• 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!

Does the GOP need to fear the 99% Movement?

Should the GOP should fear the 99% movement

  • Absolutely should fear it

    Votes: 19 31.1%
  • Somewhat fear it

    Votes: 7 11.5%
  • Fear it a little bit

    Votes: 1 1.6%
  • Fear it a tiny bit

    Votes: 3 4.9%
  • Absolutely nothing to fear

    Votes: 20 32.8%
  • Don't know

    Votes: 1 1.6%
  • Don't care

    Votes: 6 9.8%
  • Other (explian)

    Votes: 4 6.6%

  • Total voters
    61
Do a little research about the tax rates and tax revenue, and you will realize it is hardly relevant what the tax rates are among the top 1%. Increasing tax rates for only the richest of the richest may feel good, but will not solve the deficit and actually may hurt the economy.

Secondly, many of them own companies. When you increase their taxes, then they will just raise prices.

Can you explain to me how that works? It seems counter-intuitive: raise taxes on people, and they'll pay more taxes. I understand that it's possible to harm people through that, but the wealthy are not even close to that point. Even raising taxes to what they were under Reagan would help. We're well to the left of the Laffer curve.
 
You are the one who whines. what is unfair are those who cannot provide for themselves demanding that those who can have a duty to give them more and more and more without ever doing anything for us in return

Here's the story

IF you cannot afford the level of government you want, you need to demand less government NOT that others pony up to pay for what you want

Thank you for quoting me and then not addressing anything I said it only helps to further demonstrate my argument. You were upset that these people paid no taxes, I explained why and how they are being given no truly unfair advantage. I'm not concerned with taking money from the wealthy but it isn't irrational to believe that taking 10,000 dollars from someone making 25,000 dollars is worse than taking 10,000 dollars from someone making 250,000 dollars a year. Relatively speaking that 10,000 dollars means a lot more to someone with 15,000 dollars left over not including state taxes to live on. Whereas the wealthier individual's money does truly mean less for him, not that it means little, merely that it means less. Lowering anybody's taxes isn't a reality at this point in time, I am more than willing to admit that our country has a spending problem, however amidst the spending we already incur and will continue to incur it is necessary not only to maintain revenue but to increase it. Since the amount is significant it makes more sense to take more from the wealthy who although not uninjured will not be grievously wounded than to bleed the less fortunate among us dry. How am I personally taking something from you, the money benefits you in the same way that it does me, it doesn't go from your pockets to mine.
 
it's called "the early bird gets the worm".... it's a saying that's been around a long time.

waiting for someone else to give you worms has also been around a long time... but it's generally not celebrated as the proper way to live.

But you notice it didn't say ALL the worms, right?

Historically, the early bird that grabs ALL the worms eventually gets pecked to death by the other birds.
 
that is a bogus claim

only taxing the rich more will encourage dem politicians to claim that such tax hikes will raise revenue (not a proven fact) and that will be used to justify more social spending to buy votes
Can I see your evidence that raising taxes on the rich will not raise revenue? And as to increasing social spending, let's discuss one thing at the time.

Only taxing the rich more will send a message to everyone else that they aren't required to pay more taxes to deal with the deficit or to pay for the additional spending Obama wants to buy their votes so they will continue to clamor for more government
I'm not worried about any sort of "message", I'm just looking at whether or not it would help the deficit. More money coming in would certainly help. Every president in the last 30 years has tried to lower tax rates on the wealthy, and we're not exactly working with a booming economy here.

the only way to stop the deficit increasing is for the majority of America to demand less spending and that is far less likely to happen when only 1-3% of America is tasked with more taxes

of course "shared sacrifice" of everyone paying more taxes-ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO DON'T PAY FOR WHAT THEY USE AND WANT NOW" is gonna cost politicians votes

Raising taxes on the lower rung of the ladder won't really raise enough taxes to make a credible dent in the problem. Letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, on the other hand, would do plenty.

the people who have "huge tax breaks" are people who have full citizenship rights yet pay ZERO income taxes

and you aren't hurt by someone else only paying 300K a year in taxes rather than 400K

you still get a far lower tax bill than you should pay because someone like me pays too much

Out of curiousity, how did you become so wealthy?

are you saying they have zero dollars available?

If you cannot afford more taxes maybe you should demand LESS GOVERNMENT rather than demanding others pay for stuff you think you need.

The rich pay far more than they should

based on what they use
and their share of the income

you want a system where everyone but the rich are encouraged to demand more government

I disagree. Look at the "Buffet Rule" as its being called. The rich often have their money from sources like investments which yield much lower taxes than straight income. If you pay less than your secretary, there's a problem.

No you are being dishonest

we have not had that scenario so you cannot possibly claim that at all

Ah yes, trickle-down economics: the philosophy that if you feed the ox enough oats, there will be some left over for the sparrows.


Every president we've between 1980 and 2008 supported trickle-down economics, and our economy is in tatters.




 
I expect the middle class to stop being addicted to the milk government feeds them from the public teat but rather they go out and do some hunting on their own

The government's boobies are reserved for the rich, dammit!

Working class = does all the real work in this country. If it weren't for us, the rich wouldn't be rich. We build it, we buy it, they get all the money.
 
Thats not how money works. There isn't some fixed supply to be divided up like a pie, to some at the expense of others. A productive person ceasing to work helps no one, and costs many people jobs.



Well you're wrong, that Billionaire can do more for the economy than 10 millionaires can.



I'm glad yours is not the majority position, what an awful country that would be. I'm glad Richard Branson can have so many businesses and employ others. What troubles me about you is that you're the type who would keep the poor poorer so long as the rich don't get any richer. No matter how well the rich have done these past decades, the poor are better off too.

I'm curious, how exactly is one billionaire better than 1,000 millionaires?
 
well of course you say that. :shrug:

winners are working, the losers are boohooing

if all those clowns were to be evaporated tomorrow, I doubt America would suffer in the least
 
The government's boobies are reserved for the rich, dammit!

Working class = does all the real work in this country. If it weren't for us, the rich wouldn't be rich. We build it, we buy it, they get all the money.

Yeah keep believing that nonsense
 
Can you explain to me how that works? It seems counter-intuitive: raise taxes on people, and they'll pay more taxes. I understand that it's possible to harm people through that, but the wealthy are not even close to that point. Even raising taxes to what they were under Reagan would help. We're well to the left of the Laffer curve.
What raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations does is make it very attractive to re-invest their gross profits into development and more manufacturing to reduce the amount of taxable income (net profit is gross profit - cost of doing business). Giving them a lower tax rate reduces this incentive. This is why I favor raising the taxes on the groups in question. It has nothing to do with wanting a free ride, suckling the government teat or any of the other nonsense several posters try to say is behind every people who favors this.
 
winners are working, the losers are boohooing

if all those clowns were to be evaporated tomorrow, I doubt America would suffer in the least

That's a lot of Americans you are selectively choosing to hate there.
 
I expect the middle class to stop being addicted to the milk government feeds them from the public teat but rather they go out and do some hunting on their own

Just for a laugh, read that sentence from MY perspective. Then think Aerosmith.
 
Can you explain to me how that works? It seems counter-intuitive: raise taxes on people, and they'll pay more taxes. I understand that it's possible to harm people through that, but the wealthy are not even close to that point. Even raising taxes to what they were under Reagan would help. We're well to the left of the Laffer curve.

please please please don't buy into that joke known as the Laffer Curve.
 
winners are working, the losers are boohooing

if all those clowns were to be evaporated tomorrow, I doubt America would suffer in the least

That's the thing: in our country, working hard isn't necessarily enough to get you through. When people are coming out of college with a heap of debt and are unable to find a job that's any better than serving coffee, you have a problem. You can ignore them, you can dismiss them, you can mock them, you can even say its their fault for somehow not being competitive enough in the job marketplace, but the thing is that there's a lot of them, and they're upset that they can't just work harder. In any other country, that would lead to a revolution. In America, well we'll see
 
What raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations does is make it very attractive to re-invest their gross profits into development and more manufacturing to reduce the amount of taxable income (net profit is gross profit - cost of doing business). Giving them a lower tax rate reduces this incentive. This is why I favor raising the taxes on the groups in question. It has nothing to do with wanting a free ride, suckling the government teat or any of the other nonsense several posters try to say is behind every people who favors this.

You believe in using the tax code to force other people to behave in a way you want which is why I want everyone to pay taxes to force those who want to freeload to face increased costs when they vote for more government.

Actually as someone who understands investment-if you raise taxes on people like me we invest it in areas where it won't get taxed as much or we stop spending as much which hurts people who depend on our spending

we tend to be much smarter about this than those of you who don't have much investment income
 
You believe in using the tax code to force other people to behave in a way you want which is why I want everyone to pay taxes to force those who want to freeload to face increased costs when they vote for more government.

Actually as someone who understands investment-if you raise taxes on people like me we invest it in areas where it won't get taxed as much or we stop spending as much which hurts people who depend on our spending

we tend to be much smarter about this than those of you who don't have much investment income

I think that's effectively what she's saying: if you tax them more, they'll invest more into their business in ways that help the economy.

Also, what did you do to earn your wealth?
 
That's a lot of Americans you are selectively choosing to hate there.

hate has nothing to do with it

its an honest observation
 
I expect people to aspire to greatness, not to be content with scraps.

You do realize that at this point, 80% of the people are fighting over what can only be called "scraps" when contrasted to that years "carcass".
 
Just for a laugh, read that sentence from MY perspective. Then think Aerosmith.

I have no clue what your perspective is

and based on what I have seen from some of those protestors the only Aerosmith line I can think of is

DUDE LOOKS LIKE A LADY
 
Actually as someone who understands investment-if you raise taxes on people like me we invest it in areas where it won't get taxed as much or we stop spending as much which hurts people who depend on our spending

I guess you don't realize that you are agreeing with him in that if you raise taxes on the wealthy then you get much more reinvestment in the businesses they own rather than doling it out in executive paychecks where it'd be taxed more.

we tend to be much smarter about this than those of you who don't have much investment income

much suck to be getting schooled by us po' folk then.
 
This about . 001 % not 99% and they are goof and have no clue about what drives the economy or creates jobs.

The are headed into a situation they will never win.

Most of them can't even articulate why they are there or what they want.

They are products of Obama's class Warfare messages.


This will end in disaster and they will cause it because they are stupid spoiled idiots, who need to get a job sit down and shut the hell up.

Why am I reminded of the words of Spock? "Fascinating!"
 
winners are working, the losers are boohooing

if all those clowns were to be evaporated tomorrow, I doubt America would suffer in the least
well of course you say that too.
 
Back
Top Bottom