• 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!

White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

Status
Not open for further replies.
the value of those gifts would normally not qualify for an estate tax.

Again, not yet. But again, history shows us that giving a mouse a cookie results in it asking for a glass of milk. And uncle sam doesn't ask, he demands. Once upon a time, therre was no income tax. Then there was. Then it became permanent. Then it went from 2% to the rates it is at now.

My house today is worth maybe 180,000. Two years ago, when I bought it, I got it for 145,000. 45 years ago, this same house likely sold for 10 grand, or so. Imagine it's value, then, in another 45 years.
 
stop your bloodclot lying

I post early in the morning-maybe a couple posts per week during lunch and at night

Are you using a company computer to post at lunch time?

usually after 7 though I took a couple hours of leave today and started earlier

Be honest did you join the occupy demonstrators? Inquiring minds want to know
 
It was progressive the purpose wasn't to raise capital. It was the fact you basically had a US aristocracy forming and that was considered anti-Democratic. Drive through Rhode Island and check out the row of mansions that belonged to the moneyed class of the robber baron period. Most of these mansions were built by heir and heriess of mega fortunes that were passed down generations.

I'm sorry, but when you have lots of capital it's realitively easy to gain more capital at a quick rate. Just the law of compound interests can prove that.

the dubious social engineering arguments for the death tax completely evaporated when the 16th Amendment was passed and massive confiscatory progressive tax rates were imposed at federal and state level
 
Are you using a company computer to post at lunch time?



Be honest did you join the occupy demonstrators? Inquiring minds want to know

I live SW Ohio

I can post on personal time. Do you have a job Earl?
 
Again, not yet. But again, history shows us that giving a mouse a cookie results in it asking for a glass of milk. And uncle sam doesn't ask, he demands. Once upon a time, therre was no income tax. Then there was. Then it became permanent. Then it went from 2% to the rates it is at now.

My house today is worth maybe 180,000. Two years ago, when I bought it, I got it for 145,000. 45 years ago, this same house likely sold for 10 grand, or so. Imagine it's value, then, in another 45 years.

If jobs continue to leave the USA and the countries wealth continues upward your home will be worth less in 45 years
 
Again, not yet. But again, history shows us that giving a mouse a cookie results in it asking for a glass of milk. And uncle sam doesn't ask, he demands. Once upon a time, therre was no income tax. Then there was. Then it became permanent. Then it went from 2% to the rates it is at now.

My house today is worth maybe 180,000. Two years ago, when I bought it, I got it for 145,000. 45 years ago, this same house likely sold for 10 grand, or so. Imagine it's value, then, in another 45 years.

the scumbags who pushed the income tax said it was temporary. one of the biggest pushers for the income tax were the prohibitionists. They pushed for an income tax because the government's main revenue source was excise taxes on "spirits"
 
the dubious social engineering arguments for the death tax completely evaporated when the 16th Amendment was passed and massive confiscatory progressive tax rates were imposed at federal and state level

If progressive tax rate were confiscatory why have the wealthiest Americans seen the highest rates of growth in wealth?
 
If progressive tax rate were confiscatory why have the wealthiest Americans seen the highest rates of growth in wealth?

because of many things that include

1) the changing economy that rewards high intelligence and high technical skills

2) it takes money to make money and if I make 1.5 million a year and only spend 100K (not counting 375K in taxes) I have about a million a year to invest which I do and that makes me more money.

3) the welfare state discourages lots of people from being competitive

4) the welfare state encourages much irresponsible and counter=productive behavior
 
because of many things that include

1) the changing economy that rewards high intelligence and high technical skills

2) it takes money to make money and if I make 1.5 million a year and only spend 100K (not counting 375K in taxes) I have about a million a year to invest which I do and that makes me more money.

3) the welfare state discourages lots of people from being competitive

4) the welfare state encourages much irresponsible and counter=productive behavior
1) has always been the claim of why the wealthy are wealthy
2)Of course, which is the argument for estate taxes, the passing down of fortunes and a permanant moneyed class in America....ala European aristocracy
3) and 4) Not really getting you here. I think you're saying less competition for a smaller group of Americans is causing the concentration? When the largest wealth was gained by the top we had some of the lowest historical unemployment rates in history.
 
I live SW Ohio

I can post on personal time. Do you have a job Earl?

I am retired drawing two pensions and SS I am really bored I would love to go to work any where is your company hiring, I could relocate and we could go hunting together, don't worry unlike VP Cheney I do not drink or do drugs
 
1) has always been the claim of why the wealthy are wealthy
2)Of course, which is the argument for estate taxes, the passing down of fortunes and a permanant moneyed class in America....ala European aristocracy
3) and 4) Not really getting you here. I think you're saying less competition for a smaller group of Americans is causing the concentration? When the largest wealth was gained by the top we had some of the lowest historical unemployment rates in history.

one of the main reasons why I am rather reserved in my spending, why I drive an 11 year old car with 155K on it rather than buy one every year is because I want to give my son a better life than I have had. Sorry if the parasites don't like that.

You have no righteous claim on what I have earned and your existence has contributed NOTHING to my wealth. I don't expect you to pay for me or mine so I have no use for you acting as if I should pay for you or yours
 
I am retired drawing two pensions and SS I am really bored I would love to go to work any where is your company hiring, I could relocate and we could go hunting together, don't worry unlike VP Cheney I do not drink or do drugs

the last guy my office hired was the #1 student at MSU who graduated in the top 15 of his class at Harvard Law

you have that sort of resume?
 
one of the main reasons why I am rather reserved in my spending, why I drive an 11 year old car with 155K on it rather than buy one every year is because I want to give my son a better life than I have had. Sorry if the parasites don't like that.

You have no righteous claim on what I have earned and your existence has contributed NOTHING to my wealth. I don't expect you to pay for me or mine so I have no use for you acting as if I should pay for you or yours
Why are you personalizing this.
I don't want nor need your money.
 
If jobs continue to leave the USA and the countries wealth continues upward your home will be worth less in 45 years

Actually, as wages begin to rise in place like China and India, some of those manufacturing jobs are already starting to come back to the US. Even if wages are not equal to US wages, the cost of shipping more than makes up for the difference, especially with the volatility in oil prices and futures.
 
the last guy my office hired was the #1 student at MSU who graduated in the top 15 of his class at Harvard Law

you have that sort of resume?

No But I finished as the number one 112 on post "Fort Campbell" and was drawing proficiency pay before the age of 18 in my mos "trained killer" I could shoot the wings off of a flying mosquito from 100 yards and drop a 81mm mortar round in a peach basket from 500 yards in two shots, I was also the first Viet Nam combat vet to serve with the United States Honor Guard, also I was picked over 150 others to head up my companies maintenance department. Not bad for a high school drop out what do you think? I am not afraid of heights so I can do windows or I don't mind doing janitoral or yard type work and because I am retired I don't need a high salary and I do not smell, plus I am rather handy with automobiles I have two one 22 years old and my new one is 10 years old. Hire me and you won't have to worry about peed off liberals
 
I have not. Maybe YOU should look into it sometime. Do a quick google search about the history of the 16th amendment. Maybe you'll learn something in the process that you didn't already know. Making it no longer a waste of time.

I am familiar with the rule of law in this country. Do you have some point to make???
 
I am familiar with the rule of law in this country. Do you have some point to make???

When someone tells you to research a topic for them, it usually means they have no real understanding of their own argument. Otherwise, why would he not pull that amendment up real quick (it would take two seconds), link to it, highlight the part he wants you to know, and win the argument right then?

Because he can't.
 
No But I finished as the number one 112 on post "Fort Campbell" and was drawing proficiency pay before the age of 18 in my mos "trained killer" I could shoot the wings off of a flying mosquito from 100 yards and drop a 81mm mortar round in a peach basket from 500 yards in two shots, I was also the first Viet Nam combat vet to serve with the United States Honor Guard, also I was picked over 150 others to head up my companies maintenance department. Not bad for a high school drop out what do you think? I am not afraid of heights so I can do windows or I don't mind doing janitoral or yard type work and because I am retired I don't need a high salary and I do not smell, plus I am rather handy with automobiles I have two one 22 years old and my new one is 10 years old. Hire me and you won't have to worry about peed off liberals

Do you do wiring harnesses? I need to replace the dash and chassis harness in my vette, but am loath to do it, because of how awful it's going to be.
 
employed professionals aren't the ones out there smelling like something out of the swamp

You don't consider a doctor (Earl's daughter) to be a professional?
 
When someone tells you to research a topic for them, it usually means they have no real understanding of their own argument. Otherwise, why would he not pull that amendment up real quick (it would take two seconds), link to it, highlight the part he wants you to know, and win the argument right then?

Because he can't.

You're jumping in a little late, but just because I'm nice, I'll fill you in, and then maybe Catawba will better understand my point. I asked this...

"Have you ever known a person to settle for making less, if they have the clear and easy means to make more?"

Catawba answered thus...

"Yes, that is why the country adopted progressive tax rates in the first place, to prevent a few robber barons from owning the country."

To which I responded...

"No, it was started to fund the civil war. The "progressive" part began when extracting a flat tax no longer sufficed for the ever expanding budget. It was decided to take more from wealthier people ONLY because they feared a second uprising like the one they experienced after announcing that the then "war time" tax on income would remain in effect, despite there being no war. And since there are usually far more non rich than rich...they opted to tick off the lesser of the two threats. History. It's not just for historians anymore."

And Catawba said...


"Obviously, as you have abandoned the historian's perspective to just make up your own."

At which point I suggested maybe he research the HISTORY of the 16th amendment, to better understand how I am most certainly NOT abandoning the historians perspective just to make up my own. I did not say to read what it says, but to look up the history of the thing. And no, it would NOT be a simple copy and paste, it would have been a wall of text, if I had done so, and no one would have read it, because people tend not to read things that take longer than 5 minutes on debate forums. So, next time you want to jump into something, maybe take a peak first, otherwise you might end up in ****.
 
No President spends a dime without Congress and it is Congressional oversight which has failed us as well. I don't buy the 2.3 trillion claim as that is more money than has been spent on the wars. Typical liberal BS is to blame the military and ignore things like the War on Poverty. You think the "waste" in the military has caused the trillions wasted on poverty programs? There is so much waste in the govt. and the military isn't exempt but the military is the focus of the liberals.

Did you even watch the clip? Rumsfield was speaking in 2001 and the war didn't begin in Iraq until March 2003.

The better question is whether you read what I wrote? I never suggested the $2.3 Trillion missing money was spent on Iraq. I even pointed out that this was taken out of the newscycle by 911. Now I realize that posting to DP at the rate of 34 posts means you really can't read and comprehend the posts you are arguing, so I can certainly understand how you missed my point. Allow me to re-state.

I was suggesting that our rampant, unchecked military spending managed to lose $2 Trillion by 2001... THEN we started a war that had a direct cost of $1T and a total estimated cost (direct and indirect) of $3T. Those two items alone add up to $5T, or 1/3 of the existing debt. Then there is the $500B overspend we do each year.

I also did not blame a particular president for military spending being out of control, so pointing out congress has a role in this is moot to my argument, so your answer #4B does not work here (check to see if #5A is more pertinent). My argument stands.... our defense budget is wrought with waste and fraud. I doubt you can cite any other government budget that just misplaces $2T.

You wanted liberal outrage about rampant government waste and fraud.... you got it.
 
Last edited:
I am familiar with the rule of law in this country. Do you have some point to make???

I am not asking you to be familiar with the rule of law, I am asking you to be familiar with the history of it. If you want to back up your assertion that I have "made up history", then now would be the time.

As to my point, it is simply that taxing the people that own the means of production is not going to help the common man. it is going to increase the living expenses, and possibly decrease employment. Wealthy business owners didn't get to where they are at by accepting sub par standards, and tolerating unfavorable compromises. They are not going to resing themselves to less income every year because their income tax rate increased, they are going to fold that increase into the cost of their business, which is going to be redeemed by increasing the cost of the goods are services their business provides. That is how it's always been. It's why **** costs more today than it did 40 years ago.
 
The better question is whether you read what I wrote? I never suggested the $2.3 Trillion missing money was spent on Iraq. I even pointed out that this was taken out of the newscycle by 911. Now I realize that posting to DP at the rate of 34 posts means you really can't read and comprehend the posts you are arguing, so I can certainly understand how you missed my point. Allow me to re-state.

I was suggesting that our rampant, unchecked military spending managed to lose $2 Trillion by 2001... THEN we started a war that had a direct cost of $1T and an estimated indirect cost of $3. Those two items add up to $5T, or 1/3 of the existing debt. Then there is the $500B overspend we do each year.

I also did not blame a particular president for military spending being out of control, so pointing out congress has a role in this is moot to my argument. The argument stands.... our defense budget is wrought with waste and fraud. I doubt you can cite any other government budget that just misplaces $2T.

You wanted liberal outrage about rampant government waste and fraud.... you got it.

The real outrage is when you come to realize this business continues, no matter who you vote into the various offices.
 
1) has always been the claim of why the wealthy are wealthy
2)Of course, which is the argument for estate taxes, the passing down of fortunes and a permanant moneyed class in America....ala European aristocracy
3) and 4) Not really getting you here. I think you're saying less competition for a smaller group of Americans is causing the concentration? When the largest wealth was gained by the top we had some of the lowest historical unemployment rates in history.

Just as we had in the Great Depression so that that we had to implement progressive taxation to allow consumers enough money to spend to stimulate the economy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom