• 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!

Obama: No Deal Without Tax Hikes

Status
Not open for further replies.
who cares-the tax is based on income

it should be based on what you use

you seem to think that those who make more than you do have done so unfairly

that is the mindset behind all these idiotic claims that the rich need to pay even more

you don't get any less benefits than the rich do

why should you pay less?

What do you mean who cares? It goes to show the ratio. Let's say the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, but control over 80% of the overall US wealth. That's a ****ing deal man. I would take that in a heart beat. But if it's more like the top 1% pay 40% of taxes but control 20% of the overall US wealth, then they're getting boned.

See, the "who cares" piece is why your arguments are partisan garbage. "Don't ask how much they have, how many laws allowed the even .1% consolidate more power and wealth; just go with it and don't ask questions.". It's idiotic. Of course how much they control is proportional to how much they pay, it's a progressive tax scale. You want to hide how much they make. The fact of the matter is that the very top have reaped benefit of many laws and subsidies and tax payer give away. They can pay for that privilege. Else, all income is treated like income and no one gets special rules and tax loopholes/

It is supposed to be income based, but when the top .1% can redefine their income as different things to get lower tax rates, that's a different ballgame. So let's say the tax is based on income. Income is income, it all gets taxed at the same rate.
 
Likely receiving some government subsidy, or some artsy fartsy not for profit.

Of course!! Capitalistic enterprises require regular socialistic bailouts because capitalism doesn't work without socialism.

That's why all of the developed nations have rejected the low tax, non-regulated economic system promoted by the rightwing. It's why the rightwingers cant point to one developed economy that is based on rightwing economic policies.
 
Of course!! Capitalistic enterprises require regular socialistic bailouts because capitalism doesn't work without socialism.

That's why all of the developed nations have rejected the low tax, non-regulated economic system promoted by the rightwing. It's why the rightwingers cant point to one developed economy that is based on rightwing economic policies.
One word:Taiwan!!
 
Oh please! From the Leftwingnut indoctrination at the Universities and the counterculture of the 1960s to today, Liberalism has been a cancerous sore on America.

Oh please! From the rightwingnut indoctrination at the Universities and the culture of selfishnes, Rightwing nuttery has been a cancerous sore on America
 
Oh please! From the Leftwingnut indoctrination at the Universities and the counterculture of the 1960s to today, Liberalism has been a cancerous sore on America.

without Liberalism, women would not have the right to vote, blacks would still be slaves, Unions would be illegal, and the environment would be a garbage dump.
 
Right. Or because midterm voters are lazy and the far right managed to energize their base.

Exactly and that's often the case during midterms,the D's failed to turn out the vote. Some of this may be due to buyer's remorse but midterms in general are difficult. The Republicans and especially the Tea Party, had the energy and the momentum. They expected more from Obama,after all,he had two whole years to solve our problems that were inherited from the eight year BA. The BA never saw a spending bill they didn't like or he would have vetoed them.
 
I want to eliminate a lot of the federal government programs

but since you are so keen for tax hikes why don't you start with people who clearly are not paying near their fair share

and fair share is not based on your "ability" to pay but what you get in value

So you DO want to increase taxes!

If you won't even stand for your own principles, you'll fall for anything
 
without Liberalism, women would not have the right to vote, blacks would still be slaves, Unions would be illegal, and the environment would be a garbage dump.
Without Conservatism, there would be no thriving private sector, no rich people, no lifestyle we enjoy.
 
What do you mean who cares? It goes to show the ratio. Let's say the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, but control over 80% of the overall US wealth. That's a ****ing deal man. I would take that in a heart beat. But if it's more like the top 1% pay 40% of taxes but control 20% of the overall US wealth, then they're getting boned.

See, the "who cares" piece is why your arguments are partisan garbage. "Don't ask how much they have, how many laws allowed the even .1% consolidate more power and wealth; just go with it and don't ask questions.". It's idiotic. Of course how much they control is proportional to how much they pay, it's a progressive tax scale. You want to hide how much they make. The fact of the matter is that the very top have reaped benefit of many laws and subsidies and tax payer give away. They can pay for that privilege. Else, all income is treated like income and no one gets special rules and tax loopholes/

It is supposed to be income based, but when the top .1% can redefine their income as different things to get lower tax rates, that's a different ballgame. So let's say the tax is based on income. Income is income, it all gets taxed at the same rate.

do the top 1 percent make 40% of income NO

do the top 1 percent USE FORTY PERCENT of the services paid for by the FIT and 100% of the services paid for by the death tax

NO

why do you believe you should pay for less than you use just because you are not talented enough to make top one percent income?
 
So you DO want to increase taxes!

If you won't even stand for your own principles, you'll fall for anything

seems like spamming to me
So you want to increase taxes?

If you won't stand up for you own principles, they must not be worth anything
 
Without Conservatism, there would be no thriving private sector, no rich people, no lifestyle we enjoy.

There aren't any conservatives in the US. The americans who mistakenly call themselves conservatives all support radical change. There's nothing conservative about them
 
that's often the case during midterms

it's certainly not often the case that either party takes the most house seats since 1938 and the most state reps and assemblies in history (as well as 10 gubs and 6 senators)
 
So you DO want to increase taxes!

If you won't even stand for your own principles, you'll fall for anything

You didn't read very well

its you who whines for higher taxes but you don't want to raise taxes where they are most needing to be raised
 
There aren't any conservatives in the US. The americans who mistakenly call themselves conservatives all support radical change. There's nothing conservative about them


the real reactionaries are the left whose answer to everything is taxing the rich more and retaining massive idiotic government spending
 
do the top 1 percent make 40% of income NO

do the top 1 percent USE FORTY PERCENT of the services paid for by the FIT and 100% of the services paid for by the death tax

NO

why do you believe you should pay for less than you use just because you are not talented enough to make top one percent income?

lossgain_0.jpg
 
do the top 1 percent make 40% of income NO

do the top 1 percent USE FORTY PERCENT of the services paid for by the FIT and 100% of the services paid for by the death tax

NO

why do you believe you should pay for less than you use just because you are not talented enough to make top one percent income?

How much do the top 1% control? How much does the top .1% control? That's the question. How much has that percentage changed over time? Have they consolidated more wealth and power at the cost of the middle and lower classes facilitated through laws and beneficial tax payer give aways?

I don't think that I should pay less, but getting rid of tax loopholes and beneficial definitions so that all income is treated like income isn't that. It's just setting the system straight. If we're going to have income tax, then all income must be considered income and taxed appropriately.
 
You didn't read very well

its you who whines for higher taxes but you don't want to raise taxes where they are most needing to be raised

You are arguing for higher taxes, but you don't want to raise taxes where they are most needing to be raised

lossgain_0.jpg
 
There aren't any conservatives in the US. The americans who mistakenly call themselves conservatives all support radical change. There's nothing conservative about them
The so-called "Radical" change we want is a return to Constitutional restrictions on the Federal Government and a reduction of the Federal Government back to its original mandates. Is that way too much to ask? Oh but you're a LIBERAL, you think big daddy government is the end all to our problems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom