• 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!

Republicans Say They’re Open to ‘Revenue Raisers’

Hatuey said:
If I don't use government programs like "SCHIP" I shouldn't be taxed for them.
Click to expand...

please tell me, how would you itemize which Federal programs you should pay taxes for, and which ones you should not?

should you pay for the National Parks Service?

should you pay for the EPA?

should you pay for the FBI?

should you pay for the Federal Student Loan program?

your reasoning on this issue, is without reason.
 
Thunder said:
please tell me, how would you itemize which Federal programs you should pay taxes for, and which ones you should not?

should you pay for the National Parks Service?

should you pay for the EPA?

should you pay for the FBI?

should you pay for the Federal Student Loan program?

your reasoning on this issue, is without reason.
Click to expand...

Would be pretty tough to pay for ICE since most people we go after don't pay income tax... :(
 
Gargantuan said:
Right, but the fact is there are numerous loopholes that rich lawyers can use to knock that 35% to 9%. And I still think it is unfair that one who earns 250,000 would be in the same tax burden group as one who earns 250 million.
Click to expand...

Rich democrats and republicans create those loopholes for themselves and those that give them campaign money
 
Hatuey said:
No. It's not. Price gouging is relevant to food, clothing, shelter etc. all of which are essential. A state deeming that a truck which weighs double digit tons will damage their roads more than a Mazda is hardly price gouging.

:shrug:

sorry to burst yo bubble.
Click to expand...

You burst nothing. They get way more than any damage that occurs.
 
Boo Radley said:
Revenue raisers = taxes. :coffeepap

We do torture language these days.
Click to expand...

Yes you do.. I hear in Texas there are no taxes but only "fee's of doing business" lol...
 
Gargantuan said:
Nope. They are all saying they would not take any revenue boosters.
Click to expand...

no, look at what he is describing. revenue neutral stripping of all the credits, loopholes, shelters, and so forth. that is precisely what the Ryan Plan does.
 
Gargantuan said:
Would be pretty tough to pay for ICE since most people we go after don't pay income tax... :(
Click to expand...

Require E-Verify; $5,000 per head fine from the employers, split between the federal government and the agency that makes the bust.
 
Gargantuan said:
Or we could lower all of them and remove all loopholes/deductions completely. That would make things 100x easier. The size of IRS could probably be halved. If politicians are unwilling to take a hard look at all the loopholes and deductions they've allowed for the past century and get rid of them (I'm sure there are hundreds) then they could take the easy way and raise the highest bracket on higher earners, but that would really not solve the problem.
Click to expand...

Path to Prosperity: Pro-Growth Tax Reform

A pro-growth tax system should be simple, efficient and fair. The U.S. tax code fails on all three counts. The system is notoriously complex, as individuals, families and employers spend over six billion hours and over $160 billion per year trying to negotiate a labyrinth of deductions and credits, a tangle of different rules for characterizing income, and a variety of schedules for taxing that income. Simply put, the code is too costly and too burdensome.

The code is also patently unfair, as many of the deductions and preferences in the system – which serve to narrow the tax base – are mainly used by a relatively small class of mostly higher-income individuals. Washington should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. Finally, the U.S. tax structure is highly inefficient, as tax considerations rather than economic fundamentals often distort individual decisions to work, save, and invest, which leads to a misallocation of resources and slower economic growth.

This budget attacks all three of these problems with a set of fundamental reforms drawn from a broad consensus of economic experts and based on the principle that government should never take a dollar from one of its citizens unless that dollar is needed for an absolutely vital national purpose. It draws on the commonly held view that the key to pro-growth tax reform is lowering tax rates while broadening the tax base – that is, letting individuals keep more of the money they earn, while getting rid of distortions, loopholes and preferences that divert economic resources from their most efficient uses...​
 
so, anywho, the main lesson from this thread seems to be that John Broder made a rather stupid mistake, and the NYTimes editorial staff failed to catch him.
 
Thunder said:
society has decided that we owe the govt. income tax. its not due to who we are, where we are, what we do.

its based on how much we earn, and the concept that since we all benefit from a well-functioning govt., we should all help fund it.
Click to expand...


lets run with that thought

many of those who benefit do little or nothing to fund it while a minority does most of the funding
 
Gargantuan said:
Just for the record, my theory on taxes is that you shouldn't have to contribute MORE if you earn more, but each should be hit fairly when you tax. That's why a progressive system is fair.
Click to expand...

a flat tax accomplishes that too and prevents the many passing all the burden onto the few.
 
TurtleDude said:
a flat tax accomplishes that too and prevents the many passing all the burden onto the few.
Click to expand...

so explain this to us flat tax advocate: we are told that it is the rich who ceaselessly push for this flat tax that and they do so because they would indeed get a major tax cut. We are also told that the poor would be excluded from it and they would not get a tax increase. Then we are told at the same time that the flat tax is revenue neutral.

So just who is it that is paying more if the rich gets cuts, the poor do not get increases and it remains revenue neutral?

This whole flat tax thing is indeed the work of Merlin or some modern sorcerer.
 
TurtleDude said:
a flat tax accomplishes that too and prevents the many passing all the burden onto the few.
Click to expand...

Flat tax, no loopholes. I could live with that.

Edited because I would only agree to it if it was across the boards, and not what Haymarket just described. :shock:
 
haymarket said:
so explain this to us flat tax advocate: we are told that it is the rich who ceaselessly push for this flat tax that and they do so because they would indeed get a major tax cut. We are also told that the poor would be excluded from it and they would not get a tax increase. Then we are told at the same time that the flat tax is revenue neutral.

So just who is it that is paying more if the rich gets cuts, the poor do not get increases and it remains revenue neutral?

This whole flat tax thing is indeed the work of Merlin or some modern sorcerer.
Click to expand...

You spend so much time "responding" to my posts without ever really trying to read them

the main reason why a flat tax is good is because when people such as you demand that people like me pay a higher tax rate you also will be taxed more. That at least serves as some disincentive for politicians and voters to want to make the rich pay more because they themselves will face higher tax rates and the political repercussions of all the dependent voters having to actually pay more taxes.


ITS A CHECK ON THE POLITICIANS WHO WIN VOTES BY PROMISING SPENDING PAID FOR BY TAX HIKES ON THE RICH
 
TurtleDude said:
You spend so much time "responding" to my posts without ever really trying to read them

the main reason why a flat tax is good is because when people such as you demand that people like me pay a higher tax rate you also will be taxed more. That at least serves as some disincentive for politicians and voters to want to make the rich pay more because they themselves will face higher tax rates and the political repercussions of all the dependent voters having to actually pay more taxes.


ITS A CHECK ON THE POLITICIANS WHO WIN VOTES BY PROMISING SPENDING PAID FOR BY TAX HIKES ON THE RICH
Click to expand...

............... So you DON'T actually want a flat tax?
 
from Turtle

the main reason why a flat tax is good is because when people such as you demand that people like me pay a higher tax rate you also will be taxed more.
Click to expand...

So lets get this straight.
1) a flat tax reduces the tax burden on the rich.
2) a flat tax does not increase the tax burden on the poor
3) a flat tax is revenue neutral
4) the working class will see their taxes increase to make up for cuts on the rich

yup - pretty much as I knew all along.
 
haymarket said:
from Turtle



So lets get this straight.
1) a flat tax reduces the tax burden on the rich.
2) a flat tax does not increase the tax burden on the poor
3) a flat tax is revenue neutral
4) the working class will see their taxes increase to make up for cuts on the rich

yup - pretty much as I knew all along.
Click to expand...

So typical....Is it possible to have a discussion on taxes based on facts without the 'class warfare' talking points being screamed to drown out reasonable ideas?

Fact: Half the country pays NO TAXES now

Fact: The top 10% of income earners already pay over 70% of all income tax.

Fact: The US has the highest rate of capital gains tax in the world.

And you want more from these people...Where's your contribution?

Are you of the half that pays nothing? Should I guess?

j-mac
 
BDBoop said:
............... So you DON'T actually want a flat tax?
Click to expand...

I prefer a consumption tax-I disagree with taxing income and a consumption tax would eliminate much of the government nonsense we face. merchants already collect sales taxes for their states, it would cost the public far far less. But what I really want is a system that prevents politicians from pandering to the many by promising them they can have more and more paid for by others
 
j-mac said:
So typical....Is it possible to have a discussion on taxes based on facts without the 'class warfare' talking points being screamed to drown out reasonable ideas?

Fact: Half the country pays NO TAXES now

Fact: The top 10% of income earners already pay over 70% of all income tax.

Fact: The US has the highest rate of capital gains tax in the world.

And you want more from these people...Where's your contribution?

Are you of the half that pays nothing? Should I guess?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Haymarket works for the democratic party. He knows that the progressive tax system wins elections for the dems when there are more voters getting stuff from the federal government than they are required to pay in taxes. Dems use the wealth of the top payers to buy the votes of a majority. HE defends anything and everything that allows the dems to win elections. When you work for a party and derive your income from being a party employee, you really are a true believer.
 
TurtleDude said:
Haymarket works for the democratic party. He knows that the progressive tax system wins elections for the dems when there are more voters getting stuff from the federal government than they are required to pay in taxes. Dems use the wealth of the top payers to buy the votes of a majority. HE defends anything and everything that allows the dems to win elections. When you work for a party and derive your income from being a party employee, you really are a true believer.
Click to expand...


Or a dupe.


j-mac
 
from j-mac

Fact: Half the country pays NO TAXES now
Click to expand...

That is a blatant and baldfaced lie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom