• 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!

which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?


  • Total voters
    126
Status
Not open for further replies.
Like you do not know that three are two sides to a bookkeeping ledger?

Is this some radical new concept unfamiliar to you?

Its important for them to refuse to acknowledge that the only time in the last 30 years we have significantly reduced the deficit is when military spending was less and tax rates for the rich were higher.
 
Its important for them to refuse to acknowledge that the only time in the last 30 years we have significantly reduced the deficit is when military spending was less and tax rates for the rich were higher.

I think you just violated some restriction on bringing up actual evidence from the historical record.
 
the thought of a tax system that would prevent politicians pandering to the many because the many would face the same percentage tax increases as the rich scares the crap out of leftwing politicians
The notions of right-wingers do shock many among the normal, but that's a long way from fear. A politician's job meanwhile is to represent the interests of his or her constituents. Those from Maine will try to advance conditions in the lobster industry, those from the Orlando area will have special concerns for tourism, and the Kansas ones will be all about farming. In addition of course, many groups have organized into publcity and lobbying groups to further their own interests and urge Congress to adopt their policy ideas -- the National Association of Realtors, the National Association of Manufacturers, the US Chamber of Commerce, the list goes on and on. But the only group that actually sought to lobby on behalf of the poor was ACORN, and of course, vindictive right-wingers mounted a vicious smear campaign agianst them, eventually hiring some amoral goofball to produce and then doctor videotapes to use in a completely phony effort to wipe them off the map. Your notion that politicians are being either elected or dictated to by welfare recipients is in such light even more appallingly vapid that the usual right-wing bit of shock therapy.

the people plotting to steal money out of my and others wallets tend to be rich control freaks
So go occupy something of theirs. Let them know how you feel.

the death tax is an abomination that is based purely on an appeal to spite or envy
No, it's based on keeping people from being born on third base and thinking they hit a triple. There is no room in this country for a permanent wealth and power class based on bloodline. Nobody is against passing the fruits of one's actual labor on to the next generation. We all do that. But how many kids deserve to have tens or hundreds of million stuffed in their pockets before they so much as walk out the door? None, that's how many.
 
Funny that I never mentioned the credit crisis but you jump to a conclusions on what I think. You might not want to take notice of the fact but capitalism isn't what started it all and surely isn't what ended it all by itself but all of this is a different issue.
It was and is the same issue, as the point that you proposed to object to was over the causitive linkage between boneheaded laissez-faire free-market capitalism and the credit crisis that resulted from it.

Well that is great, but I wrote it clear enough.
Did you mean clearLY enough?

Is this really all you have as someone that is trained in this sort of thing? What I said is not new and anyone that is trained in economics should understand what I am talking about perfectly. If you don't, you need to go back to school.
{/quote]
Indeed, I would HAVE to go back. It doesn't appear that some here have been for the first time.

Whether you realize it or not you can't treat the ability for money of changing hands as if job creation is solely connected to this mechanic as you will find you are ignoring the human aspect of economic theory which always results in bad outcomes. Live and learn, eh?
There is no "human aspect" that corresponds to anything you are saying. Even when it is not couched in indecipherable verbiage, what you claim is baseless, worthless tripe.

If anything, telling me money changes hands and this "CAN" (thanks for leaving it out) create jobs is not ground breaking and its meaningless statement by itself.
Of course it's not groundbreaking. It's a basic macro fundamental -- that you had to have explained to you.
 
No, I hadn't thought of it that way, because I'm hardwired against that level of stupidity.
Your brain is hardwired agaisnt recognizing that if post offices and post roads were not paid for exclusively by the wealthy and well-educated, but it was only they who benefitted from them, a transfer of wealth must have occurred??? That would put you into a very bad situation indeed.

Fine. You made statements you can't support. That is the record.
The statements are supported by all of human history and anthrpology. The record will show only that someone was unwilling to lift even a single finger for the purpose of his own edification. He expected it all to be spoon-fed to him, otherwise prefering to remain obdurately mired in total ignorance of the relevant facts and history.
 
and your constant demand that others pay more money to the government...
Maybe we could just pay as much as we used to. It was 22-23% of GDP during the Reagan administration. Now it's 14-15%
 
Great. So the people in CA, FL, and TX with less to pay could actually pay less and the people in KS, NE, and IA with less to pay are just stuck. That's a good way to push farming into the hands of mega-agro even quicker than it's going now. You'll kill every small business in every state that isn't swimming in $$$ or you'll just kill the whole state. Well, I guess in 50 years or so it'll all average out - you hope.
Good point. Maybe the federal burden is currently too large to do this. It would seem silly for a state to belong to a union if the cost of membership led to state bankruptcy. I'll have to rethink if my original suggestion is a valid idea, given the crushing federal revenue requirements.
 
Deck chairs on the Titanic. Plus most state governments do not have the cushion of deficit-financing. The federal government (obviously) does.
MoSurveyor has made me rethink the whole idea. I don't want the burden of supporting the federal government to bankrupt the states. That would be a bad idea.
 
now that's funny. a supporter of this guy: lecturing anyone else about bookkeeping.
It's not about bookkeeping, it's about economics, and particularly the kind that Bush used that ended up destroying the economy. There was no reset button to push as of January 20, 2009. Bush got to start with the economy at a historical high point and buried it anyway. Obama had to start with the economy at a historical low point and has managed to resurect it anyway. The budgetary impacts of revenues lost to the Great Bush Recession and emergency expenditures made necessary by it are all on Bush's Visa card and always will be. Nobody else helped him create the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. He did it all by himself.
 
When looking at if businesses would leave or not you have to look at the complete picture. Even if you were to only look at the bailouts and loans from the us government to business you have to consider the ease of gaining the loan or bailout, what is connected to it and what are the chances this could occur. Still, the bailout possibility or lack there of from the government would not be a major factor if companies would leave or not considering that most people don't think they will fail and don't plan for the future if they are a business owner or any other private citizen.

Sorry I missed this the first time around.

In response to your post let me say this , in my opinion the American consumer with money is the best consumer in the world.
You want proof compare imports with exports.
More proof American consumers will be on the verge of bankrupsy and still go shopping.
More proof , google the credit card debt in America today, I'd tell you but you wouldn't believe me.
If American corporations took half the risk of American consumers if they had half the nerve this country would be in the money instead of in debt.:peace
 
High wages usually pertains to some sort of high demand that is limited. Many of the poor, but not all, have no skills to speak and the abilities they do have are only natural which almost everyone else has. There really is no ability for them to garner higher wages without the market while gaining ground and not simply staying still.



Just because you are many, happen to be needed to some degree, or you exist doesn't mean you have what it takes to garner higher wages. Anyway, you're forming an argument that if they disappeared everything would stop, but in essence everything would move on and those jobs would be filled.

No body said anything about "higher wages , just livable wages.
My arguement is based on the majority of consumers are unskilled or blue collar which by a strange coincence just happens to be the majority of the population of America today.

Without consumers WELL?
Real Estate
Chrysler
Freddis Mac
Enron
Need I go on?:peace
 
The Rich Boys gather at the Country Club once a week to pat themselves on the back and discuss the altruistic things They've been doing for society by providing our sustenance and goods, even saving our very lives. They're the Saints of the World, saving it everyday from the ravages of nature by supplying the rest of humanity housing and all the other accouterments of civilization. Our bodies are something we gladly give Them in sacrifice as recognition of Their charity and benevolence. They give so much and take so little it is self-evident that without Them society would surely fall and crumble. We should be proud to grovel at Their feet, to daily confess our recognition of Their inherent superiority and the power of The Dollar. Their only regret is the concessions Their forebears were forced to make in order to rid themselves of the King, concessions that are now promoting disobedience and hedonism in this Great Society They have created. Woe unto them who test the Powers That Be.


wow that post oozes butt hurt loserdom
 
You obviously have no idea what patriotism is when you have to resort to making everything personal and about the individual. Unlike some here who make it obvious they decide everything based on their own personal greed, many of us decide issues of national policy by what is good for a nation for 311 million Americans.

I really don't need far lefties who spend most of their time demanding that others pay more taxes so their dem masters can buy more votes lecturing me on patriotism. You pretend that me not wanting to pay more taxes to a parasitic, wasteful and often unconstitutionally acting federal government is GREEDY but your demands to take the money of others so your dem masters' agenda can be implemented is somehow not based on your own greed and desires but the "good of the country"

what horsecrap. The difference between what I want and you want is that I don't demand the wealth of other people-you do
 
Y

The Tax Cuts for the Rich did indeed do exactly what Bush intended them to do. They gave a whole pile of money to people who were already wealthy.

One of my favorite lies from the far left is that tax cuts GAVE the rich money
 
I really don't need far lefties who spend most of their time demanding that others pay more taxes so their dem masters can buy more votes lecturing me on patriotism. You pretend that me not wanting to pay more taxes to a parasitic, wasteful and often unconstitutionally acting federal government is GREEDY but your demands to take the money of others so your dem masters' agenda can be implemented is somehow not based on your own greed and desires but the "good of the country"

what horsecrap. The difference between what I want and you want is that I don't demand the wealth of other people-you do

Your posts are self evident that you do need lecturing about patriotism. It is sad to read about the greed of more more more for me me me when you already proclaim riches and bounty beyond 99% of the nation. it is sad and pathetic. Patriotism is wanting what is best for the nation - and that means 311 million Americans almost all who have little or nothing in common with those who worship Mammon.

Turtle - I want nothing of anyones wealth. I am doing very well on my own thank you. I do want a more just and fair tax system for the entire nation - but that has nothing to do with my own personal gain. In fact, I expect to lose and pay more as an individual.
 
Your posts are self evident that you do need lecturing about patriotism. It is sad to read about the greed of more more more for me me me when you already proclaim riches and bounty beyond 99% of the nation. it is sad and pathetic. Patriotism is wanting what is best for the nation - and that means 311 million Americans almost all who have little or nothing in common with those who worship Mammon.

Turtle - I want nothing of anyones wealth. I am doing very well on my own thank you. I do want a more just and fair tax system for the entire nation - but that has nothing to do with my own personal gain. In fact, I expect to lose and pay more as an individual.
you constantly bray that others need to pay more taxes

we don't NEED to pay more taxes

we NEED the government to SPEND LESS even if that costs YOUR party VOTES

and I really tire of your posts pretending that your motivations are noble and mine are based on greed. I don't impose costs on other people. YOU DO
 
you constantly bray that others need to pay more taxes

we don't NEED to pay more taxes

we NEED the government to SPEND LESS even if that costs YOUR party VOTES

and I really tire of your posts pretending that your motivations are noble and mine are based on greed. I don't impose costs on other people. YOU DO

If you are that tired, perhaps I can recommend some therapy to ease your pain? A long vacation in the tropics away from computers would be a start.
 
If you are that tired, perhaps I can recommend some therapy to ease your pain? A long vacation in the tropics away from computers would be a start.


maybe a world without those who want to take from others what they are unable to earn on their own
 
maybe a world without those who want to take from others what they are unable to earn on their own
This side of the Garden of Eden, I just don't see such a state of affairs existing. The best that can be hoped for is to convince enough people that taking other people's stuff is wrong that they can prevail against those predisposed to loot for a living. It's a tough battle, as looting always has a certain appeal to certain people.
 
you constantly bray that others need to pay more taxes

we don't NEED to pay more taxes

we NEED the government to SPEND LESS even if that costs YOUR party VOTES

and I really tire of your posts pretending that your motivations are noble and mine are based on greed. I don't impose costs on other people. YOU DO

Christ, his argument is sound logic. Whether subliminally or not I can almost bet you want lower taxes for personal profit. You feel entitled to every $ you earn, as does everyone else, so I actually don't blame you for wanting lower profits for personal gain, its just human nature...
 
Christ, his argument is sound logic. Whether subliminally or not I can almost bet you want lower taxes for personal profit. You feel entitled to every $ you earn, as does everyone else, so I actually don't blame you for wanting lower profits for personal gain, its just human nature...

we have too much government and too many people who want others to pay for the massive government they want
 
Your NewsMax pedigree is betraying you. It may take many hundreds of poor people to define a group that has control over as much money as a single rich person, but all of those poor people spend all of the money they get very quickly. They have pressing and immediate needs on a continual basis

That doesn't mean ****. If we are talking about maximizing growth taxing the rich greater to cover the poor does not maximize potential, something you are trying to walk around with this obvious crap.

Rich people have no such needs. The rich already have everything they need plus everything they want, and they still have large piles of money sitting around. If you give them more money, they have to sit around and think what to do with it.

Rich people when they spend money even for their wants supply people with more jobs than the poor do with their needs alone if they do in fact cover those needs with the money they have that is. It hardly matters what money they have left over for other ventures as they have already done more than the all the poor combined.

And it's quite likely that what they will eventually decide to do is pull that money right out of the real economy and send it off to the financial economy, where it will spend its time chasing after little pieces of paper while producing exactly no new demand and no new jobs at all. Giving money to rich people is a way to slow down the economy. Giving money to poor people is a way to speed it up.

The financial economy isn't' just pushing money around but a way to make money and grow the economy. Giving poor people money can cause advancement if the poor people use the money correctly, but usually speaking they do not. Rich people are much the same, giving them money does not drive the economy forward. The fact giving people money DOES not grow the economy. However, no one is getting money from lower taxes so the premise of the idea is actually talking about a different subject but you clearly aren't aware of it.

The Tax Cuts for the Rich did indeed do exactly what Bush intended them to do. They gave a whole pile of money to people who were already wealthy. In economic terms however, this was a disastrous event and the start of a headlong national decline from one of the all-time high points in our economic history to one of the all-time low points. This astonishing turn-around could not have been accomplished without Bush's idiotic reliance on policies drawn from laissez-faire free-market capitalism as part of an effort to enrich the wealthy and give trickle-down economics a chance to work. The fact that none of this had ever worked in the past simply didn't bother him. Hence, we ended up with a total trainwreck.

First off, Bush was not laissez-faire believer nor did he practice such things. Second, the bush tax cuts are not connected to a type of crisis that occurred later on as all of that was due to policies that occurred before he become a president. Your claim it is the bush recession is not supported by any sort of timeline of policies.

In a contrast that could hardly be any more stark, the targeted stimulus programs contained in ARRA worked alsmot exactly as had been planned and projected for them. Tax cuts and credits were targeted to small businesses and those earning less than $75K per year. Income support in the form of food stamps, UI benefits, and subsidies for COBRA health insurance premiums went to those most affected by the calamity of the Great Bush Recession and hence to those who would spend the funds quickly. (The alternative plan touted by Republicans was more tax cuts for the rich and mega-corporations. I wonder how that would have worked out.) In addiiton to short-term economic stimulus, ARRA provided medium-term support for jobs and incomes by funding more than 90,000 infrastructure jobs all across the country. There were some near you. There was also up-front funding for long-term programs in such areas as communications, health care, energy, and transportation. In combination with efforts to rebalance the financial system, this focused, targeted approach to economic stimulus ended in five months a recession that Bush had not put a dent in in fourteen months and sowed the seeds for the slow but steady recovery that Republicans have been trying to kill ever since.

I guessing you can tell me again since you have been proven full of **** on this before by Cpwill what the projection of the growth of the economy was again?

That's an interesting theory. What's the rationale behind that? Back in the real world meanwhile, because of the progressive income tax structure, tax dollars are withdrawn on average from a relatively high point on the income scale, then exactly the same dollars are immediately spent on average at a relatively lower point on the income scale. Government operations even in ordinary times are therefore mildly redistributive and mildly stimulative. For an average person, some 20-25% of what a few boneheads think of as their own "hard-earned money" comes directly or indirectly from government spending. It doesn't take very many degrees of Kevin Bacon to turn everybody (including TurtleDude) into just another pig feeding at the public trough.

Sounds like an interesting theory you have there. Now if it was true.

There are almost thirty million small busineses in the US but only about 750K large enough to be affected by increasing taxes on the top two brackets. About half of those are the LLC's that medical doctors have set up for themselves. Most of the rest are similar structures established by successful veterinarians, lawyers, accountants, actors, authors, athletes, hedge fund managers, and even a few economists. These are paper constructs set up for tax and liability purposes. They are not economic engines.

Clearly, I realize that the term small business covers in shop one guy working all alone, all the way to a business employing many people. You can guess which I was talking about and you did, kinda. I do enjoy how you just frame your argument to be an insult on 750,000 businesses though.


I don't think you have the first notion of how it is "dealt out". I bet for instance you wouldn't have had the first clue that ALL of the following combined -- SSI, the EITC, Section 8 housing, the Additional Child Care Credit, TANF, WIC, and S-CHIP -- cost about $15 billion less per year than Military Personnel & Retirement. Oh well.

Comparing one over priced government service to a long list of services that all cost a great deal to make what you desire sound cheap? Great way to make a point.

I'll send this off to the Nobel committee right away. Perhaps discovery of the Theory of Overall Want to Move Forward will seem significant in their eyes. Or not. What you are trying to get at I suppose is incentives, so to test those I'll make you a deal -- I'll give you peanuts per month, but you have to live like a pauper. Sound good? Ready to jump at that? People take that deal only when all the alternatives they have are worse. And as soon as they have better ones again, they back out of the deal. That's how incentives work.


Nice way to avoid what I said. However, I'm interested why you would think I would care what the nobel committee thinks of just about anything? I was unaware they had any sort of creditability, relevance, or knowledge to speak of.

No, this is basic made-up poppycock.

Counter argument not found.

Well, I'm glad you're here. After all, what fun is shooting fish in a barrel if there aren't any fish.

Now if the guy shooting could hit the fish waiting to get shoot.
 
Last edited:
LOWEST TAXES IN MORE THAN A HALF-CENTURY.... Confused far-right activists chose an odd time to launch a "Taxed Enough Already" revolt.

Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.

Some conservative political movements such as the "Tea Party" have criticized federal spending as being out of control. While spending is up, taxes have fallen to exceptionally low levels.

Federal, state and local taxes -- including income, property, sales and other taxes -- consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.

"The idea that taxes are high right now is pretty much nuts," says Michael Ettlinger, head of economic policy at the liberal Center for American Progress.

Of course, one of the driving factors for these low tax rates was last year's stimulus bill -- which included one of the largest middle-class tax breaks in U.S. history, which Republicans staunchly opposed, and which apparently inspired throngs of misguided conservatives to complain bitterly that they're "taxed enough already."

Looking ahead, tax rates more in line with the recent norm -- say, tax rates of the 1990s, when the economy was strong and the budget was balanced -- would do wonders to reduce the deficit the right pretends to care about.

The Washington Monthly
 
LOWEST TAXES IN MORE THAN A HALF-CENTURY.... Confused far-right activists chose an odd time to launch a "Taxed Enough Already" revolt.

Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.

Some conservative political movements such as the "Tea Party" have criticized federal spending as being out of control. While spending is up, taxes have fallen to exceptionally low levels.

Federal, state and local taxes -- including income, property, sales and other taxes -- consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.

"The idea that taxes are high right now is pretty much nuts," says Michael Ettlinger, head of economic policy at the liberal Center for American Progress.

Of course, one of the driving factors for these low tax rates was last year's stimulus bill -- which included one of the largest middle-class tax breaks in U.S. history, which Republicans staunchly opposed, and which apparently inspired throngs of misguided conservatives to complain bitterly that they're "taxed enough already."

Looking ahead, tax rates more in line with the recent norm -- say, tax rates of the 1990s, when the economy was strong and the budget was balanced -- would do wonders to reduce the deficit the right pretends to care about.

The Washington Monthly
when you start paying the same rates I do and when you start coughing up as much money as I do maybe you will have some standing to tell me how LOW rates are.
 
Wrong argument. There were low- and high-wage workers in 1960, and in 1970, and in 1980. The story is over what has been accidentally and deliberately done to the distribution of them from one end to the other since. This has been an era of ever-tightening concentrations of wealth and power among smaller and smaller circles with more an more people being excluded from either one. That's the issue. Smart and talented people have not gotten any smarter or more talented. Just wealthier and more powerful as members of a smaller and smaller club. Others need not apply.

And..? What does that have to do with what I said? Oh right, nothing.

LOL! The point was over what would happen if the OUTPUTS of those low-income jobs weren't provided, not what if it was different people doing them.

His point was invalid. His point was hinting at the idea that low wage earners have power and can use this power to cause change if they left those jobs. The problem is as I explained, they have no power so practicing a nonexistent power will fail and those jobs they left would simply be filled very quickly.

You uppity and unappreciative types fail to understand just whose shoulders it is that you are standing on. This is one reason why garbage strikes tend to be so effective. They start to drive the message home pretty quickly. Maybe we should cause nothing to happen when you flush the toilet for the next couple of weeks. I bet that would bring a few things to your early attention as well.

Nope, I would wonder what is taking so long for the jobs to be replaced. Oh wait, I already know, government. Never mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom