• 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?

X Factor said:
I KNEW it. If some people had their way, there would be no end to the tax burden, all the way up to 90% of someone's income. A lot of people (ok, on the left) deny that they want taxation to get up into the 70-90% range, which doesn't really follow. If someone believes higher taxes are the right answer, then it makes sense that that person would believe that the more taxation the better ~ which is pretty much exactly what this post argues.
Click to expand...

Excellent point, the evil of the current system is that the politicians who buy the votes of people like OR and Catawba have no incentive to stop that buying until the rates hit 100% on the top brackets. as long a they can pander to a majority of the voters who do not pay the top rates, they have no limit until 100% on the top brackets. NONE of the wealth confiscaters have ever addressed that point and one has publicly admitted that the wealth of the rich is held completely at the whim of the masses and if the masses decide to impose a 100% tax on anyone making more than 200K, 400K etc its ok with him and PROPER
 
TurtleDude said:
Excellent point, the evil of the current system is that the politicians who buy the votes of people like OR and Catawba have no incentive to stop that buying until the rates hit 100% on the top brackets. as long a they can pander to a majority of the voters who do not pay the top rates, they have no limit until 100% on the top brackets. NONE of the wealth confiscaters have ever addressed that point and one has publicly admitted that the wealth of the rich is held completely at the whim of the masses and if the masses decide to impose a 100% tax on anyone making more than 200K, 400K etc its ok with him and PROPER
Click to expand...

That's never going to happen TD, X Factor, you're exaggerating.

Our Congress is made up of (mostly) millionaires. Why would they vote for all of their income to be taxed away?
 
Last edited:
David D. said:
That's never going to happen TD, X Factor, you're exaggerating.

Our Congress is made up of (mostly) millionaires. Why would they vote for all of their income to be taxed away?
Click to expand...

True, it won't hit that rate NOW but you assume the masses will always vote for millionaires (before they take office)
 
TurtleDude said:
True, it won't hit that rate NOW but you assume the masses will always vote for millionaires (before they take office)
Click to expand...

Well, I think it's safe to assume that it's going to remain this way for the foreseeable future.

However, perhaps the Internet might change that one day. Who knows?

Thing is, most regular folks have neither the time nor the money to campaign. It costs too much money (and in my opinion really a waste of money in many respects).
 
TurtleDude said:
what facts
Click to expand...

"If you want the tax burden to be more equal, earnings for EVERYONE must rise with rises in productivity (which we have) and rises in profits (which we have). The rise in productivity is almost exclusively the domain of the worker, any profits based on that should be passed to those responsible for it, period, not co-opted by those that control the flow of finances. High marginal tax rates on the wealthiest discourage this behavior. When taxes are in the 70%-90% range, directors and owners are less likely to steal 400% more on 104% rise in profits and instead return more of that to the worker rather than be taxed on it.

The first part of the problem is that our current code only has six brackets. And the top bracket tops out at about $375k. Meaning someone that in today's economy is just doing pretty well is paying the same rate as the top one tenth of one percent, the 400 wealthiest holding 85% of the wealth. There should be 12-16 tax brackets.

Current
Head of Household
Marginal Tax Rate...............Tax Brackets
10.0%............................. $0 $11,95
15.0% ............................. $11,950 $45,55
25.0%............................. $45,550 $117,65
28.0%............................. $117,650 $190,55
33.0%............................. $190,550 $373,65
35.0%............................. $373,650 and up"
 
Henrin said:
Like what? Banking? The banking crisis started with government.
Click to expand...

No, the crisis started with corporations, banks among them, lobbying gov't for less restrictions and gov't obliged.

What in the **** are you talking about? A living wage like I have said before is economically unsound. Its a liberal pipe dream, like the minimum wage was. They both assume far to much about the market without actually looking into those assumptions when going in.
Click to expand...

We gave our workers a hell of a living wage for 40 years... and the country was in great shape then...

Sorry, not buying it.

Well.. I guess I shouldn't say minimum wage went in without taking them into account. It damn well knew it would discriminate against low skill workers and it knew it would do nothing to raise quality of life. But all the same, the people that believe in what is it is sold as today believe in a pipe dream that never was and never will be.

And I have no idea why its the responsibly of the rich to pay for the debt.
Click to expand...

The rest of us would gladly pay it down, most Americans are patriots. The only problem is, through a series of recessions, 90 years of inflation, outsourcing of jobs, lagging cost of living and benefit of productivity wage increases... the rest of us have no money to spare to do the right thing and pay down the debt.

Corporations are the product of govt. Try your rant again after you figure that out.
Click to expand...

Don't condescend to me... boy. You don't know me, what I know or what I believe. You just have your partisan check list and standard dismissive replies. Which, of course, are old and tired. Of course corporations are a product of government... so?

Taxing wealth is not the way to get wealth back in your hands. First..
Click to expand...

It's not my hands I want it in. I couldn't care less. But it must be put back into the economy... one way, or another. Anyone who is either Christian or a student of the Founders knows this.

"Corporations are the product of govt. "
Click to expand...

You said that already... and again... so?

Second, it called the market. Use it.
Click to expand...

Sure, just as soon as the market game stops being rigged. I'll jump right in.



You do realize that is utter stupidity I hope. Even with the government helping in the creation of corporations what you get in your life is in your control.
Click to expand...

Sure, it's supposed to be. Tell that to the Enron, MCI and Tyco workers and investors that lost billions. If 85% of the wealth is in the top 1%... who do you think has the control?



Get a clue...seriously.

And your emotional arguments mean nothing. Use economic arguments please.
Click to expand...

Emotional? Sorry, my philosophies are born of the entire history of man and civilization and narrowly focused on the founders and voices of liberty... not partisan rhetoric.
 
Catawba said:
"If you want the tax burden to be more equal, earnings for EVERYONE must rise with rises in productivity (which we have) and rises in profits (which we have). The rise in productivity is almost exclusively the domain of the worker, any profits based on that should be passed to those responsible for it, period, not co-opted by those that control the flow of finances. High marginal tax rates on the wealthiest discourage this behavior. When taxes are in the 70%-90% range, directors and owners are less likely to steal 400% more on 104% rise in profits and instead return more of that to the worker rather than be taxed on it.

The first part of the problem is that our current code only has six brackets. And the top bracket tops out at about $375k. Meaning someone that in today's economy is just doing pretty well is paying the same rate as the top one tenth of one percent, the 400 wealthiest holding 85% of the wealth. There should be 12-16 tax brackets.

Current
Head of Household
Marginal Tax Rate...............Tax Brackets
10.0%............................. $0 $11,95
15.0% ............................. $11,950 $45,55
25.0%............................. $45,550 $117,65
28.0%............................. $117,650 $190,55
33.0%............................. $190,550 $373,65
35.0%............................. $373,650 and up"
Click to expand...

That is more opinion that is not supported by the facts you have posted

high taxes on the rich do not pass profits to those who you claim make the profits
 
TurtleDude said:
That is more opinion that is not supported by the facts you have posted

high taxes on the rich do not pass profits to those who you claim make the profits
Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion!
 
Catawba said:
Thanks for your opinion!
Click to expand...

You are the one who howls about facts yet your facts don't support your opinions. Such as your unsupported claim here:

the rise in productivity is almost exclusively the domain of the worker, any profits based on that should be passed to those responsible for it, period, not co-opted by those that control the flow of finances. High marginal tax rates on the wealthiest discourage this behavior. When taxes are in the 70%-90% range, directors and owners are less likely to steal 400% more on 104% rise in profits and instead return more of that to the worker rather than be taxed on it.


Or this-true there are only 6 tax brackets. The assertion though is not supported


The first part of the problem is that our current code only has six brackets
 
TurtleDude said:
many of them are deluded into thinking that more and more government handouts are GOOD for them

just as junkies think more fixes are to their benefit
Click to expand...

Yeah and many CEO'S of corporations actualy believe they can count on the American consumer to buy only American.

Just as drug pushers depend on the stupidity of Americans, and actualy think they will always benifit and never pay the consequences.:peace
 
presluc said:
Yeah and many CEO'S of corporations actualy believe they can count on the American consumer to buy only American.

Just as drug pushers depend on the stupidity of Americans, and actualy think they will always benifit and never pay the consequences.:peace
Click to expand...

really? You have any proof of that claim? you can speak for CEO's?
 
TurtleDude said:
what facts, he makes claims that confiscatory tax rates are good-that is not a fact, he is a classic wealth confiscating lefty who opines without proof
Click to expand...

uswealthshare.jpg Historical-Tax-Rates.jpg

First of all, I'm not a lefty, was raised a conservative (a real conservative, traditional conservative, not the hyper emo radicals we have now) and now want nothing to do with ANY corrupt party, left, right, or far right.

Second, the graphs above are proof. If you need them explained to you, I'd be happy to. But I'll wait first to see how moronic your dismissal is first.

X Factor said:
I KNEW it. If some people had their way, there would be no end to the tax burden, all the way up to 90% of someone's income. A lot of people (ok, on the left) deny that they want taxation to get up into the 70-90% range, which doesn't really follow. If someone believes higher taxes are the right answer, then it makes sense that that person would believe that the more taxation the better ~ which is pretty much exactly what this post argues.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd rather not have the taxes at all. But, this is the system given to us by the banking trust almost a century ago. More troublesome than taxes is extreme avarice. It is, after all, one of the Christian deadly sins. This supposedly being a Christian nation and all... But I digress... When the top marginal tax rates are applied along 12-16 tax brackets the result is more equitable (let me know if you need that word explained to you) wealth distribution, as both the Bible and our Founders warn us about.

upsideguy said:
We had a much healthier distribution of income/wealth when we had higher marginal rates.

With high marginal rates, business owners and investors have a greater incentive to reinvest in a business (capital and labor), as the government is essentially subsidizing that reinvestment and less incentive to take cash out of the business in the form of salary, where it will be taxed.

We should have high marginal rates on very high income and low capital gains rates, again to encourage long-term investment and long-term thinking.

Funny, that the middle class began eroding away once we started whacking away at high marginal rates? We can not have a strong economy without a strong middle class.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY! And the graphs bear that out (PROOF). Well said!

X Factor said:
What's the point of investing in business and jobs, if you're not allowed to make money on it, or have to give most of it to the government? Let's be honest, you all are not concerned with businesses or investors, those are the bad guys, right? This is simply about, what you believe, to be a "healthier" redistribution of wealth (as upsideguy pretty much said in his post).
Click to expand...

This is such a stupid all or nothing argument. Make all the money you want, never stopped anyone in the 40s-80s. You are trying to say that the 70-90% applies to their whole income instead of the actual marginal rate. If you are making more than $40m a year, you are steeped in avarice and the "Christian" thing to do is help you save your mortal soul.

Religious gobbledygook aside... the reason it's a sin is that it takes capital out of the system and concentrates it into the hands of a few. Thus limiting commerce among the many. This is a historic constant.

TurtleDude said:
Excellent point, the evil of the current system is that the politicians who buy the votes of people like OR and Catawba have no incentive to stop that buying until the rates hit 100% on the top brackets. as long a they can pander to a majority of the voters who do not pay the top rates, they have no limit until 100% on the top brackets. NONE of the wealth confiscaters have ever addressed that point and one has publicly admitted that the wealth of the rich is held completely at the whim of the masses and if the masses decide to impose a 100% tax on anyone making more than 200K, 400K etc its ok with him and PROPER
Click to expand...

Now you're just making sh*t up.

What the tax brackets should look like..

6.0%............................... $0 $11,95
8.0% .............................. $11,950 $45,550
12.0%............................. $45,550 $117,650
15.0%............................. $117,650 $190,550
18.0%............................. $190,550 $373,650
30.0%............................. $373,650 $500,000
35.0%............................. $500,001 $750,000
40.0%............................. $750,001 $2,000,000
45.0%............................. $2,000,001 5,000,000
50.0%............................. $5,000,001 10,000,000
60.0%............................. $10,000,001 $20,000,000
70.0%............................. $20,000,001 $40,000,000
90.0%............................. $40,000,001 and up

Does it look like I have those making up to half a million at anywhere near 100%? The FACT is that I have them at a lower rate than the actual rate now. Talk about your emotional kneejerking hyperbole! ...Also..

I don't vote for status quo two party idiocy and I've never taken a dime from the government. Bet you all happily cashed and spent your stimulus checks though didn't ya? So... you're idiot assumption is just that.



David D. said:
That's never going to happen TD, X Factor, you're exaggerating.

Our Congress is made up of (mostly) millionaires. Why would they vote for all of their income to be taxed away?
Click to expand...

First of all, if we have ELECTED PUBLIC SERVANTS making over 40m a year, we have serious conflict of interest problems. No one is saying take "ALL" of anyone's income. Not even close.

Take a look at the graphs, then take a look at the tax rate I've proposed over that we have now. Those in public service and everyone else actually keeps more of their money up to half a million.

All these hand wringing attempts to color marginal rates as confiscating "ALL" of someone's wealth either shows extreme ignorance, or extreme arrogance. As far as I'm concerned, lumping the middle class in the same tax bracket as those earning hundreds of millions of dollars a year is criminal.
 
extreme avarice=buying votes so you can gain office using the money of others

there should be no such thing as tax brackets. that encourages politicians to pander to the lower brackets by promising them more spending paid by increasing the rates on the top brackets
 
presluc said:
Yeah and many CEO'S of corporations actualy believe they can count on the American consumer to buy only American.

Just as drug pushers depend on the stupidity of Americans, and actualy think they will always benifit and never pay the consequences.:peace
Click to expand...

Actually, they don't. They learned that lesson in the 70s and 80s with Japanese cars. That's why the free trade lobbying went into full swing, so that these corps aren't dependent on either American workers nor American markets, but rather, globalizing it all and leaving us with no jobs and few products made in America.
 
TurtleDude said:
extreme avarice=buying votes so you can gain office using the money of others

there should be no such thing as tax brackets. that encourages politicians to pander to the lower brackets by promising them more spending paid by increasing the rates on the top brackets
Click to expand...

and of course, your side never ever ever engages in such buying of votes do they? They are virtuous virgins who have many children but have never engaged in anything as icky as sexual intercourse.

Your naiveté is rather humorous.
 
haymarket said:
and of course, your side engages in such buying of votes do they? They are virtuous virgins who have many children but have never engaged in anything as icky as sexual intercourse.

Your naiveté is rather humorous.
Click to expand...

Its different getting votes by saying you won't tax those who pay most of the taxes any more than promising those who don't pay their share of taxes that they will get more and more paid for by others

naivete? that's funny. I don't need government taking care of me or requiring others to be taxed more to pay for what I need
 
TurtleDude said:
You still haven't figured out what are material facts.
Click to expand...

They are material. You just can't refute them so you evade them. Who do you think you are fooling anyway?
 
Catawba said:
They are material. You just can't refute them so you evade them. Who do you think you are fooling anyway?
Click to expand...

facts cannot be refuted. faulty opinions based on them can be. You whine about the distribution of wealth but your opinions on that are not supported by facts.

You want higher taxes on the rich. yet your call for higher brackets for the top income earners is an opinion that is not made "correct" by your rants or the facts you cite
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
facts cannot be refuted. faulty opinions based on them can be. You whine about the distribution of wealth but your opinions on that are not supported by facts.

You want higher taxes on the rich. yet your call for higher brackets for the top income earners is an opinion that is not made "correct" by your rants or the facts you cite
Click to expand...

Yet to see any of these facts you keep trumpeting.

I see others posting graphs, links, articles, quotes, etc...

I have seen nothing from you except some references to some elusive and apparently super secret facts.

You certainly have done nothing to support or justify your refutations of anything.

Do those objections usually work for you in court? Or do you hear "OVERRULED" ... a lot!
 
Occam's Razor said:
Yet to see any of these facts you keep trumpeting.

I see others posting graphs, links, articles, quotes, etc...

I have seen nothing from you except some references to some elusive and apparently super secret facts.

You certainly have done nothing to support or justify your refutations of anything.

Do those objections usually work for you in court? Or do you hear "OVERRULED" ... a lot!
Click to expand...

fact-the rich have x amount of money

Opinion-that is bad

the fact does not make the opinion more persuasive or "correct"

fact-there are 6 tax brackets

Opinion-we need more tax brackets
 
TurtleDude said:
fact-the rich have x amount of money

Opinion-that is bad

the fact does not make the opinion more persuasive or "correct"

fact-there are 6 tax brackets

Opinion-we need more tax brackets
Click to expand...

How do you see the 85% of the country's wealth being owned by the super rich has helped the economy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom