• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Future of the Obama Coalition

apdst said:
Do you understand the difference between deductions, credits and cuts? Nothing on that list is a tax, "cut".
Click to expand...

If you get a break in general, that's a cut. You cannot define what constitutes that. Whether it is a credit, a lower rate, or a dedication, if it lowers overall burden, then it is a cut.

apdst said:
Uh, no! Taxes aren't lower. The only way for a business to qualify for any of those tax breaks/deductions, is to spend more money. See the redundancy?


Taxes are only lower if the rate is cut.
Click to expand...

No, that would be a rate cut (which is a tax cut). You can cut taxes a lot of different ways, rate cuts are one of the options. Maybe if you would look **** up before you post it, you wouldn't be backed into these corners. Check it out:

Let me Google that for you: Obama cut taxes

It's right there, apdst. Not that hard.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Uh, no! Taxes aren't lower. The only way for a business to qualify for any of those tax breaks/deductions, is to spend more money. See the redundancy?

Taxes are only lower if the rate is cut.
Click to expand...

No, taxes are lower if the person or business pays a lower percentage of their money in taxes. If I pay 10 % of my profit in taxes one year, then pay 9 % the next, the second year, I am paying less in taxes...I got a tax cut.
 
whysoserious said:
If you get a break in general, that's a cut. You cannot define what constitutes that. Whether it is a credit, a lower rate, or a dedication, if it lowers overall burden, then it is a cut.



No, that would be a rate cut (which is a tax cut). You can cut taxes a lot of different ways, rate cuts are one of the options. Maybe if you would look **** up before you post it, you wouldn't be backed into these corners. Check it out:

Let me Google that for you: Obama cut taxes

It's right there, apdst. Not that hard.
Click to expand...

No...it's...not. They wouldn't call it a tax break/deduction, if it were an actual cut. Just don't work that way in the real world, bro.
 
Redress said:
No, taxes are lower if the person or business pays a lower percentage of their money in taxes. If I pay 10 % of my profit in taxes one year, then pay 9 % the next, the second year, I am paying less in taxes...I got a tax cut.
Click to expand...

And, if a business has to spend money, to achieve that lower rate, it's not a tax cut.
 
apdst said:
No...it's...not. They wouldn't call it a tax break/deduction, if it were an actual cut. Just don't work that way in the real world, bro.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about, Obama just did call it a cut. Apdst, it's not that difficult. If your net tax burden in 2010 on $200,000 was 10%, and in 2011 your net tax burden on $200,000 was 9%, is that a tax cut?

*Edit: And what do you mean "they need to spend more" to get the break?
 
Last edited:
whysoserious said:
WTF are you talking about, Obama just did call it a cut. Apdst, it's not that difficult. If your net tax burden in 2010 on $200,000 was 10%, and in 2011 your net tax burden on $200,000 was 9%, is that a tax cut?
Click to expand...

Right! And, that hasn't happened. :rofl

The tax rate, on net income, for small businesses--any business for that matter--hasn't been lowered since the Bush tax cuts kicked in. it's Obama that wants to remove those tax cuts, which will make taxes on all corporations, regardless of size, go...up.

BTW, there's no such thing as a, "net", tax burden.

Semantics are really kicking your butts on this one.


*Edit: And what do you mean "they need to spend more" to get the break?
Click to expand...

Tax breaks and tax deductions only kick in, if you spend money. Just like the veterans tax break. You have to actually hire a veteran and put him on the payroll, to qualify for that tax break. To do so, you would have to spend money.
 
apdst said:
Right! And, that hasn't happened. :rofl

The tax rate, on net income, for small businesses--any business for that matter--hasn't been lowered since the Bush tax cuts kicked in. it's Obama that wants to remove those tax cuts, which will make taxes on all corporations, regardless of size, go...up.
Click to expand...

You still haven't substantiated that in any way. :doh

You do realize that is how debates work, right?

apdst said:
BTW, there's no such thing as a, "net", tax burden.

Semantics are really kicking your butts on this one.
Click to expand...

I am trying to help you out since this is apparently flying over your head - which is why you are resorting to semantics instead of discussing numbers. I am still waiting for you to make a claim and back it up with facts - you know... a debate.

apdst said:
Tax breaks and tax deductions only kick in, if you spend money. Just like the veterans tax break. You have to actually hire a veteran and put him on the payroll, to qualify for that tax break. To do so, you would have to spend money.
Click to expand...

Yawn... hey great fact, adpst. Oh wait, you didn't substantiate ****.

-------------------

Here is another case where apdst argues against sources far more reliable than he. Politifact rates it as true, apdst does not. Good thing apdst < Politifact no matter how you look at the situation. Apdst, if politifact ran an article about driving trucks and you disagreed with it, I would still trust politifact over you.
 
Last edited:
whysoserious said:
You still haven't substantiated that in any way. :doh

You do realize that is how debates work, right?



I am trying to help you out since this is apparently flying over your head - which is why you are resorting to semantics instead of discussing numbers. I am still waiting for you to make a claim and back it up with facts - you know... a debate.



Yawn... hey great fact, adpst. Oh wait, you didn't substantiate ****.
Click to expand...

I already have, my friend. The fact is, a tax cut and a tax break are two different animals.

Might as well go ahead and admit that you got this one wrong.

Even your source calls them breaks and deductions and not cuts.

-------------------

Here is another case where apdst argues against sources far more reliable than he. Politifact rates it as true, apdst does not. Good thing apdst < Politifact no matter how you look at the situation. Apdst, if politifact ran an article about driving trucks and you disagreed with it, I would still trust politifact over you.
Click to expand...

That would be your mistake, not mine. But, your source hasn't done anything to prove me wrong, nor am I saying the source is wrong. They are absolutely correct by saying that these are tax breaks/deductions and not tax cuts.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
And, if a business has to spend money, to achieve that lower rate, it's not a tax cut.
Click to expand...

If a business didn't spend money, how long do you think they'd be in business?

and, if the money that had to be spent last year didn't qualify as a deduction, but this year it does, then it's a tax cut.
 
apdst said:
I already have, my friend. The fact is, a tax cut and a tax break are two different animals.

Might as well go ahead and admit that you got this one wrong.

Even your source calls them breaks and deductions and not cuts.
Click to expand...

It calls them both, because they qualify as both.

The post enumerated 17 small business tax cuts and credits created or extended through legislation signed by Obama.

Eight of them were included in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (more commonly known as the economic stimulus bill), the Affordable Care Act (also known as the health care law), and the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (aka the HIRE Act). Among the cuts were the exclusion of up to 75 percent of capital gains on key small business investments; a tax credit for the cost of health insurance for small business employees and new tax credits for hiring Americans out of work for at least two months.

Another eight cuts came via the Small Business Jobs Act, signed by Obama in September of 2010. These included: adding deductions for business cell phone use; creating a new deduction for health care costs for the self-employed; allowing greater deductions for business start-up expenses; eliminating taxes on all capital gains from key small business investments, and raising the small business expense limit to $500,000.
Click to expand...

Again, it calls them both because a tax credit is a tax cut, as it reduces your over burden. ie. it cuts your ****ing taxes.

------------

*Edit:
I am supposed to be doing my senior project but instead I am wasting my time arguing semantics about whether lowering the amount someone pays in taxes counts as a tax cut. WTF am I doing with my life.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
If a business didn't spend money, how long do you think they'd be in business?
Click to expand...

What's that have to do with anything?

and, if the money that had to be spent last year didn't qualify as a deduction, but this year it does, then it's a tax cut.
Click to expand...

Tax deductions aren't retroactive.
 
apdst said:
Do you understand the difference between deductions, credits and cuts? Nothing on that list is a tax, "cut".
Click to expand...
Normal people don't care what you call it. If it makes them pay less taxes, it's a cut. Only hyper partisans with learning disabilities would argue otherwise.
 
apdst said:
What's that have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

It goes to showing that your argument that a tax deduction is not a tax cut because you have to spend money to get it is spurious.

Which is redundant, because the people reading your posts already know that it's spurious.



apdst said:
Tax deductions aren't retroactive.
Click to expand...

True, but that really has nothing to do with anything.
 
Guys, apdst is just trying to distract from the fact that the whole premise of the thread has been proven to be false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom