle is not just that the value of benefits received from the government increases as income increases, but that it increases more rapidly than the rise in income. As we will see, the statement of the principle — payment of taxes in return for benefits — lends itself to widely varying interpretations.

When examined carefully, the “protection theory” interpretation of the benefits principle falls short in five different ways.


second interpretation of the benefits principle, and one that appears clearly to have more substance and more scholarly support, is that government benefits redound roughly equally to all people regardless of their income. More specifically, and as noted in the preceding paragraph, the value of benefits relating to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, including the protection of property, is essentially the same for all citizens. Thus, each person should share the costs of government equally, in which case the fairest tax would be per capita. This is essentially what Harry proposed to his brothers as the fairest way of dividing the costs of their street improvements.


You can read the rest, it pretty well destroys that claim of yours
 
TurtleDude said:
really?

educate me on your expansive knowledge of the judicial system

if someone breaks into my home I am legally allowed to terminate them with extreme prejudice


and I still value my property more than I value your existence. If someone came to me and said turtle-would you give up your property so that haymarket would live I would say no and the government couldn't do a damn thing about that. that was the point I was making
Click to expand...

Really now? Someone breaks into your home and no one is present. The carry off what you believe to be your original painting of the Mona Lisa down the street to a waiting van. You pull up in your car. Are you telling us you can now kill that person who is carrying the painting that you believe came from your home. Explain to all of us using your Yale education and law degree how you can then execute the person carrying that painting to his waiting van.

You cannot and you know it without moving the goal posts, changing the facts and changing the rational for the use of the weapon. And you know that and you know that well or you don't know the law.

Fortunately, we live in a nation where your values of property over life are not shared by those who write our laws.
 
haymarket said:
Really now? Someone breaks into your home and no one is present. The carry off what you believe to be your original painting of the Mona Lisa down the street to a waiting van. You pull up in your car. Are you telling us you can now kill that person who is carrying the painting that you believe came from your home. Explain to all of us using your Yale education and law degree how you can then execute the person carrying that painting to his waiting van.

You cannot and you know it without moving the goal posts, changing the facts and changing the rational for the use of the weapon. And you know that and you know that well or you don't know the law.

Fortunately, we live in a nation where your values of property over life are not shared by those who write our laws.
Click to expand...

your analogy is stupid I said I value my property more than I value your life. that is not the same as saying killing over pure property is right. You did not accurately read my posts (big surprise)

I should have no duty to sacrifice my property to help you. and you should not have to do that for me either
 
haymarket said:
Is this Aprils Fools day come late this year? A citation from a right wing think tank named after the Depression President using a parable about Tom, Dick and Harry. Thats priceless as the commercial says. A TV sitcom writer could not come up with anything more absurd than that right down to the various names involved.
Click to expand...

It was started by Hoover before he became president. Of course you reject it--it rejects that crap you have been spewing in an effort to sell us welfare socialism

you obviously did not read most of the article
 
TurtleDude said:
your analogy is stupid I said I value my property more than I value your life. that is not the same as saying killing over pure property is right. You did not accurately read my posts (big surprise)

I should have no duty to sacrifice my property to help you. and you should not have to do that for me either
Click to expand...

Stupid? Why are you calling my work stupid? It that suppose to be a direct insult and attack on me?

I was showing you an example WHICH YOU STARTED FOR US ---


if someone breaks into my home I am legally allowed to terminate them with extreme prejudice
Click to expand...

I took just what you said and showed you that you cannot do what you claim you can do in defense of your property.


It seems I know the law a bit better than you think I do and likewise you do not know it as well as you would have this board believe you do.

I read your posts Turtle. That is what makes this so easy. You create opportunities large enough to drive a Mack truck through just as you did here.

I must awake at 5:30 to do battle with real life monsters in the state capital so I leave it to you to find some law to support your theory which has just been thoroughly debunked. Good night.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Stupid? Why are you calling my work stupid? It that suppose to be a direct insult and attack on me?

I was showing you an example WHICH YOU STARTED FOR US ---




I took just what you said and showed you that you cannot do what you claim you can do in defense of your property.


It seems I know the law a bit better than you think I do and likewise you do not know it as well as you would have this board believe you do.

I read your posts Turtle. That is what makes this so easy. You create opportunities large enough to drive a Mack truck through just as you did here.

I must awake at 5:30 to do battle with real life monsters in the state capital so I leave it to you to find some law to support your theory which has just been thoroughly debunked. Good night.
Click to expand...

sorry your claims of debunking are a bit hyperbolic but if someone breaks into my home for me to terminate them it pretty much assumes I am in the home. I don't have a remote control killer robot i can diret by microwave control boxes when I am not present

You fall back on the statist argument-if its law it must be good

so I remind you that the tax rates on capital gains and dividends are the law too yet you piss and moan about those laws constantly
 
winston53660 said:
GE dumped huge amounts of PCBs into the Hudson before regulation.

The the PCBs in the Hudson are still having an impact.
Click to expand...

Assuming you are correct, that is one company. Do you have a source for your claim?
 
TurtleDude said:
sorry your claims of debunking are a bit hyperbolic but if someone breaks into my home for me to terminate them it pretty much assumes I am in the home. I don't have a remote control killer robot i can diret by microwave control boxes when I am not present

You fall back on the statist argument-if its law it must be good

so I remind you that the tax rates on capital gains and dividends are the law too yet you piss and moan about those laws constantly
Click to expand...

Really now?!?!?!? You must be INSIDE your property?!?!?!?! You can't be working in the yard or the back forty and see somebody breaking into the house from that distance? You cannot pull up in your car as I described and see your property has been broken into and stolen as I described?

But now the games are being played and we both know what the name of the game is don't we Turtle?



You are putting yourself in the home for one reason and one reason only - to change the facts so you can now qualify under the conditions of the law to defend your life or the life of others in the home - neither of which has anything to do with being able to use the death penalty in a property crime offense. I taught this enough times to know this counsellor.

Your boast was that I knew nothing of the American system of law because I stated that our laws place human life over mere property and you did not like that.So you threw in your bogus homeowner/extreme prejudice false scenario in the hope nobody knew the difference. Sorry counsellor, but we do know the difference.

You FAIL again.



I have no idea what you are talking about with "my statist argument"? Perhaps you can back up your false claims of my beliefs by showing where I stated that if a law was on the books it is by nature a good law? I will await that evidence to be submitted from you.

You seem to fail to understand the basic difference between a written part of the US Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land and a basic piece of legislation passed by a Congress or legislature. Do you understand the difference?

Your ire seems caused by your increasing frustration at NOT being able to articulate and intelligent and reasoned argument as why one type of income - wages earned by the vast vast majority of people - should be taxed at discriminatory rates which are far higher than another type of income - capital gains - earned by a minority of people which are taxed at far lower, more favorable and very unequal rates. We are all still awaiting that rational step by step case from you.

In your case, since you have the law on your side, it should be very very easy to simply research the debates involving the passage of such laws and summarize the reasoning of the proponents. You may want to try that instead of attacking me for defending the US Constitution.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Really now?!?!?!? You must be INSIDE your property?!?!?!?! You can't be working in the yard or the back forty and see somebody breaking into the house from that distance? You cannot pull up in your car as I described and see your property has been broken into and stolen as I described?

But now the games are being played and we both know what the name of the game is don't we Turtle?



You are putting yourself in the home for one reason and one reason only - to change the facts so you can now qualify under the conditions of the law to defend your life or the life of others in the home - neither of which has anything to do with being able to use the death penalty in a property crime offense. I taught this enough times to know this counsellor.

Your boast was that I knew nothing of the American system of law because I stated that our laws place human life over mere property and you did not like that.So you threw in your bogus homeowner/extreme prejudice false scenario in the hope nobody knew the difference. Sorry counsellor, but we do know the difference.

You FAIL again.



I have no idea what you are talking about with "my statist argument"? Perhaps you can back up your false claims of my beliefs by showing where I stated that if a law was on the books it is by nature a good law? I will await that evidence to be submitted from you.

You seem to fail to understand the basic difference between a written part of the US Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land and a basic piece of legislation passed by a Congress or legislature. Do you understand the difference?

Your ire seems caused by your increasing frustration at NOT being able to articulate and intelligent and reasoned argument as why one type of income - wages earned by the vast vast majority of people - should be taxed at discriminatory rates which are far higher than another type of income - capital gains - earned by a minority of people which are taxed at far lower, more favorable and very unequal rates. We are all still awaiting that rational step by step case from you.

In your case, since you have the law on your side, it should be very very easy to simply research the debates involving the passage of such laws and summarize the reasoning of the proponents. You may want to try that instead of attacking me for defending the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

You are posting frantic nonsense again. Your constant claims of somehow knowing more about the law merely because you support some laws and ignore (ie Capital gains taxation) the law you don't like is amusing. No one is discriminated against by LTCG tax rates EXCEPT THE RICH who pay higher rates than more average tax payers.
 
TurtleDude said:
You are posting frantic nonsense again. Your constant claims of somehow knowing more about the law merely because you support some laws and ignore (ie Capital gains taxation) the law you don't like is amusing. No one is discriminated against by LTCG tax rates EXCEPT THE RICH who pay higher rates than more average tax payers.
Click to expand...

Please DO NOT tell me what I know or what I believe. Show me what you claim I believe with my actual words. If you cannot do that, please refrain from putting beliefs to me that I do not hold.

How can you claim that the rich are discriminated AGAINST by lower capital gains taxes when they are obviously discriminated IN FAVOR by lower rates. Talk about posting nonsense.

The good news from your latest post is that you are not fighting about claims of killing people to defend mere property so that is successfully disposed of.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
How can you claim that the rich are discriminated AGAINST by lower capital gains taxes when they are obviously discriminated IN FAVOR by lower rates. Talk about posting nonsense.
Click to expand...

I thought that the middle class paid the same rate for capital gains as the rich. When did it get lower for rich people than for the middle class? If they are taxed at the same rate, how is it discrimination?
 
LesGovt said:
I thought that the middle class paid the same rate for capital gains as the rich. When did it get lower for rich people than for the middle class? If they are taxed at the same rate, how is it discrimination?
Click to expand...

how disengenuous. the middle class are far less likely to have capital gains. we cannot just continue to concentrate wealth at the expesne of the middle class.
 
liblady said:
how disengenuous. the middle class are far less likely to have capital gains. we cannot just continue to concentrate wealth at the expesne of the middle class.
Click to expand...
Who is "we"? You and the little mouse in your pocket?
 
haymarket said:
Really now?!?!?!? You must be INSIDE your property?!?!?!?! You can't be working in the yard or the back forty and see somebody breaking into the house from that distance? You cannot pull up in your car as I described and see your property has been broken into and stolen as I described?

But now the games are being played and we both know what the name of the game is don't we Turtle?



You are putting yourself in the home for one reason and one reason only - to change the facts so you can now qualify under the conditions of the law to defend your life or the life of others in the home - neither of which has anything to do with being able to use the death penalty in a property crime offense. I taught this enough times to know this counsellor.

Your boast was that I knew nothing of the American system of law because I stated that our laws place human life over mere property and you did not like that.So you threw in your bogus homeowner/extreme prejudice false scenario in the hope nobody knew the difference. Sorry counsellor, but we do know the difference.

You FAIL again.



I have no idea what you are talking about with "my statist argument"? Perhaps you can back up your false claims of my beliefs by showing where I stated that if a law was on the books it is by nature a good law? I will await that evidence to be submitted from you.

You seem to fail to understand the basic difference between a written part of the US Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land and a basic piece of legislation passed by a Congress or legislature. Do you understand the difference?

Your ire seems caused by your increasing frustration at NOT being able to articulate and intelligent and reasoned argument as why one type of income - wages earned by the vast vast majority of people - should be taxed at discriminatory rates which are far higher than another type of income - capital gains - earned by a minority of people which are taxed at far lower, more favorable and very unequal rates. We are all still awaiting that rational step by step case from you.

In your case, since you have the law on your side, it should be very very easy to simply research the debates involving the passage of such laws and summarize the reasoning of the proponents. You may want to try that instead of attacking me for defending the US Constitution.
Click to expand...
Where did this ever occur? :lol: OMG, you defend the Constitution??? Yeah, like the wolf defending the sheep.
 
haymarket said:
Please DO NOT tell me what I know or what I believe. Show me what you claim I believe with my actual words. If you cannot do that, please refrain from putting beliefs to me that I do not hold.

How can you claim that the rich are discriminated AGAINST by lower capital gains taxes when they are obviously discriminated IN FAVOR by lower rates. Talk about posting nonsense.

The good news from your latest post is that you are not fighting about claims of killing people to defend mere property so that is successfully disposed of.
Click to expand...

More frantic postings--I am posting in reference to your claims, not your beliefs.

the rich do not payer lower LTCG rates and they pay the highest STCG rates

Capital gains tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom