• 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!

Should taxes for the middle class be raised on 1 January 2013

Should taxes for the middle class be raised on 1 January 2013

  • Total voters
    19
Navy Pride

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
That is exactly what will happen if the Bush Tax cuts are cancelled..........you bracket will go from 10 to 15 percent and to 28 to 31 percent. That is what the Democrats and Hussein Obama want to pay for their social programs...........
 
Navy Pride said:
That is exactly what will happen if the Bush Tax cuts are cancelled..........you bracket will go from 10 to 15 percent and to 28 to 31 percent. That is what the Democrats and Hussein Obama want to pay for their social programs...........
Click to expand...

Romney is the one who will raise taxes on the middle class, he calls it "broadening the base". The mortgage deduction is in his sights.
It is the only deduction that most of the middle class can get and killing it will raise the trillions needed to cover further tax cuts for the top 1%.

Obama will end the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% and make them permanent for the rest of us. You choose.
 
iguanaman said:
Romney is the one who will raise taxes on the middle class, he calls it "broadening the base". The mortgage deduction is in his sights.
It is the only deduction that most of the middle class can get and killing it will raise the trillions needed to cover further tax cuts for the top 1%.

Obama will end the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% and make them permanent for the rest of us. You choose.
Click to expand...

Did you even read the link? Unbelieveable........
 
Navy Pride said:
Did you even read the link? Unbelieveable........
Click to expand...

You didn't post a link navy.

And as far as raising taxes go, I think taxes need to be raised on everyone, proportional to the amount they're able to afford. This will mean larger percent raises on the wealthiest and lower percent on the poorest, but I think everyone needs to be paying more until we start getting our debt paid off.
 
Last edited:
No, raising taxes on middle income earners would be highly counterproductive. With consumption growing at an anemic pace (especially among the low to mid wage brackets), removing excess income that could be used to invest, pay off excess debt or spend on discretionary items would only help prolong the trend.
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
That is exactly what will happen if the Bush Tax cuts are cancelled..........you bracket will go from 10 to 15 percent and to 28 to 31 percent. That is what the Democrats and Hussein Obama want to pay for their social programs...........
Click to expand...


Links, proof?

Or, let me guess, you heard it on the radio?
 
Navy Pride said:
That is exactly what will happen if the Bush Tax cuts are cancelled..........you bracket will go from 10 to 15 percent and to 28 to 31 percent. That is what the Democrats and Hussein Obama want to pay for their social programs...........
Click to expand...
What is your point in referring to him by his middle name? Yes, it is his middle name... so what? It's not like he chose it. It's not like he uses it in daily life. It's not like he was born after people like Saddam came to power, and his parents chose it for that reason. Hence, it doesn't mean anything... AT ALL.

It's simply juvenile crap, and it clearly demonstrates a complete and utter lack of objectivity in your thinking. If I can't trust you to think logically on something as meaningless as their given name, then I certainly cannot trust you to put rational thought into anything that needs rational thought. Your failure is already demonstrated and proven.
 
Come on people lets see your vote...........50 people have viewed this thread and we have 3 votes......
 
Unfortunately, I do believe (remember - this is only an opinion) that we must return to the taxation levels AND spending levels of the Clinton era. As the only country in the world that can print dollars (legally), we are getting away with a staggering load of irresponsibility.

We prospered during the 90s, and at least a decent portion of that wealth was spread around to all the classes. If we continue on our present path, we are behaving no more sensibly than Greece or Spain and even we, eventually, will "pay the Piper".
 
As retirees, our adjusted gross income is only about $60K for 2012, it won't affect us much if at all....
Our 2 houses are paid for, our total debt isn't much, and will be zero soon.
Without debt, it is not that hard to live well.
I wonder when the govt will figure that out, and stop putting us deeper in debt.
Both parties do it, and if that isn't unpatriotic, it is at least idiotic...
 
specklebang said:
Unfortunately, I do believe (remember - this is only an opinion) that we must return to the taxation levels AND spending levels of the Clinton era. As the only country in the world that can print dollars (legally), we are getting away with a staggering load of irresponsibility.

We prospered during the 90s, and at least a decent portion of that wealth was spread around to all the classes. If we continue on our present path, we are behaving no more sensibly than Greece or Spain and even we, eventually, will "pay the Piper".
Click to expand...
Unfortunately this isn't the 90's and it won't be anytime soon. The only reason spending rested at such reasonable levels in the 90's is because of the absolutely robust economic climate. The economy needed no prodding to incentivise growth, no stimulus to aid in job creation. It was self sustained and continuous growth. It also allowed taxes to be raised without the fear of negatively affecting employment. Our current situation however, is in direct contradiction. Cutting spending at this point could very well undermine already meager growth and further decrease consumption. (See the affects of modest local cuts and the corresponding dip in employment). Raising taxes on everyone (IE Clinton era levels) at this point would also exacerbate the problem. Most disposable income on lower to middle wage earners is currently being used to pay down debt or buy absolute necessities. Raising taxes and further reducing disposable income will not promote the growth necessary to pull us out of this cycle.
 
Last edited:
Hare said:
No, raising taxes on middle income earners would be highly counterproductive. With consumption growing at an anemic pace (especially among the low to mid wage brackets), removing excess income that could be used to invest, pay off excess debt or spend on discretionary items would only help prolong the trend.
Click to expand...

I would mostly agree with you. This recovery is quite shakey, the last thing we need to do is take away any income from a large segment of society, any amount, no matter how small. The #1 thing both parties should be focused on is the best way to grow demand, reduce unemployment and increase spending by consumers at small and mid-sized businesses. Grassroots economic growth is more solid than speculative bubbles in certain markets.
 
Last edited:
specklebang said:
Unfortunately, I do believe (remember - this is only an opinion) that we must return to the taxation levels AND spending levels of the Clinton era. As the only country in the world that can print dollars (legally), we are getting away with a staggering load of irresponsibility.

We prospered during the 90s, and at least a decent portion of that wealth was spread around to all the classes. If we continue on our present path, we are behaving no more sensibly than Greece or Spain and even we, eventually, will "pay the Piper".
Click to expand...

Under Clinton we had the dot com boom......are you planning on another one of them...
 
specklebang said:
Unfortunately, I do believe (remember - this is only an opinion) that we must return to the taxation levels AND spending levels of the Clinton era. As the only country in the world that can print dollars (legally), we are getting away with a staggering load of irresponsibility.

We prospered during the 90s, and at least a decent portion of that wealth was spread around to all the classes. If we continue on our present path, we are behaving no more sensibly than Greece or Spain and even we, eventually, will "pay the Piper".
Click to expand...

We prospered in the 90's thanks to a booming new technology (the internet) and it's resulting dot com bubble, a budget surplus and the simple coincidence that it happened to be an economic upswing. Really, no matter what, the economy rises and falls naturally.
 
No. Taxes should stay the same on middle class, and low class. The upper class should be raised and all the loopholes should be closed.
 
UtahBill said:
As retirees, our adjusted gross income is only about $60K for 2012, it won't affect us much if at all....
Our 2 houses are paid for, our total debt isn't much, and will be zero soon.
Without debt, it is not that hard to live well.
I wonder when the govt will figure that out, and stop putting us deeper in debt.
Both parties do it, and if that isn't unpatriotic, it is at least idiotic...
Click to expand...


The problem is in the history of man kind no one has spent or put us in more debt then Hussein Obama........
 
Navy Pride said:
[/B]

The problem is in the history of man kind no one has spent or put us in more debt then Hussein Obama........
Click to expand...

BS line. The majority of our current debt is Bush's unprecedented war time tax break.

Since when did every single dollar of our debt become solely Obama's fault?
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
[/B]

The problem is in the history of man kind no one has spent or put us in more debt then Hussein Obama........
Click to expand...
and that absolves the lesser criminals? like the Bush clan who sacrificed many, many American lives at the altar of their collective ego?
 
We're in the same boat, thereby covering Utah, Arizona and Nevada. I avoided debt my whole life and thus enjoy my retirement and could easily pay a little more tax. My only gripe is the utter lack of interest paid on my savings due to the artificially low interest rates that (IMHO) are wrecking the economy.


UtahBill said:
As retirees, our adjusted gross income is only about $60K for 2012, it won't affect us much if at all....
Our 2 houses are paid for, our total debt isn't much, and will be zero soon.
Without debt, it is not that hard to live well.
I wonder when the govt will figure that out, and stop putting us deeper in debt.
Both parties do it, and if that isn't unpatriotic, it is at least idiotic...
Click to expand...
 
Yes, I am planning on another boom AND I see so many ways that spending could be drastically reduced without harm to anyone except a few zillionaires and a pack of thieves.

Because of the ineffective ways of the financial hemorrhage, reverting the tax rates and avoiding the $35,000.00 toilet seat along with a more challenging interest rate, such money as the Government distributes could be more wisely invested in things of substance and future value. The present system is so totally Tammany (sp?) Hall that we're breeding a generation of traders and speculators while producers are left in the dust or go overseas to create things.

The boom I predict is robots. I've been watching this minuscule industry and if our banks were investing in robot development companies instead of cotton and oil futures, we would be early online with a product that everyone in the world will want yet we are best at building (like airplanes, weapons and heavy construction equipment.

The pre-Bush tax rates are actually very fair and will have almost no impact on lower income workers. We've been doing this guns AND butter thing for too longg. Wew need to collectively participate in restoring our country.

Now, do I believe that our current crop of clowns playing politicians are smart enough or interested enough to recognize my genius n this regard? No, probably not. RThey'll porobably use the additional revenue to build statues of themselves. So, why am I supporting giving them more money? Because I'm an idiot who still holds out hope that we can change our ways and embrace the 21st Century. Wishful thinking. Oh, and they'll probably lower interest rates to zero so we can push the market to 13,500.....


Hare said:
Unfortunately this isn't the 90's and it won't be anytime soon. The only reason spending rested at such reasonable levels in the 90's is because of the absolutely robust economic climate. The economy needed no prodding to incentivise growth, no stimulus to aid in job creation. It was self sustained and continuous growth. It also allowed taxes to be raised without the fear of negatively affecting employment. Our current situation however, is in direct contradiction. Cutting spending at this point could very well undermine already meager growth and further decrease consumption. (See the affects of modest local cuts and the corresponding dip in employment). Raising taxes on everyone (IE Clinton era levels) at this point would also exacerbate the problem. Most disposable income on lower to middle wage earners is currently being used to pay down debt or buy absolute necessities. Raising taxes and further reducing disposable income will not promote the growth necessary to pull us out of this cycle.
Click to expand...

Navy Pride: Under Clinton we had the dot com boom......are you planning on another one of them...
Click to expand...
 
specklebang said:
Yes, I am planning on another boom AND I see so many ways that spending could be drastically reduced without harm to anyone except a few zillionaires and a pack of thieves.

Because of the ineffective ways of the financial hemorrhage, reverting the tax rates and avoiding the $35,000.00 toilet seat along with a more challenging interest rate, such money as the Government distributes could be more wisely invested in things of substance and future value. The present system is so totally Tammany (sp?) Hall that we're breeding a generation of traders and speculators while producers are left in the dust or go overseas to create things.

The boom I predict is robots. I've been watching this minuscule industry and if our banks were investing in robot development companies instead of cotton and oil futures, we would be early online with a product that everyone in the world will want yet we are best at building (like airplanes, weapons and heavy construction equipment.

The pre-Bush tax rates are actually very fair and will have almost no impact on lower income workers. We've been doing this guns AND butter thing for too longg. Wew need to collectively participate in restoring our country.

Now, do I believe that our current crop of clowns playing politicians are smart enough or interested enough to recognize my genius n this regard? No, probably not. RThey'll porobably use the additional revenue to build statues of themselves. So, why am I supporting giving them more money? Because I'm an idiot who still holds out hope that we can change our ways and embrace the 21st Century. Wishful thinking. Oh, and they'll probably lower interest rates to zero so we can push the market to 13,500.....
Click to expand...

I hear sex robots are coming.....:roll:
 
Navy Pride said:
The problem is in the history of man kind no one has spent or put us in more debt then Hussein Obama........
Click to expand...
What is your point in referring to him by his middle name? Yes, it is his middle name... so what? It's not like he chose it. It's not like he uses it in daily life. It's not like he was born after people like Saddam came to power, and his parents chose it for that reason. Hence, it doesn't mean anything... AT ALL.

It's simply juvenile crap, and it clearly demonstrates a complete and utter lack of objectivity in your thinking. If I can't trust you to think logically on something as meaningless as their given name, then I certainly cannot trust you to put rational thought into anything that needs rational thought. Your failure is already demonstrated and proven.
 
no vote
define "middle class".
I'd say that the so-called law-makers in Washington and around our nation have a lot of growing up to do...
Bush's tax cuts should never have been in the first place, we should return to the rates of the Clinton era, or even before then...
And NP, I'll say the same to you....your hatred and disrespect of our President...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom