• 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.
lossgain_0.jpg

So the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. But tax the poor because they don't "create jobs".
 
the real reactionaries are the left whose answer to everything is taxing the rich more and retaining massive idiotic government spending

the real reactionaries are the right whose answer to everything is tax cuts and retaining massive idiotic government spending
 
So the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. But tax the poor because they don't "create jobs".

what would it mean if the rich weren't getting richer?
 
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.
Who gives a **** about who controls what?? They're the risk takers, the investors, the business owners, they should have every right not to have more than 5/6 of their income stolen by the government.
 
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.

ah, so you want to end direct popular election of the Senate?

you want to put the dollar back on the Gold Standard?

you want to scrap every Amendment after the Bill of Rights?

wow.
 
the real reactionaries are the right whose answer to everything is tax cuts and retaining massive idiotic government spending

wrong-real progress is more freedom and less governmental control-not a bigger and bigger nanny state
 
the real reactionaries are the right whose answer to everything is tax cuts and retaining massive idiotic government spending

So you cut taxes and spending across the board! Problem solved. And I am not referring to piddly little "symbolic" cuts either. I mean cutting or gutting most domestic spending.
 
ah, so you want to end direct popular election of the Senate?

you want to put the dollar back on the Gold Standard?

you want to scrap every Amendment after the Bill of Rights?

wow.

getting rid of the 16th and 17th amendments would probably be the single best way (if it were possible) to get rid of the massive deficits we have now

and the supreme court upholding its line of cases that terminated with Schechter Poultry
 
ah, so you want to end direct popular election of the Senate?
And give that back to the states?? YES!!

you want to put the dollar back on the Gold Standard?
to force the government to live within its means, just like everyone else.

you want to scrap every Amendment after the Bill of Rights?
Especially the 16th Amendment.

Thank you.
 
then WHY do Cons want less freedom for the American people?

why do you ask a question that is so stupid?

its you who wants to ban handguns for starters and want the government confiscating more wealth from individuals
 
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.

inequality-page25_actualdistribwithlegend.png


Study: America's Wealth Not Widely Distributed : NPR
One percent of the U.S. population owns approximately 40 percent of the nation's wealth

wealth.html
 
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.

Yes, it is.
 
Cons want less freedom for the American people. I am asking you why this is.

I am saying you are wrong

some cons want less freedom for certain groups-gays especially and abortion supporters

most dems want less freedom for ALL americans such as gun rights, higher taxes etc
 
Raising taxes isn't going to solve the deficit.

Of course it won't.... but it is a powerful tool in the toolbag, and you are not going to solve the deficit without it. People that refuse to consider tax increases are not serious about the deficit.
 
most dems want less freedom for ALL americans such as gun rights, higher taxes etc

Dems do not want higher taxes for the Middle-class and the poor.

We only want higher taxes for the filthy rich, who's taxes keep going down...down...down.

Cons, however, want to restrict the freedom of the people AND the states.
 
ah, so you want to end direct popular election of the Senate?

you want to put the dollar back on the Gold Standard?

you want to scrap every Amendment after the Bill of Rights?

wow.

They must also support slavery, poll taxes, and making contraception illegal. It's their idea of more freedom
 
more nonsense

top one percent make 22% of the income and pay almost 40% of the income tax and basically all the death tax

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

The latest numbers from the IRS – based on 2008 tax returns – show that the top 1% of income earners paid 38.02% of individual income taxes paid. That’s a lot, but it’s actually a smaller share of the total tax bill than the top 1% paid in 2007. That year they paid 40.42%. We also learn from the IRS that, in 2008, the richest 1% of Americans made 20% of all the adjusted gross income reported. That’s almost twice the 12.75% of total income earned collectively by the lowest-earning 50% of workers. Yes, 1.4 million taxpayers earn 20% of all income reported while 70 million share just 12.75%.

But get this: When it comes to taxes paid, an even wider discrepancy shows itself -- in reverse. Compared with that 38% of taxes paid by the top 1% of earners, the bottom 50% pay just 2.7% of the taxes collected.

These income and tax burden breakdowns come from information reported on 2008 individual income tax returns. Income categories are based on adjusted gross income (AGI), which is basically salary plus investment, rental and business income minus investment losses and expenses such as alimony paid, contributions to retirement plans, moving expenses and a few other costs.

(Note that these figures include only federal income taxes. According to one study, 56% of all wage earners pay more in Social Security and Medicare taxes than they do income tax and the percentage of those paying more payroll tax than income tax soars to 86% if you count both the employer and employee share of Social Security and Medicare taxes.)

For historical perspective, back in 1986, the top 1% of earners reported 11% of all income and paid 26% of the income taxes; the lower-earning 50% made 17% of the income and paid 6% of the nation’s individual income tax bill.

So let's see here. Since 86, the top 1% consolidated near 100% times their wealth, from 11% to 20%. Who was in charge in the 80's? Oh yes, Ronald Reagan. If we kept the same ratio under Reagan today, the top 1% would be paying 47% of all the taxes. But the 2008 taxes show 38%, down from the 40% you keep quoting BTW. So they're almost 10% below Reagan era.

So...where the **** are our jobs? That's the payout right? But instead, we see the wealth gap widen even more as the top keep consolidating power. Economic mobility is shut down, the laws are made to profit the ones at top at the expense of those at the bottom.
 
So you cut taxes and spending across the board! Problem solved. And I am not referring to piddly little "symbolic" cuts either. I mean cutting or gutting most domestic spending.

the rightwingers have NEVER cut spending in the last 110 years. Keep dreaming.
 
wrong, real progress is less rightwing nuttery and a more progressive income tax

when I see someone whining for the rich to pay more taxes I see someone who has conceded he doesn't have what it takes to make it to the top
 
Who gives a **** about who controls what?? They're the risk takers, the investors, the business owners, they should have every right not to have more than 5/6 of their income stolen by the government.

38% is not 5/6. Math, learn it.
 
So let's see here. Since 86, the top 1% consolidated near 100% times their wealth, from 11% to 20%. Who was in charge in the 80's? Oh yes, Ronald Reagan. If we kept the same ratio under Reagan today, the top 1% would be paying 47% of all the taxes. But the 2008 taxes show 38%, down from the 40% you keep quoting BTW. So they're almost 10% below Reagan era.

So...where the **** are our jobs? That's the payout right? But instead, we see the wealth gap widen even more as the top keep consolidating power. Economic mobility is shut down, the laws are made to profit the ones at top at the expense of those at the bottom.

What you fail to understand is the top one or 5% is not a static group

and I am waiting for you to tell us what it would mean if the rich were not getting any richer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom