• 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 This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?


  • Total voters
    28
explain, this ought to be funny. you aren't rich and you want those who are taxed more. I am rich and I am taxed too much

pure logic

Warren buffet is rich and he wants more taxes. You are poor and you want less taxes.
 
Warren buffet is rich and he wants more taxes. You are poor and you want less taxes.

Warren buffett makes more money when there are high death taxes. I don't sell life insurance

you fail

why don't you tell me which group of voters are more likely to favor the party of high taxes

the economic failures or the wealthy

which party is more favored by those who pay lots of taxes?
 
Warren buffett makes more money when there are high death taxes. I don't sell life insurance

you fail

why don't you tell me which group of voters are more likely to favor the party of high taxes

the economic failures or the wealthy

which party is more favored by those who pay lots of taxes?

seeing as obama won most of the wealthy counties and many people who collect govt assistant voted for romney. I don't think it's really that black and white.
 
Last edited:
seeing as obama won most of the wealthy counties and many people who collect govt assistant voted for romney. I think it's really that black and white.

remind me of black voting patterns. the richest areas in Ohio voted for Romney

you miss the point--which policies cater to successful people when it comes to taxes
which policies cater to the butt hurt envious

when Obama brayed that the rich don't pay their fair share who was he trying to pander to

people like me-or people like YOU?
 
remind me of black voting patterns. the richest areas in Ohio voted for Romney

you miss the point--which policies cater to successful people when it comes to taxes
which policies cater to the butt hurt envious

when Obama brayed that the rich don't pay their fair share who was he trying to pander to

people like me-or people like YOU?

He wasn't trying to pander anyone. Certainly not to middle class americans like me who have to subsidize welfare collecting deadbeats like you and tax evaders like mitt romney.
 
Warren buffet is rich and he wants more taxes. You are poor and you want less taxes.

No true. He is deceiving everyone, else he wouldn't deduct so much in write-offs and pay more in taxes. He also has the option to write the IRS a check.

Why do people fall for rich people's lies and deceit?
 
He wasn't trying to pander anyone. Certainly not to middle class americans like me who have to subsidize welfare collecting deadbeats like you and tax evaders like mitt romney.


:lamo
 
No true. He is deceiving everyone, else he wouldn't deduct so much in write-offs and pay more in taxes. He also has the option to write the IRS a check.

Why do people fall for rich people's lies and deceit?


its funny. the failures who hate the rich idolize even richer people who pretend to care for them

its like people who say corporations have too much power saying the solution is to give the government even more power
 
No true. He is deceiving everyone, else he wouldn't deduct so much in write-offs and pay more in taxes. He also has the option to write the IRS a check.

Why do people fall for rich people's lies and deceit?

Actually there was a time when buffet didnt claim any deductions and still had a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. A downright travesty. You might be ok with rich people getting a pass from the govt and the middle class getting raped but i am not.
 
Actually there was a time when buffet didnt claim any deductions and still had a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. A downright travesty. You might be ok with rich people getting a pass from the govt and the middle class getting raped but i am not.
I don't believe that the two stories are in the same tax year.

Remember a link by chance? I don't expect you to as that was a few years back when the secretary claim was made. Didn't he pay 12% that year?
 
I don't believe that the two stories are in the same tax year.

Remember a link by chance? I don't expect you to as that was a few years back when the secretary claim was made. Didn't he pay 12% that year?

its dishonest to compare earned income with investment income anyway. his secretary's taxes on her unearned income was lower than her taxes on her high salary too. and Buffett paid millions more actual dollars

the wealth haters will support or attack the tax structure depending on how it screws the rich.

If they claim a progressive tax rate is proper on earned income because the law says its so, they have to accept the law on unearned income as well. There is absolutely no "proof" that a progressive rate is proper btw. Its merely what the pimps in office have passed
 
Wait - let me get this straight - you're blaming the progressives for California's deficit in 2004? Who was the governator then? And yes, both houses of the legislature were majority-Democrat.

HOWEVER, this may come as a shock to you, but just because almost all Republicans today are conservatives, you should NOT assume that all Democrats are liberal, much less progressive (there's a difference, you know). Even today, there's still several conservative Democrats in the U.S. Congress (read this on "Blue Dog Democrats")...and a lot more in state legislatures.

In other words, the Democratic party is simply not nearly so dogmatically monolithic as the Republican party has become.

Yes, you got it straight. I am blaming Progressives for the ills that have befallen my fair state. Beginning with Grey Davis in the late '90's and carrying through to today.

The lame "Arnold was a Republican" meme is ridiculous. Once in office, Arnold proved how he stayed married to a member of the extended Kennedy clan through his actions while in office. For example, no Republican I know of would have championed and supported the draconian environmental laws that have crushed California and threatened the livelihood of it's citizens. But he did, and he's proud of it.

As to your opinion regarding the Democrat Party, I disagree.
 
Would you accept a federal MW law that links a reduction in the "taxpayer burden" equal to the percentage of the MW increase? It sounds like you want a liberal dream of mandated minimum wage increases followed by a COLA increase in the "safety net" entitlement amounts.

We wouldn't need such a "reduction" rider in the law, because as soon as the entry-level workers are paid a living wage, they cannot by definition qualify for the social safety net.

One must remember that only about 3% now earn the MW yet 15% receive "safety net" assistance.

You're forgetting that if the business pays one penny per hour more than the minimum wage, they're no longer paying just minimum wage. The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour. Most businesses like Wal-Mart, McDonald's and the like pay a little more than that...maybe $8/hour, maybe even a little more sometimes. THAT, sir, is where the rest of that 15% comes from.

Do you think you can afford food, housing, and clothing for your family on $8/hr? You're making more than the minimum wage, remember...and working two jobs isn't always an option since there are currently about three people looking for work for every job that's available. Besides, is working multiple jobs really wise when one is trying to raise kids? What do kids do when mom is working at her second jobs - stay home and behave? Um, no, not usually. So someone having to work two jobs in order to raise a family is NOT good for the household...it's a recipe for trouble.
 
We wouldn't need such a "reduction" rider in the law, because as soon as the entry-level workers are paid a living wage, they cannot by definition qualify for the social safety net.



You're forgetting that if the business pays one penny per hour more than the minimum wage, they're no longer paying just minimum wage. The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour. Most businesses like Wal-Mart, McDonald's and the like pay a little more than that...maybe $8/hour, maybe even a little more sometimes. THAT, sir, is where the rest of that 15% comes from.

Do you think you can afford food, housing, and clothing for your family on $8/hr? You're making more than the minimum wage, remember...and working two jobs isn't always an option since there are currently about three people looking for work for every job that's available. Besides, is working multiple jobs really wise when one is trying to raise kids? What do kids do when mom is working at her second jobs - stay home and behave? Um, no, not usually. So someone having to work two jobs in order to raise a family is NOT good for the household...it's a recipe for trouble.

The MW is not now, or has it ever been, designed to allow a single full-time worker to support a family of four. Using 100% of the federal poverty level, for a family of four, ($23,850) it would take a MW of about $11.50/hour to "just get by" but that still enables that family to qualify for many "safety net" programs. What federal MW level do you propose?
 
The MW is not now, or has it ever been, designed to allow a single full-time worker to support a family of four. Using 100% of the federal poverty level, for a family of four, ($23,850) it would take a MW of about $11.50/hour to "just get by" but that still enables that family to qualify for many "safety net" programs. What federal MW level do you propose?

As I've said before, a living wage needs to be determined at the regional or county level by each particular state - that $23,850 might well be enough to get by (esp. now that the ACA is in effect) in the MS Delta where I'm from...but it wouldn't even approach what it takes to live in more expensive areas like Dallas or New York City.

Also, Australia might have a good idea on this - their minimum wage for adults in their 20's is $16.81 USD...but their minimum wage for teenagers is significantly less. Why should an unmarried teenager get paid what's required to raise a family? It's factors like this that would need to be taken into consideration - it's not a simple formula.
 
As I've said before, a living wage needs to be determined at the regional or county level by each particular state - that $23,850 might well be enough to get by (esp. now that the ACA is in effect) in the MS Delta where I'm from...but it wouldn't even approach what it takes to live in more expensive areas like Dallas or New York City.

Also, Australia might have a good idea on this - their minimum wage for adults in their 20's is $16.81 USD...but their minimum wage for teenagers is significantly less. Why should an unmarried teenager get paid what's required to raise a family? It's factors like this that would need to be taken into consideration - it's not a simple formula.

How about equal pay for equal work? Why should wages, yet not federal income taxes, vary based on regional cost of living? A burger flipper in Hawaii works no harder than a burger flipper in the MS delta. Employers set wages at the level needed to attract and retain qualified workers, which already takes into account these regional cost of living differences.
 
How about equal pay for equal work? Why should wages, yet not federal income taxes, vary based on regional cost of living?

The amount of FITW would automatically vary...in that FITW is a percentage and not a set dollar amount. If wages vary, then the revenue from the FITW would vary accordingly.

A burger flipper in Hawaii works no harder than a burger flipper in the MS delta. Employers set wages at the level needed to attract and retain qualified workers, which already takes into account these regional cost of living differences.

That's a very common misconception, and easily proven false. For instance, the cost of living in Hawaii is very high (milk costs $9/gal on the local economy), and 2.1% of all workers there earn the minimum wage. However, only 0.6% of Colorado's workers earn the minimum wage. Colorado's certainly got a significantly lower cost of living than Hawaii.
 
Back
Top Bottom