• 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!

Key republican bolts from debt ceiling talks

This year, me and my company made 40 grand in profit, after deductions. And, you want me to pay more?

yeah! That's going to encourage small business growth.

BTW, what was your tax bill for 2010?

Its actually the conservatives that want people making $40K to pay more, they think that group is exempt from income tax. Most of the discussion on tax increases is aimed at persons/small business with [taxable/B] incomes (which only occurs on revenues or total income much in excess of that) north of $250K or $1M.
 
a broad bipartisan coalition of congress, according to msm's the last couple months, intends to undertake comprehensive tax reform this year

but debt ceiling talks are certainly not the place, tax reform takes months if not years

it's your move, president obama

america is and has been waiting

we're well into three years since the party has passed a budget

leadership, anyone?
 
Call it what you want, but the end result is people/businesses will be paying more taxes. I can't afford to pay more taxes right now.

My uncle is a small business owner. Employs about 60 folks. He used to employ 100, but has had to slash business in the recession. Adding in State and Local, his tax bill right now is about 40% of income - I can only imagine how many jobs he could have kept if his income hadn't been cut nearly in half. Increase his effective tax rate, and he will probably be able to afford that as well. It will force him to fire more people.... but he will be able to afford it. So more blue-collar workers without college degrees will find themselves unable to support their families, out on the street, hunting for jobs in a high-unemployment environment... but hey, at least we'll be sticking it to the rich guy, eh? Hey, maybe we should have a Luxury Tax! That can only effect the rich guys, right?

...In theory, the idea of a luxury tax on new boats costing more than $100,000 made perfect sense to the politicians who came up with it.

In practice, the luxury tax stinks.

``The tax took aim at the rich and hit the little guy right in the wallet,`` said Congressman E. Clay Shaw Jr., R-Fort Lauderdale.

The luxury tax was a last-minute addition to a federal budget deficit reduction bill passed last October. The tax was supposed to raise about $3 million this year. What its proponents never considered was that the tax would put people out of work. The loss of corporate and income taxes, along with unemployment compensation, could add up to $60 million....

doh! :doh



You cannot hurt the wage payer without hurting the wage earner.
 
Last edited:
Your argument can be an attack at someone who just wants to get rid of loopholes, but I want to lower the whole code and simplify it.

that is precisely the Ryan plan - lower nominal rates at the same pace as we strip out deductions, credits, loopholes, and shelters to achieve revenue neutrality - the Rich (and everyone else) pay just as much as they did before, but without the complexity and with dramatically reduced compliance costs.

We haven't seen a comprehensive medicare reform from Obama yet because it's still in deliberation. He has admitted publicly it needs to be cut, though he probably didn't use the word cut.

He has stated that he intends to reduce Medicare expenditures through the magical unicorn of the IPAB. He refuses to say how they will do it, because that will force him to admit that rationing is really his only idea. But that was part of the ACA, and in no way is the same as agreeing to Medicare reform as part of the Debt Ceiling talks. Personally, as much as it would hurt us, I'd be willing to trade repealing the Bush Tax cuts for small business owners in return for Ryan's Medicare Reform measure. Yeah, it would mean extra pain for a couple of years, but only a couple - once Republicans took the White House and the Senate in 2013 we could pass his tax-code simplification as well; and try to make up for it on the back end. In the meantime, we remove the centerpiece of Obama's reelection campaign - demagouging the need for Medicare reform.
 
Last edited:
You consider Ryan's plan to be fiscally conservative? obama's deficit commission reduction plan is more fiscally conservative than Ryan's lets borrow for 10 years in gigantic numbers and icnrease the debt, then have a balanced budget in 2051!!
 
I would say it is built on conservative philosophy - in particular the ability of competition to drive down price. and the while the Simpson-Bowles Commission did indeed reduce nominal rates more than Ryan did - they also continued to add to the debt for years. It's also important to note that that 2051 figure is exceedingly pessimistic, as it utilizes a static measure rather than a dynamic one. When they applied that to Medicare D it ended up coming in at 42% under their projections. However, I would be all for adding in more short-term cuts to work in tandem with Ryan's long-term entitlement restructuring, and we need to reform Social Security as well. However, the American people tend to shy away from massive systemic changes all at once - and so the problem has to be attacked piecemeal. Medicare is the number one driver of the debt, so we have to address it first, while altering our tax structure to pour nitrous oxide into the economy without losing revenue. Ryan's Roadmap suggested allowing people to own their own personal Social Security accounts, and I have shown elsewhere how doing so would allow low-income workers to retire Financially Independent. I would bet that's in the cards for the future,as well as greater short-term reductions once the Senate goes back to passing budgets.
 
Yes. No company deserves a subsidy.

Well, you'll be happy to find out that I don't get any subsidies. Unless you're one of those clowns that thinks that taxing a company on it's gross revenue is actually a good idea.
 
Its actually the conservatives that want people making $40K to pay more, they think that group is exempt from income tax. Most of the discussion on tax increases is aimed at persons/small business with [taxable/B] incomes (which only occurs on revenues or total income much in excess of that) north of $250K or $1M.


On personal taxes. Small businesses already pay taxes and don't qualify for the earned income credit.
 
Well, you'll be happy to find out that I don't get any subsidies. Unless you're one of those clowns that thinks that taxing a company on it's gross revenue is actually a good idea.

In such a high amount like it is now at 35%? No.. should be extremely low, but that couldn't happen overnight. If anyone should get a subsidy it should be a small business such as yours... but even then that's picking and choosing. Just please not these gigantic corporations raking in billions a year.
 
Well, you'll be happy to find out that I don't get any subsidies. Unless you're one of those clowns that thinks that taxing a company on it's gross revenue is actually a good idea.

what's your effective tax rate v revenue?
 
Not profitable? How do you figger that? I made a 20% profit in 2010; that's above the national average. So, where are you coming from, exactly?

And, no, my business doesn't make 40 g's a year. Wait, let me rephrase that: my business didn't only make 40 g's a year...before the Libbos took over the government and ****ed everything up.

If your gross income was only $40K/annual, then I'M NOT REFERRING TO YOUR TAXES BEING RAISED! $40/K a year is not what I'd classify as being wealthy. As a small business owner, your gross income is no more than my annual salary. So, neither of us can afford a tax increase. In effect, you're part of the middle-class - the very group President Obama has advocated for - IS advocating for - from Day-1!!! As such, I'm amazed that you of all people have been so vehemently opposed to him and his policies.

I realize you're a small-business owner and you've got different issues to deal with than the every-day working man, but the President's tax policies have been pro-small business/pro-middle-class. Moreover, the tax threshold he has continuously referred to would only apply to those making +$250K. So, I'm quite puzzled by your perception of him.
 
That's right. There's no doubt the highest tax bracket should go back up, but that's not even the point of this discussion. They won't agree to cut subsidies or loopholes.
I believe the only way we will get the government back to its proper role as servant instead of Master is to broaden the base so that everyone pays federal income taxes. After all, it is quite easy to be for tax rate increases when you are not paying any taxes at all. "I won't tax you. You won't tax me. Let's go tax that rich, white guy behind the tree."
 
I believe the only way we will get the government back to its proper role as servant instead of Master is to broaden the base so that everyone pays federal income taxes. After all, it is quite easy to be for tax rate increases when you are not paying any taxes at all. "I won't tax you. You won't tax me. Let's go tax that rich, white guy behind the tree."

That's NOT what's going on here, MisterV. No particular racial group is being asked to contribute more than another. Is that what you really hear whenever you hear the phrase, "redistribution of wealth?" That it's an attack on the prosperity of white people only?
 
I think at this point the tax code is extremely ****ed up. If we want to do this without any loopholes and just save it for another day, then put the tax rate back up to 39.6 on the highest earners. But I don't think that's the right thing to do. I think we need to redo the whole tax code - ZERO loopholes, ZERO credits, ZERO subsidies. Nothing. The highest tax bracket can be maybe 29 percent, and that would be on the highest income earners, earners in the millions of dollars and above. The current system of a 200,000 a year earning middle class family sharing the same burden with a billionaire is out of line.
 
wapo's watching: On debt and Libya, it's President Obama vs. Senator Obama - The Washington Post

On Capitol Hill this year, one of President Obama’s most troublesome critics has been Senator Obama.

President Obama, for instance, wants Congress to raise the national debt limit. But his opponents have brought up a statement that then-Sen. Barack Obama made in 2006: The first-term Democrat representing Illinois said that merely debating a debt-limit increase was “a sign of leadership failure.”

President Obama now insists that he had the right to dispatch U.S. forces to the conflict in Libya without authorization from Congress. Critics have noted that Sen. Obama seemed to feel differently about the proper use of military force in 2007.

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) even carries a quote from Sen. Obama in his pocket, to show people who don’t believe it.

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama said four years ago.

The past is always an occupational hazard for presidents, who find themselves disowning statements they made when they were candidates or legislators embroiled in partisan fights.

But Obama seems to have gotten himself into unusually hot water this year. In three different battles, his own words have become weapons for both Democrats and Republicans.

Asked about the apparent contradictions last week, a White House spokesman said that “the president has already explained his position on each of these issues, and we will let those responses speak for themselves.”

On the debt ceiling, Obama has said his past position was a mistake. Moreover, he has called on Republicans not to make the same mistake.

it all comes down to character

and, in this case, competence

leadership, anyone?
 
You consider Ryan's plan to be fiscally conservative? obama's deficit commission reduction plan is more fiscally conservative than Ryan's lets borrow for 10 years in gigantic numbers and icnrease the debt, then have a balanced budget in 2051!!

Then why is Obama ignoring his own deficit commission ???
 
If your gross income was only $40K/annual, then I'M NOT REFERRING TO YOUR TAXES BEING RAISED! $40/K a year is not what I'd classify as being wealthy. As a small business owner, your gross income is no more than my annual salary. So, neither of us can afford a tax increase. In effect, you're part of the middle-class - the very group President Obama has advocated for - IS advocating for - from Day-1!!! As such, I'm amazed that you of all people have been so vehemently opposed to him and his policies.

I realize you're a small-business owner and you've got different issues to deal with than the every-day working man, but the President's tax policies have been pro-small business/pro-middle-class. Moreover, the tax threshold he has continuously referred to would only apply to those making +$250K. So, I'm quite puzzled by your perception of him.

No, the tax threshold of $250 K that Obama and the Dems keep talking about will affect any small business owner that incorporated as a sub-chapter S (almost all of them) that has a taxable income for the business over $250 K. That will affect most small business owners. Sub-chapter S corporations consider the business and the business owner's income as the same.
 
Then why is Obama ignoring his own deficit commission ???

In general, the debt commission was just a way to buy time and to make a half-hearted attempt at selling the American people on the notion the Obama Administration was attempting to do something about the debt. I don't think the Administration is serious about the debt. This was just their way of paying lip service to the polls showing the American people are very concerned about it.
 
Then why is Obama ignoring his own deficit commission ???

He also ignored his attorneys about Libya. He is full-on Rogue. I bet he nukes the crap outa Iran next.
 
He also ignored his attorneys about Libya. He is full-on Rogue. I bet he nukes the crap outa Iran next.

Nah.... he'll wait til closer to the election to do that.
 
Debt ceiling: Key Republican bolts debt ceiling talks - Jun. 23, 2011

I'm sorry but this is absolutely ridiculous. Democrats control the senate and the White House. That's 2/3. You guys control 1. We already have agreed to cutting medicare and other entitlements, and you won't even give us tax increases in the form of cutting loopholes and subsidies? Is the GOP kidding?

Why is it that Liberals can't learn from their mistakes.

If you raise Taxes you kill any tiny bit of recovery there might have been, they have spent us into near bankruptcy and caused the recession too be prolonged and now they want to do more of the same.

I applaud the walk out

My big question is why in hell is Biden involved, he's a total imbecilic idiot Isn't he the fool who when talking about spending money we dont have said: "We Need to Spend Money so we Don't Go Bankrupt."
What a maroon.
 
Because Biden has been involved in every single deficit reduction bill for the past 35 years he's been a senator.

And again, this isn't about raising taxes. It's about closing loopholes. Stop being stupid & read the topic.
 
Because Biden has been involved in every single deficit reduction bill for the past 35 years he's been a senator.

And again, this isn't about raising taxes. It's about closing loopholes. Stop being stupid & read the topic.

Because he's done something for 35 years doesn't mean he's competent. The clip of Biden is damning evidence... and it maybe that it's about closing loopholes with Biden now and the loopholes, were they the only tax issue on the table, would get support from both sides of the isle. Unfortunately, that's not the only tax ... sorry... revenue item on the table with Biden.
 
I agree and im a republican...they refuse to cut the billions in subsidies that corporations recieve and instead want tax cuts for only the richest americans and corporations....subsidize them and give them tax cuts....whats wrong with this picture

Might be time for you to bolt from the party, like I did. :)
 
And again, this isn't about raising taxes. It's about closing loopholes.

Americans for Tax Reform (the organization for which many Republicans signed onto a pledge not to raise taxes) isn't concerned strictly with tax rate increases. By that definition, the closure of loopholes or elimination of deductions/preferences/credits that would have a net impact of increased revenue, even as tax rates would not be changed, would constitute a "tax hike" that is opposed by those who signed the pledge.

ATR's Pledge States (the underlining is mine in order to better illustrate the issue in contention):

I, _____, pledge to the taxpayers of the (____district of the) state of ______ and to the American people that I will: ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business; and TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.
 
Back
Top Bottom