• 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!

Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

Is it unreasonable to pay a little more?

  • Yes. I'm a greedy bastard!! I need MORE!!!

    Votes: 21 27.6%
  • No. There's comes a point in wealthiness where it just doesn't even matter anymore.

    Votes: 48 63.2%
  • I'm not sure.

    Votes: 7 9.2%

  • Total voters
    76
If it were only so simple that the people who were wealthy got to stay that way, sorry but a high income is no guarantee of future income. No where are people talking about taxing wealth, but taxing income.

How about the tax rate on gasoline goes down as the price goes up, how about that for fair?
 
True. But you can take a second job. Many of us have done that.

and what good does that do you if you continue to increase (or fail to reduce) your spending? that is the problem we have with our govt. they always promise to cut spending if we will agree to higher taxes, so we do...and then the spending cuts never come and then a year or two later they are back asking for yet another increase.

classic example: several years ago the state legislature in alabama wanted to raise the tax rates and promised to decrease spending. taxes went up and guess what the first thing they did? voted themselves a 62% pay raise.
 
and what good does that do you if you continue to increase (or fail to reduce) your spending? that is the problem we have with our govt. they always promise to cut spending if we will agree to higher taxes, so we do...and then the spending cuts never come and then a year or two later they are back asking for yet another increase.

If I take a second job and keep spending, at least I have some increase in revenue. Still, the compete approach requires both. I'm not suggesting calls for cuts in spending end. Only that we stop saying it has to be one or the other. It needs to be both.
 
If I take a second job and keep spending, at least I have some increase in revenue. Still, the compete approach requires both. I'm not suggesting calls for cuts in spending end. Only that we stop saying it has to be one or the other. It needs to be both.
Why? If you cut spending to match what you take in theres no problem. Thats how most of us live. Not working ourselves to death to pay for the government.
 
If I take a second job and keep spending, at least I have some increase in revenue. Still, the compete approach requires both. I'm not suggesting calls for cuts in spending end. Only that we stop saying it has to be one or the other. It needs to be both.

and my point is that since the govt has shown themselves to be untrustworthy when it comes to reducing spending...the cuts should come first and then the revenue increase.
 
Why? If you cut spending to match what you take in theres no problem. Thats how most of us live. Not working ourselves to death to pay for the government.

Because you really can't cut it enough without devastating the big three. Not only will you never get the support to do that, we shouldn't. We can cut them some, but not enough to eliminate the debt with cuts alone. We need both.
 
and my point is that since the govt has shown themselves to be untrustworthy when it comes to reducing spending...the cuts should come first and then the revenue increase.

Republicans did not have to cave. We could have gone over the cliff. I argued that was a better choice. But as government will have to enact anything that happens, you're pissing in the wind with what you're demanding. Instead, recognize what needs to be done, and fight for it, and vote people in who understand this.
 
Republicans did not have to cave. We could have gone over the cliff. I argued that was a better choice. But as government will have to enact anything that happens, you're pissing in the wind with what you're demanding. Instead, recognize what needs to be done, and fight for it, and vote people in who understand this.

I tried, but i was outnumbered by those who wanted to vote themselves more 'free" stuff from the gubbermint
 
If I take a second job and keep spending, at least I have some increase in revenue. Still, the compete approach requires both. I'm not suggesting calls for cuts in spending end. Only that we stop saying it has to be one or the other. It needs to be both.

But Obama insists on "balance", meaning that for each $1 in federal spending cut, that $1 (or more) be raised by increasing federal taxes. With an annual federal deficit of $1 trillion that means $500 billion in spending cuts and $500 billion in new federal tax revenue. What are those odds? Remember that federal spending is 40% more than federal taxes now, so tax revenue must go up about 25% to balance the budget (assuming 1 to 1 spending cuts to increased taxes).
 
I tried, but i was outnumbered by those who wanted to vote themselves more 'free" stuff from the gubbermint

No, that's just the pin some are using. You picked a poor candidate, did some silly stuff, and didn't present a balanced plan.
 
But Obama insists on "balance", meaning that for each $1 in federal spending cut, that $1 (or more) be raised by increasing federal taxes. With an annual federal deficit of $1 trillion that means $500 billion in spending cuts and $500 billion in new federal tax revenue. What are those odds? Remember that federal spending is 40% more than federal taxes now, so tax revenue must go up about 25% to balance the budget (assuming 1 to 1 spending cuts to increased taxes).

Congress and not the president do these things.
 
Because you really can't cut it enough without devastating the big three. Not only will you never get the support to do that, we shouldn't. We can cut them some, but not enough to eliminate the debt with cuts alone. We need both.

If the big three include Welfare and SS then they should be cut as their unconstitutional. This is insanity. Entitlements are what driving us broke and we just added the biggest one ever.
 
Congress and not the president do these things.

Earth to Boo. Obama can veto things and the Senate is demorat majority. You see the "shame" placed upon the House if they do not undo that "bipartisan" deal passed in both the House and the Senate, and signed by Obama, aka "fiscal cliff" law. That was the law, but did that matter? NO, becuase Obama, not congress, played hardball and "demanded" that the House reduce taxes for 98%+ of the people with no "pay for" in spending cuts at all. That was Obama. Get real!
 
Is that you Obama? Can you tell me what percentage of ones income is enough for you?

Oh, I don't know, I think that nice ol' Republican man - Eisenhower, was it? - had the right idea, but at this point, 90% is unrealistic. But if a man earning $20 million a year paid a 50% rate, I think he could easily survive on that measly $10 million, when one considers the average family's net worth is somewhere in the $100,000 range. And consider that many of the wealthiest Americans are big business owners and bankers - men and women who owe their success to society...and before you go compare me to Obama again, allow me to elaborate. A business requires three main things for success: capital, labor, and customers. Yes, the investor can provide the first, but he would never see a return on his investment without middle and lower class Americans willing to work for his company and buy his product or service. How long would Wal-Mart have lasted if they had never hired an employee or sold a single item? Business relies on people to succeed; I don't think it's too much to ask for those businesses to pay into the system that enabled their success. It's simple logic.

But hey, if you ever take over a nation, feel free to set everyone's tax rate at 1%. Let me know how that works out for you.
 
Earth to Boo. Obama can veto things and the Senate is demorat majority. You see the "shame" placed upon the House if they do not undo that "bipartisan" deal passed in both the House and the Senate, and signed by Obama, aka "fiscal cliff" law. That was the law, but did that matter? NO, becuase Obama, not congress, played hardball and "demanded" that the House reduce taxes for 98%+ of the people with no "pay for" in spending cuts at all. That was Obama. Get real!

Plus Obama must sign it into law

Bye the way it was just on the news that the top 1% no longer pay 40% of the income taxes with this new deal. Now the top .7% pay 40% of them. :(

Well thats fair
 
Oh, I don't know, I think that nice ol' Republican man - Eisenhower, was it? - had the right idea, but at this point, 90% is unrealistic. But if a man earning $20 million a year paid a 50% rate, I think he could easily survive on that measly $10 million, when one considers the average family's net worth is somewhere in the $100,000 range. And consider that many of the wealthiest Americans are big business owners and bankers - men and women who owe their success to society...and before you go compare me to Obama again, allow me to elaborate. A business requires three main things for success: capital, labor, and customers. Yes, the investor can provide the first, but he would never see a return on his investment without middle and lower class Americans willing to work for his company and buy his product or service. How long would Wal-Mart have lasted if they had never hired an employee or sold a single item? Business relies on people to succeed; I don't think it's too much to ask for those businesses to pay into the system that enabled their success. It's simple logic.

But hey, if you ever take over a nation, feel free to set everyone's tax rate at 1%. Let me know how that works out for you.


Why stop at 50%. Im sure we could all survive well on a million. Why not just take anything anyone makes over a milliion ? If I were in charge there would be no income tax . We survived very well without it.
 
Why stop at 50%. Im sure we could all survive well on a million. Why not just take anything anyone makes over a milliion ? If I were in charge there would be no income tax . We survived very well without it.

Because communism doesn't work, and liberalism =/= communism, no matter what FOX and Limbaugh might say. We didn't have an income tax in the 19th century, when government was relatively small, when military spending wasn't greater than that of the next ten nations combined, when we did not have military bases in more than 100 nations worldwide, and when we did not have so many social programs. It is the 21st century now, and try as we might, we won't be rid of all these developments. Times change, and we must change with them. Old policies don't work, so we don't use them. Now, if Wilson had never enacted the income tax, we would never have this argument, but the tax was enacted, and revenue increased. When revenue rises, so does spending. If we abolished the income tax, we would have to undergo draconian spending cuts that would put hundreds of thousands of soldiers out of work, increasing unemployment, and welfare cuts would see people already below the poverty level sink even lower.

In an ideal world, we would pay no taxes whatsoever, but we do not live in an ideal world. If you want to see how society functions without government or taxation, hop on an oil tanker and head to Somalia. It seems to be working really well for them.
 
Because communism doesn't work, and liberalism =/= communism, no matter what FOX and Limbaugh might say. We didn't have an income tax in the 19th century, when government was relatively small, when military spending wasn't greater than that of the next ten nations combined, when we did not have military bases in more than 100 nations worldwide, and when we did not have so many social programs. It is the 21st century now, and try as we might, we won't be rid of all these developments. Times change, and we must change with them. Old policies don't work, so we don't use them. Now, if Wilson had never enacted the income tax, we would never have this argument, but the tax was enacted, and revenue increased. When revenue rises, so does spending. If we abolished the income tax, we would have to undergo draconian spending cuts that would put hundreds of thousands of soldiers out of work, increasing unemployment, and welfare cuts would see people already below the poverty level sink even lower.

In an ideal world, we would pay no taxes whatsoever, but we do not live in an ideal world. If you want to see how society functions without government or taxation, hop on an oil tanker and head to Somalia. It seems to be working really well for them.

The point being that we shouldnt have them now either.....

Do you know what the constitution is based on? If you did you wouldnt post such things.
 
The point being that we shouldnt have them now either.....

Do you know what the constitution is based on? If you did you wouldnt post such things.

The point being that we shouldnt have them now either.....

Do you know what the constitution is based on? If you did you wouldnt post such things.

Oh, feisty now. I recognize the reality of modern times; that means I haven't read the Constitution? Make no mistake, I have, but I've also long since removed my rose-tinted glasses. We are 250 years past the signing of the Constitution, and things have changed. If you look at legislation over the past century, you'd realize that most of our leaders have either never read or simply ignored our Constitution. Income taxes, the War on Drugs, the Espionage and Sedition Acts, the PATRIOT Act, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (and now 2013, too, thanks to Obama, Constitutional Lawyer Extraordinaire), undeclared wars in the Balkans, Africa, Middle East, and Asia, "In God We Trust" as our national motto, and a private central bank controlling the money supply. None of those items are Constitutional, but if those who proposed them cared, they would not have done it.

We should not have these things, but that is a moot point, because you know what? We have those things. We need to cope with what we have inherited, not close our eyes and dream of being dealt a different hand.
 
Oh, feisty now. I recognize the reality of modern times; that means I haven't read the Constitution? Make no mistake, I have, but I've also long since removed my rose-tinted glasses. We are 250 years past the signing of the Constitution, and things have changed. If you look at legislation over the past century, you'd realize that most of our leaders have either never read or simply ignored our Constitution. Income taxes, the War on Drugs, the Espionage and Sedition Acts, the PATRIOT Act, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (and now 2013, too, thanks to Obama, Constitutional Lawyer Extraordinaire), undeclared wars in the Balkans, Africa, Middle East, and Asia, "In God We Trust" as our national motto, and a private central bank controlling the money supply. None of those items are Constitutional, but if those who proposed them cared, they would not have done it.

We should not have these things, but that is a moot point, because you know what? We have those things. We need to cope with what we have inherited, not close our eyes and dream of being dealt a different hand.


Thats whats called a Progressive :)

Which i am not :)

Now the rest of your post is spot on.

So once more what is the constitution based on?
 
Back
Top Bottom