• 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 the Bush tax cuts be cancelled next year as Obama wants to do?

Should the Bush tax cuts be cancelled next year as Obama wants to do?


  • Total voters
    41
what is insane is a system where most of those who want more public spending don't have to pay any more taxes when spending is increased.

How do you figure? The majority of people who made over $200k voted for Obama.

my tax burden with state (8% in Ohio-wonder why Lebron James moved to florida and its ZERO income tax) and federal income tax will be almost 50% when the dem tax hikes hit next year

No way. Even if you made half a million dollars, all in wages, you would only be paying 30% federal income taxes.
 
How do you figure? The majority of people who made over $200k voted for Obama.



No way. Even if you made half a million dollars, all in wages, you would only be paying 30% federal income taxes.

lots of people are rich because of the government
that was an aberation as well-it wasn't the case in the last 10 elections before that-I would bet big bucks they don't in 2012

I guess you weren't smart enough to note that I was counting all taxes not just federal income taxes
 
Teamosil, you do realize that Turtledude doesn't address posts no?

You said this "If you want to cut spending, cut spending, don't cut taxes and just hope it will all work itself out somehow." Which was the meat of your post. Did he address it at all? No.

He's also pretending that only income tax exists. I guess FICA doesn't exist to him. Maybe he doesn't realize that the two largest items in the budget are heavily funded by non-income tax items?
 
lots of people are rich because of the government

Indeed. All of them are in part rich because of the government.

I guess you weren't smart enough to note that I was counting all taxes not just federal income taxes

No, you said federal income + state income was "almost 50%", and that it was over counting all taxes. That isn't true either, but I was addressing your first claim:

my tax burden with state (8% in Ohio-wonder why Lebron James moved to florida and its ZERO income tax) and federal income tax will be almost 50% when the dem tax hikes hit next year. throw in property tax, sales tax and its over 50%
 
Teamosil, you do realize that Turtledude doesn't address posts no?

You said this "If you want to cut spending, cut spending, don't cut taxes and just hope it will all work itself out somehow." Which was the meat of your post. Did he address it at all? No.

He's also pretending that only income tax exists. I guess FICA doesn't exist to him. Maybe he doesn't realize that the two largest items in the budget are heavily funded by non-income tax items?

remind me again what the topic of this thread is? BUSH's INCOME tax cuts. that is the topic. NOt FICA but the fact that dems want taxes to go up-INCOME taxes

income taxes are the taxes congress uses to grab power-by buying the votes of people like you by taking the wealth of people like me
 
Indeed. All of them are in part rich because of the government.



No, you said federal income + state income was "almost 50%", and that it was over counting all taxes. That isn't true either, but I was addressing your first claim:

you misread what I said and you got called on it

deal with it
 
remind me again what the topic of this thread is?

Remind me where we are and what pages this is? You should know better. Furthermore, you are harping on a very dishonest argument.
How about you do something other then throw out evidence free accusations?
 
Remind me where we are and what pages this is? You should know better. Furthermore, you are harping on a very dishonest argument.
How about you do something other then throw out evidence free accusations?

its not dishonest-I honestly believe everything I have written. I truly believe class envy and spite motivates the progressive income tax and an unbridled desire for power by those politicians who push it

I couldn't care less if you don't like my opinions. People who want to jack my taxes up I see in the same light as some robber who comes in my house and seeks to steal what I have
 
you misread what I said and you got called on it

deal with it

How can you claim that? It's right there in black and white kiddo:

my tax burden with state (8% in Ohio-wonder why Lebron James moved to florida and its ZERO income tax) and federal income tax will be almost 50% when the dem tax hikes hit next year. throw in property tax, sales tax and its over 50%

You said that between state and federal income taxes, you think you're at almost 50%, with other taxes thrown in, you're over. That is false on both counts... You're clearly just making up numbers... Again...
 
I am not forgetting any significant tax. I have done this analysis for many, many income levels. Unless you had some very rare economic event, its rare that all in taxes exceed 36% (include sales, luxury taxes, FICA, property, income, state income).... again, taxes are often deductible, which lowers impact and kick in and kick out at different levels.... you all in taxes are considerably less than 50%....
 
its not dishonest-I honestly believe everything I have written. I truly believe class envy and spite motivates the progressive income tax and an unbridled desire for power by those politicians who push it

That is it, 100%. Anyone believing the politicians and "community organizers" give a crap about them can see the reason they're living in the slums by looking in the mirror.
 
I am not forgetting any significant tax. I have done this analysis for many, many income levels. Unless you had some very rare economic event, its rare that all in taxes exceed 36% (include sales, luxury taxes, FICA, property, income, state income).... again, taxes are often deductible, which lowers impact and kick in and kick out at different levels.... you all in taxes are considerably less than 50%....

Hm....

15.4% Socialist Security
17% Federal income tax, $50K, single. (2009 1040A tax tables)
5% California Tax, $50K, single.(2009 540 California tax tables)
2% For all the petty withholding taxes.
9% Sales taxes

Hmm....15.4+17+5+2+9 = 48.4%

Should we add in fuel taxes, registration fees, property taxes, telephone taxes, and all the other nickels and dimes our governments steal from us, and it's easy to see why tax freedom day is never in February.
 
Last edited:
The Bush tax cuts are due to expire on 31 December 2010....Should they be extended?

Poll fail: your OP question does not reflect your poll question and answers.

The Bush tax cuts need to be made permanent.
 
Hm....

15.4% Socialist Security
17% Federal income tax, $50K, single. (2009 1040A tax tables)
5% California Tax, $50K, single.(2009 540 California tax tables)
2% For all the petty withholding taxes.
9% Sales taxes

Hmm....15.4+17+5+2+9 = 48.4%

Should we add in fuel taxes, registration fees, property taxes, telephone taxes, and all the other nickels and dimes our governments steal from us, and it's easy to see why tax freedom day is never in February.

Thanks for playing the straight man here!

1) your social security tax rate is 7.65%, not 15.4 (the other amount is an employer tax... paid entirely by the employer, it ain't your money) I am employer. I pay these taxes, my employees do not. I set their salaries at market, this additional tax is over and above that salary.
2) the 17% tax on federal income is on your TAXABLE income, not what you earned. Assuming you are single and do not itemize, you have a $5700 standard deduction and $3650 exemption, that is $9,350 of your income for which is exempt from Federal Income (and usually state income taxes). So, if your taxable income was $50,000, let me assume you had a salary of 59,350.... Hence you had an effective rate of 14%.
3) If you itemized, you would be deducting your CA income tax on your federal return, hence you effective callifornia rate would be 5% * (1-25%) or 3.75%, but you did not itemize, so we will count the California rate at 5%...except, again its not on the whole income, so call it 4%
4) Sales tax. The only way you paid 9% in sales tax is if you spend every penny on consumable goods and did not eat or have a roof over you head. We know that was not the case. Likely only 20% of your income went for goods subject to sales tax, but lets' call it 30% to cover your fuel and phone ... so you paid 9% on $17,800 this rounds up to 3% of your income
5) Property taxes. Don't complain here, you don't itemize so you don't have property and property taxes. If you did, your income tax bill would have been lower
6) Registration fees - are fees, that is their nature... to apply the incident to the user. Don't call them taxes
7) Petty withholding taxes - I don't know what this is, so I will credit this to your account

OK... shall we: 7.65+14+4+3+2= 30.65% (including all of your miscellaneous items, which you did not include)

Thus proving my point, there is a general lack of understanding of how taxes work. People that just want to add one tax on top of another and work themselves into a frenzy with a bad conclusion and giving themselves undo heartburn.
 
That is it, 100%. Anyone believing the politicians and "community organizers" give a crap about them can see the reason they're living in the slums by looking in the mirror.

lenin called such people USEFUL FOOLS or USEFUL IDIOTS.

its like the morons who think Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton or the current marxist in chief wants to help them. In reality, those dems want to keep people dependent on the government and addicted to voting dems into wealth and power
 
Thanks for playing the straight man here!

1) your social security tax rate is 7.65%, not 15.4 (the other amount is an employer tax... paid entirely by the employer, it ain't your money) I am employer. I pay these taxes, my employees do not. I set their salaries at market, this additional tax is over and above that salary.
2) the 17% tax on federal income is on your TAXABLE income, not what you earned. Assuming you are single and do not itemize, you have a $5700 standard deduction and $3650 exemption, that is $9,350 of your income for which is exempt from Federal Income (and usually state income taxes). So, if your taxable income was $50,000, let me assume you had a salary of 59,350.... Hence you had an effective rate of 14%.
3) If you itemized, you would be deducting your CA income tax on your federal return, hence you effective callifornia rate would be 5% * (1-25%) or 3.75%, but you did not itemize, so we will count the California rate at 5%...except, again its not on the whole income, so call it 4%
4) Sales tax. The only way you paid 9% in sales tax is if you spend every penny on consumable goods and did not eat or have a roof over you head. We know that was not the case. Likely only 20% of your income went for goods subject to sales tax, but lets' call it 30% to cover your fuel and phone ... so you paid 9% on $17,800 this rounds up to 3% of your income
5) Property taxes. Don't complain here, you don't itemize so you don't have property and property taxes. If you did, your income tax bill would have been lower
6) Registration fees - are fees, that is their nature... to apply the incident to the user. Don't call them taxes
7) Petty withholding taxes - I don't know what this is, so I will credit this to your account

OK... shall we: 7.65+14+4+3+2= 30.65% (including all of your miscellaneous items, which you did not include)

Thus proving my point, there is a general lack of understanding of how taxes work. People that just want to add one tax on top of another and work themselves into a frenzy with a bad conclusion and giving themselves undo heartburn.

Why is it those who don't make enough to be soaked continually claim that those of us who do don't understand our taxes

my rates next year will include 8% ohio income taxes. 39.6% federal income taxes. Sales taxes of 7% in my county. Property taxes-cannot tell (thank God I live on a farm or they would be 30,000 a year), gasoline taxes-my wife and I drive about 34K miles a year,

I am a competitive shooter so I pay the R-P excise tax on guns and ammunition, I also am a coach of archers and my entire family shoots on the national circuit so we pay lots of hotel taxes etc. The Robinson-Pittman tax is 11% and since shooting sports is my main use of discretionary income after my son's private schoool tuition, I am paying a ton of taxes most people don't. Of course I get soaked by SS "taxes" and those are going up as well.

next year I will keep less than half of every additional dollar I earn.
 
lenin called such people USEFUL FOOLS or USEFUL IDIOTS.

Useful idiot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term is commonly attributed to Lenin and Stalin, sometimes in the form "useful idiots of the West", to describe those Western reporters and travelers who would endorse the Soviet Union and its policies in the West. In fact, the earliest known usage is in a 1948 New York Times article on Italian politics. [1] In 1987, Grant Harris, senior reference librarian at the Library of Congress, said "We have not been able to identify this phrase [useful idiots of the West] among [Lenin's] published works."[2] [3].

Amazon.com: They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions (9780195064698): Paul F.…

24 of 28 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Spoiling a good story, March 21, 2003
By Andrew S. Rogers (Stamford, Connecticut) - See all my reviews
(TOP 500 REVIEWER) (REAL NAME) (VINE VOICE)
This review is from: They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions (Hardcover)
It may well be true, as Roy Howard never said (p. 51) that "too much fact checking has ruined many a good news story." But the many misquotations listed here, some very well known, often have fascinating stories in themselves. In a day when, thanks to the Internet, misquotations, urban legends, and dubious "facts" fly faster and farther than ever, this book is a very valuable resource to have around.

My major complaint with this book is that I wish it had been much longer -- for example, there are numerous quotes attributed to Winston Churchill (like the one about being a liberal when you're 25) that could stand to be debunked alongside the two included in this volume.

Still, though, it's very helpful to be able to demonstrate to folks that Lenin never said anything about "useful idiots" (p. 76), that Lincoln never made the long statement beginning, "You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift..." (p. 82), or that Voltaire never "defend[ed] to the death your right to say it" (p. 124). For those reasons alone, I would recommend this book be kept and studied by anyone who cares about truth, accuracy, and stomping urban legends to the death they deserve.
 
estate taxes were a scheme for social engineering based on the absence of a progressive income tax of any consequence. If you lose 50% of what you earn to taxes WTF should you lose another 50% upon death. Heirs to a fortune certainly did more to earn it than greedy politicians who use the estate tax to gain votes from the spiteful and the envious

Estate taxes effect fewer than 5,500 estates in America on an annual basis. That's approximately .003% of Americans. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/business/09estate.html

So, I'm glad that you support the Paris Hilton tax cut at the expense of hardworking Americans.

Paris thanks you for your support.
 
this is beyond stupid.

an increase of the tax rate from 35% to 39.5% means those of use in the top bracket are sure going to pay alot more than 4.5% more taxes. ANyone who has dividend income is going to being paying almost 40% on that rather than 15%

Inaccurate. You would only pay 4.5% more on the income above the threshold. That's how our system works. Even when the highest rate was 90%, it didn't mean that the uber-wealthy paid 90% of ALL of their income. They paid 90% of the income above the highest amount.

To state otherwise is to perpetrate a lie the rich have been telling for decades. If it were true that the wealthy paid 90% of their entire income, there would've been no wealthy people during that time at all. And despite ginormous tax rates (which, by the way, I'm not arguing to go back to 90%, so please don't twist my words) there were still plenty of wealthy people during that time period.
 
Don' wanna read thread.

So.

In general, I support all tax breaks/reductions/cuts, and oppose all tax increases, no matter the method used.

As another general rule, I support budget cuts in concert with tax cuts, as such only seems reasonable.

So, I do NOT think the "bush tax cuts" should be cancled.



Then again, I would probably support restructuring the entire US tax system and code...
 
Estate taxes effect fewer than 5,500 estates in America on an annual basis. That's approximately .003% of Americans. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/business/09estate.html

So, I'm glad that you support the Paris Hilton tax cut at the expense of hardworking Americans.

Paris thanks you for your support.


HOw many Japanese were put in camps in WWII? Injustice is not excused because the number of victims are small.

why are you entitled to Paris Hilton's wealth? You did nothing to earn it so what makes you think you should share in it

do you think everyone who is wealthy should be taxed until all the poor are not poor?
 
Inaccurate. You would only pay 4.5% more on the income above the threshold. That's how our system works. Even when the highest rate was 90%, it didn't mean that the uber-wealthy paid 90% of ALL of their income. They paid 90% of the income above the highest amount.

To state otherwise is to perpetrate a lie the rich have been telling for decades. If it were true that the wealthy paid 90% of their entire income, there would've been no wealthy people during that time at all. And despite ginormous tax rates (which, by the way, I'm not arguing to go back to 90%, so please don't twist my words) there were still plenty of wealthy people during that time period.

You are lying

if you have a tax rate of 30% that means you pay 30 dollars on every 100 you make after hitting that bracket

if your taxes go to 33% that means you pay 33 Dollars on ever 100 you make after that bracket

30 dollars to 33 dollars is MORE THAN A THREE PERCENT INCREASE IN YOUR TAXES

given dividend income taxes are more than doubling I will be paying far more than what you claim as well and almost everyone who is in the top bracket has income from dividends

you are the liar, not me.

and why should I pay a higher rate than you-I still would pay more in taxes and I certainly don't use as much as most of the low bracket payers. I don't use the emergency room for health care. I don't live in an area that constantly requires police attention. My family isn't engaged in criminal activity requiring the court system. My son goes to a private school even though I pay far more in property taxes than all but a few people in my city given I am one of the three largest individual landowners. I don't get any sort of welfare.
 
Estate taxes effect fewer than 5,500 estates in America on an annual basis. That's approximately .003% of Americans. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/business/09estate.html

So, I'm glad that you support the Paris Hilton tax cut at the expense of hardworking Americans.

Paris thanks you for your support.

BTW you are wrong. Just because only 5500 estates pay an estate tax far more are affected by it. Bill gates and Warren BUffett's estates won't be affected because they are donating their wealth so the government gets nothing. Every estate that has had to create trusts, hire attorneys, or willed assets to charity or paid gift taxes while the estate holder is alive in order to avoid the estate tax have been affected by the death confiscation tax. and only someone who is clueless about this area of the law would think that there are only 5500 estates a year that use such services.
 
To the OP, I have no problem with the tax rates returning to their previous amounts for the wealthy.
 
To the OP, I have no problem with the tax rates returning to their previous amounts for the wealthy.

I wonder what your tax rates are. I suspect you are a perfect example of the main problem of progressive taxes.

You have no problem with jacking up taxes on other people as long as you don't have to pay more and as long as you continue to get the same level of handouts you expect.
 
Back
Top Bottom