• 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 Seeks to End Tax Breaks to Pay for Jobs Plan

You know, I really do tend to read links which tend to support a position taken but they should be serious and unbiased. Such is not the case with the link you sent. When snarky comments are included with whatever points they are trying to make then it should be disqualified for serious consideration.

I gave you a few links from different places. But as I keep telling people, bias means nothing. It is accuracy that counts. I only discount a source when it becomes inaccurate. Forbes, for example, is biased, but often accurate. Same with WSJ. If you can show something is inaccurate, please do.
 
You know, I really do tend to read links which tend to support a position taken but they should be serious and unbiased. Such is not the case with the link you sent. When snarky comments are included with whatever points they are trying to make then it should be disqualified for serious consideration.

A few more:

One is that rich economies seem to provide disproportionate and growing returns to the already wealthy

Should the government do more to close the gap between rich and poor? | The Economist

But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride. Monopolies and near monopolies have always been a source of economic power—from John D. Rockefeller at the beginning of the last century to Bill Gates at the end.

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% | Society | Vanity Fair

The Top 10 Tax Breaks -- And How They Help The Wealthy The Most
The Top 10 Tax Breaks -- And How They Help The Wealthy The Most
 
By all means feel free to show this in significant numbers. Would you like to see some of the destruction around the world? hows that clean water thing doing everywhere?

"Significant numbers" is very much the same as "fair". Unfortunately, both are whatver you want it to be. One can not disprove your opinion here.
 
"Significant numbers" is very much the same as "fair". Unfortunately, both are whatver you want it to be. One can not disprove your opinion here.

Something that happens once is not siginficant. Say we're talking about gun safety. If something is over done by one person, that doesn't make it a problem. As we've seen, you can someone somewhere doing almost anything stupid that can be thought of. But that doesn't make it a national problem. There has to be some standard other than Bob did it so we have to assume it is everywhere.
 
Worrying "about it as much as they would here" is very unlikely as the US has become paranoid to the extreme. We all want clean water, etc. but the lengths the US has gone to puts people out of work and does no real good in the long run. When the possibility of a bird's nest being disturbed causes an entire shut down, or regulations become so stifling that human interaction is made difficult, then you know that that a bridge has been crossed which makes business, and life in general, just too difficult.
If your job threats our ecosystem, you have a crappy job and you should lose it. Our ecosystem is far more important than someone's crappy job.

BTW, no one is proposing regulations anywhere close to what you're concerned about above. But keep in mind, it was the lack of appropiate regulations that created the meltdown we just scraped out of. Having politicials again request we lower government regulation borders on insanity imo.

But here we are hearing Cons do just that. You can't make this up.
 
Look, I am not asking to take up a collection for CEOs. Just trying to point out that the bonus income is taxed at the highest marginal rate, not the long term capital gains rate that you presumed. Sorry if the facts do not fit a partisan position. I thought you just had the facts wrong, thus my response. If you just want a political argument rather than deal in fact I probably should not have responded in the first place.


Maybe you should have read my post a bit more thoroughly; if you had you would have noticed that this part of my post I THOUGHT covered exec compensation when I showed his bonus/stock options $11,358,445.I assumed that he would be keeping his stock for a while, surely a CEO wouldn't want stockholders seeing him dumping it.


This part of your post kinda perked me up though “When you start talking about "wealthy" that becomes an interesting term. “

Do you think that someone that makes per year “$11,358,445 “wealthy? Do you think that someone that makes $1,093,989 in salary and pays his full social security in about six weeks is poor? I don’t.:2wave:
 
It's $200k per individual and $250k per household -- nothing new there.

This is a perfectly reasonable way to pay for the plan.

Maybe you are not considering that the rich will then leave this country and the oil companies will just pass the loss in capital gains due to more taxes onto the people buying the oil. This is a terrible plan that doesn't even look good if you judge it by it's cover.
 
Maybe you should have read my post a bit more thoroughly; if you had you would have noticed that this part of my post I THOUGHT covered exec compensation when I showed his bonus/stock options $11,358,445.I assumed that he would be keeping his stock for a while, surely a CEO wouldn't want stockholders seeing him dumping it.


This part of your post kinda perked me up though “When you start talking about "wealthy" that becomes an interesting term. “

Do you think that someone that makes per year “$11,358,445 “wealthy? Do you think that someone that makes $1,093,989 in salary and pays his full social security in about six weeks is poor? I don’t.:2wave:

First the easy one. CEOs of large firms are wealthy. Not all couples who make over $250K per year as Obama keeps ranting.

The to your first point. On this you are absolutely wrong. It is very infrequent that any corporate exec actually pays for a stock option and sits on it. Also you lump bonus money in with stock options. Bonus payments are always taxed as ordinary income whether paid in stock or cash.

This is pretty basic stuff.
 
Maybe you are not considering that the rich will then leave this country and the oil companies will just pass the loss in capital gains due to more taxes onto the people buying the oil. This is a terrible plan that doesn't even look good if you judge it by it's cover.

What country do you think they would go that would be better for them tax-wise?Not to mention the politicians in there pocket.
 
Maybe you are not considering that the rich will then leave this country and the oil companies will just pass the loss in capital gains due to more taxes onto the people buying the oil. This is a terrible plan that doesn't even look good if you judge it by it's cover.

As long as they leave and stay gone that's fine with me. The oil thing too, we need better solutions, and that would provide the impetus.

Better than living with the "Better do what they want or we're ****ed bull**** you just repeated.

The moneys all imaginary. They can't take the actual potatos, and we could just reissue the money. Maybe blue this time.

Its all a game, why do you think they keep saying they need to stay "competitive"?
 
I gave you a few links from different places. But as I keep telling people, bias means nothing. It is accuracy that counts. I only discount a source when it becomes inaccurate. Forbes, for example, is biased, but often accurate. Same with WSJ. If you can show something is inaccurate, please do.

In fact I have no idea whether they are accurate or not because what you sent was inserting snide comments in whatever opinions they were expressing. It was obviously an opinion piece and whether these opinions were based on facts, distorted facts, or incomplete facts, I cannot say.
 
Last edited:
A few more:

One is that rich economies seem to provide disproportionate and growing returns to the already wealthy

Should the government do more to close the gap between rich and poor? | The Economist

But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride. Monopolies and near monopolies have always been a source of economic power—from John D. Rockefeller at the beginning of the last century to Bill Gates at the end.

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% | Society | Vanity Fair

The Top 10 Tax Breaks -- And How They Help The Wealthy The Most
The Top 10 Tax Breaks -- And How They Help The Wealthy The Most

What you're doing here is listing the taxes not paid but not taxes actually paid.

List who pays what and you'd find that who pays most of the taxes in the United States.

The President of the United States is either a fool or a liar, some would say both, but for once the mainstream media is willing to set the record straight.

From the Associated Press.

President Barack Obama says he wants to make sure millionaires are taxed at higher rates than their secretaries. The data say they already are. . . .

On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office. . . .

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.
 
If your job threats our ecosystem, you have a crappy job and you should lose it. Our ecosystem is far more important than someone's crappy job.

BTW, no one is proposing regulations anywhere close to what you're concerned about above. But keep in mind, it was the lack of appropiate regulations that created the meltdown we just scraped out of. Having politicials again request we lower government regulation borders on insanity imo.

But here we are hearing Cons do just that. You can't make this up.

Well you have made your choice and those "crappy jobs" are disappearing rapidly while the 'ecosystem' remains indifferent.

Prohibiting children from selling lemonade, or prohibiting people from offering free coffee, may help the bureaucracy but it's still not clear how this helps the average American. But although lemonade sales may be in trouble, Kool Aid seems to be doing a brisk business.
 
As long as they leave and stay gone that's fine with me. The oil thing too, we need better solutions, and that would provide the impetus.

Better than living with the "Better do what they want or we're ****ed bull**** you just repeated.

The moneys all imaginary. They can't take the actual potatos, and we could just reissue the money. Maybe blue this time.

Its all a game, why do you think they keep saying they need to stay "competitive"?

No oil, no electricity and no more nuclear power plants. Although BHO says he's going to build roads and bridges it seems the cars running on them had better have a little propeller on top to keep them moving. Beanie cars.

It wont even do any good to rub two sticks together to try and cook a meat and fat free meal. Cutting trees has fallen out of favor as well.
 
Show over-regulation? Sure. Haven't you heard about it?

http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs264tot.pdf

It’s Official; Supermajority Thinks We’re Over-Regulated


You want me to comment on water supplies everywhere?

OK, let's look at what you gave here. The first one merely says small business carries more of the burden. It doesn't say a lot at all about whether the regulations are appropriate or not. If you assume cost ALONE makes something unreasonable, I dispute that.

The second one is merely what a lot of people think. A majority can be just as right or WRONG as any individual. So, that really tells us nothing at all. Again, I seek something that speaks to the whether the actual regualtions are unreasonable. It may well be expensive to see that we are not poisoned, but I would prefer that expense to people actually risking being poisoned.
 
What you're doing here is listing the taxes not paid but not taxes actually paid.

List who pays what and you'd find that who pays most of the taxes in the United States.

The President of the United States is either a fool or a liar, some would say both, but for once the mainstream media is willing to set the record straight.

Pays for what they benefit from. Read all the links.
 
In fact I have no idea whether they are accurate or not because what you sent was inserting snide comments in whatever opinions they were expressing. It was obviously an opinion piece and whether these opinions were based on facts, distorted facts, or incomplete facts, I cannot say.

:lamo :lamo :lamo You should first try and find out if they are accurate. ;)
 
:lamo :lamo :lamo You should first try and find out if they are accurate. ;)

No, you should submit links which you know to be accurate and not opinion pieces. I 'm just not interested in checking your submissions for accuracy, That should be done beforehand.
 
No, you should submit links which you know to be accurate and not opinion pieces. I 'm just not interested in checking your submissions for accuracy, That should be done beforehand.

Nothing wrong with opinion, as long as it is grounded in accurate support. This is a mistake too many make. I submit it is accurate. Can you show otherwise?
 
Back
Top Bottom