• 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.
Imagine you own a burger joint. Business is good, and you have your prices set out, and after taxes and business expenses, you end up with a certain amount every year. That is your pay. Now imagine that an existing tax is increased, or some new fee pops, and bam, it now costs you an extra 500 a week to own and operate your business. Are you going to take that hit in your take home pay? No, you are going to pass that cost on to your customer, in the form of menu items going up by a few more cents, across the board. This is not a hard concept.

If
 
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 ****.



Entertaining story, can you tell us the one about Snow White and the Seven Dwarves next???
 
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.

History of the Income Tax in the United States — Infoplease.com

The Progressive Income Tax in U.S. History | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

Tax History Project: Readings -- A Flawed History of American Tax Revolts

This will get you started. Then maybe you'll understand just how wrong you statement is. I doubt you'll read any of this, though. Ignorance is bliss, they say.
 
Imagine you own a burger joint. Business is good, and you have your prices set out, and after taxes and business expenses, you end up with a certain amount every year. That is your pay. Now imagine that an existing tax is increased, or some new fee pops, and bam, it now costs you an extra 500 a week to own and operate your business. Are you going to take that hit in your take home pay? No, you are going to pass that cost on to your customer, in the form of menu items going up by a few more cents, across the board. This is not a hard concept.

If

You know, with one in seven Americans living in poverty, I find it hard to work up a lot of sympathy for those that have over a million dollars in income.
 
Last edited:
Entertaining story, can you tell us the one about Snow White and the Seven Dwarves next???

Sure, right after you actually try to educate yourself about the subject matter you deem have an opinion on worth reading about.
 
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 ****.

Say what you will about sources, but I just happen to love them. In general, I am not a fan of the "take my word for it and if you do not believe it go research it yourself" method. By the way, I literally googled: "History of taxation" and found about 32089432 sources. Here is a good one:

1
The first income tax suggested in the United States was during the War of 1812. The tax was based on the British Tax Act of 1798 and applied progressive rates to income. The rates were .08% on income above £60 and 10 percent on income above £200. The tax was developed in 1814 but was never imposed because the treaty of Ghent was signed in 1815 ending hostilities and the need for additional revenue.

Then, just as you said:

The Tax Act of 1862 was passed and signed by President Lincoln July 1 1862. The rates were 3% on income above $600 and 5% on income above $10,000. The rent or rental value of your home could be deducted from income in determining the tax liability. The Commissioner of Revenue stated "The people of this country have accepted it with cheerfulness, to meet a temporary exigency, and it has excited no serious complaint in its administration." This acceptance was primarily due to the need for revenue to finance the Civil War.

Of course, you missed a small detail. Those taxes were started in America for the first time to fund wars. Earlier, you'll see this:

Taxes during 14th century were very progressive; The 1377 Poll tax noted that the tax on the Duke of Lancaster was 520 times the tax on the common peasant.

And the, if you keep reading below the Civil War, it also becomes evident that the progressive tax system set up for the Civil War was only temporary (which makes sense since it was only to fund the war). So, shortly thereafter, this happened:

With the end of the Civil War the public's accepted cheerfulness with regard to taxation waned. The Tax Act of 1864 was modified after the war. The rates were changed to a flat 5 percent with the exemption amount raised to $1,000. Several attempts to make the tax permanent were tried but by 1869 " no businessman could pass the day without suffering from those burdens"

(The whole "poor business man is suffering" thing sounds pretty familiar, huh?)

And since Google has many sources, it also lead me to this:

2
In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations.

So it took until 1913 for the tax system to be officially ratified. I fail to see your point here. Clearly the tax system was set up at no time near the Civil War, and while it did get some inspiration from the Civil War and the War of 1812, it would be even more historically accurate to say that it was truly inspired from our European ancestors. After the Civil War, we switched back to

Are we done here?

*Edit to add:

I left out the most important part.
3
In 1913, almost 20 years later, the ideas of uniform taxation and equal protection of the law for all citizens were overturned when a constitutional amendment permitting a progressive income tax was ratified. Congress first set the top rate at a mere 7 percent—and married couples were only taxed on income over $4,000 (equivalent to $80,000 today). During the tax debate, William Shelton, a Georgian, supported the income tax “because none of us here have $4,000 incomes, and somebody else will have to pay the tax.” As Madison and Field had feared, the seeds of class warfare were sown in the strategy of different rates for different incomes.

You are both, in essence, right. I do not really see the argument. You can see right there from that quote that Catawba is also easily correct as the newest and most relevant tax system was set up so that the rich would have to pay the highest burden and the poor would not be affected as much.
 
Last edited:
History of the Income Tax in the United States — Infoplease.com

The Progressive Income Tax in U.S. History | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

Tax History Project: Readings -- A Flawed History of American Tax Revolts

This will get you started. Then maybe you'll understand just how wrong you statement is. I doubt you'll read any of this, though. Ignorance is bliss, they say.

Are you familiar with the way the rule of law works in this country? Like most Americans, I happen to believe in the rule of law. So just let me know when the Supreme Court has ruled income taxes unconstitutional. Thanks!
 
Imagine you own a burger joint. Business is good, and you have your prices set out, and after taxes and business expenses, you end up with a certain amount every year. That is your pay. Now imagine that an existing tax is increased, or some new fee pops, and bam, it now costs you an extra 500 a week to own and operate your business. Are you going to take that hit in your take home pay? No, you are going to pass that cost on to your customer, in the form of menu items going up by a few more cents, across the board. This is not a hard concept.

If

Sorry, not that simple. A company can not simply pass its taxes along to the consumer. Prices are established by supply and demand curves. People will only pay so much for a burger... your taxes go up, you can try to raise prices, but it may not work. The burger joint across the street will have a different tax scenario.. he may not be paying taxes because he is a start-up, so he has not need to raise his prices, so people go there and the first joint is forced to match the price (and thus eat all of the tax). If businesses could just set their price, they would, but they can not. Market conditions dictate price.

There is an economic concept called the "Incidence of Tax". It deals which portion of a tax change is actually paid by the customer and which portion is absorbed by the business. The supply/demand curves dictate this allocation. If the product is highly inelastic (price increases result in more revenue as customers are not driven away with increase... gasoline is an example of this), then the tax can be passed along. On the other hand, if the product is highly elastic, then then raising prices result in so many customers not buying that the business actually has less revenue (airline tickets are generally highly elastic)..

You can generally pass cost and tax increases along when your company deals in inelastic products, but you will generally eat the taxes if your product is elastic.
 
Last edited:
Say what you will about sources, but I just happen to love them. In general, I am not a fan of the "take my word for it and if you do not believe it go research it yourself" method. By the way, I literally googled: "History of taxation" and found about 32089432 sources. Here is a good one:

1


Then, just as you said:



Of course, you missed a small detail. Those taxes were started in America for the first time to fund wars. Earlier, you'll see this:



And the, if you keep reading below the Civil War, it also becomes evident that the progressive tax system set up for the Civil War was only temporary (which makes sense since it was only to fund the war). So, shortly thereafter, this happened:



(The whole "poor business man is suffering" thing sounds pretty familiar, huh?)

And since Google has many sources, it also lead me to this:

2


So it took until 1913 for the tax system to be officially ratified. I fail to see your point here. Clearly the tax system was set up at no time near the Civil War, and while it did get some inspiration from the Civil War and the War of 1812, it would be even more historically accurate to say that it was truly inspired from our European ancestors. After the Civil War, we switched back to

Are we done here?

*Edit to add:

I left out the most important part.
3


You are both, in essence, right. I do not really see the argument.

I'm really not getting your point...you are pretty much backing up everything I have to say. I'll add, though...in addition to "the poor business man not being able to make ends meat", they were also denied by violent protest and minor revolts. Which is why the "poor" business man was no longer targeted...but the wealthy instead. I don't really care what happend in the 14th century, as might have been gleaned from the fact I asked to be versed in the history of the 16th amendment, not tax history in general. The purpose to which, to find out the real reason why the progressive tax targeted who it did.
 
Are you familiar with the way the rule of law works in this country? Like most Americans, I happen to believe in the rule of law. So just let me know when the Supreme Court has ruled income taxes unconstitutional. Thanks!

Read the second link I provided for you, smart guy. The supreme court DID throw down the progressive income tax, numerous times, on account that it unfairly targets and DISCRIMINATES against a minority of people. The only reason why it eventually got through is, guess who appoints the supreme court justices? Simple matter to appoint folks who are not going to challenge the law as it's passed....and once it's been in for a while, it's VERY hard to get rid of. But of course, being the expert you are, you probably already knew all of this, right?
 
Sorry, not that simple. A company can not simply pass its taxes along to the consumer. Prices are established by supply and demand curves. People will only pay so much for a burger... your taxes go up, you can try to raise prices, but it may not work. The burger joint across the street will have a different tax scenario.. he may not be paying taxes because he is a start-up, so he has not need to raise his prices, so people go there and the first joint is forced to match the price (and thus eat all of the tax). If businesses could just set their price, they would, but they can not. Market conditions dictate price.

There is an economic concept called the "Incidence of Tax". It deals which portion of a tax change is actually paid by the customer and which portion is absorbed by the business. The supply/demand curves dictate this allocation. If the product is highly inelastic (price increases result in more revenue as customers are not driven away with increase... gasoline is an example of this), then the tax can be passed along. On the other hand, if the product is highly elastic, then then raising prices result in so many customers not buying that the business actually has less revenue (airline tickets are generally highly elastic)..

You can generally pass cost and tax increases along when your company deals in inelastic products, but you will generally eat the taxes if your product is elastic.

I'm trying to simplify this concept in order to get people to understand that rising operating costs generally equals rising product costs. Please try to bare with me.
 
I'm really not getting your point...you are pretty much backing up everything I have to say. I'll add, though...in addition to "the poor business man not being able to make ends meat", they were also denied by violent protest and minor revolts. Which is why the "poor" business man was no longer targeted...but the wealthy instead. I don't really care what happend in the 14th century, as might have been gleaned from the fact I asked to be versed in the history of the 16th amendment, not tax history in general. The purpose to which, to find out the real reason why the progressive tax targeted who it did.

Oh, you want to talk about history but only the history you want to talk about. That's great, man. I love that you think I proved your point, showing your reading comprehension to be lacking. Yes, a progressive tax was proposed to fund the War of 1812 and one was implemented for the Civil War. But there were previous progressive taxes in Europe centuries before (you know, the place that almost every politician in the United States originated from). Not to mention, as I showed, the progressive tax was scrapped after the Civil War and switched to a flat tax. It was years later when the Progressive Tax was reimplemented because, as the politician said, "because none of us here have $4,000 incomes, and somebody else will have to pay the tax."

What exactly would you take his words to mean? You want to talk history, but you only want to talk about one instance of it. That's not history, that's you pointing at one time in history emphatically and expecting others to give a ****.
 
Read the second link I provided for you, smart guy. The supreme court DID throw down the progressive income tax, numerous times, on account that it unfairly targets and DISCRIMINATES against a minority of people. The only reason why it eventually got through is, guess who appoints the supreme court justices? Simple matter to appoint folks who are not going to challenge the law as it's passed....and once it's been in for a while, it's VERY hard to get rid of. But of course, being the expert you are, you probably already knew all of this, right?

Oh man. I really want you to back these statements up (especially the one about why it "got through"). Good luck.
 
I'm trying to simplify this concept in order to get people to understand that rising operating costs generally equals rising product costs. Please try to bare with me.


Ok, to be more direct, you are not correct that raising taxes means a business raises prices and the consumer pays those taxes. Income taxes are not an operating costs, rather they are costs unique to the form of the organization of a business. A business operator can not simply pass his income taxes to his customer because he wants to make more money.
 
Last edited:
Read the second link I provided for you, smart guy. The supreme court DID throw down the progressive income tax, numerous times, on account that it unfairly targets and DISCRIMINATES against a minority of people. The only reason why it eventually got through is, guess who appoints the supreme court justices? Simple matter to appoint folks who are not going to challenge the law as it's passed....and once it's been in for a while, it's VERY hard to get rid of. But of course, being the expert you are, you probably already knew all of this, right?

Look, income taxes have been the rule of law in this country for almost a hundred years, under both political parties, and held to be Constitutional by the Supreme Court. However, if you feel your personal interpretation trumps that of the Supreme Court, simply don't pay your income taxes and instead send the IRS a letter explaining that your interpretation of the Constitution trumps that of the Supreme Court.

Best of luck!
 
Taxes were both higher for the rich and spending was lower. If we wish to reduce our debt, that is what we will have to get closer to.

That's right. But there is no indication from this White House that they will lower spending at all. Instead BHO intends to increase it by another half a trillion dollars.
 
That's right. But there is no indication from this White House that they will lower spending at all. Instead BHO intends to increase it by another half a trillion dollars.

Obama offered $3 dollars in spending cuts for every $1 dollar of tax increases and the GOP walked away from it.
However, there is still much pressure from both parties now to cut our most wasteful spending, our bloated military spending (that is almost as much as the rest of the world combined) and our optional wars, and to increase revenue by eliminating tax breaks for the wealthiest. The FICA cap will have to be raised to make SS solvent for the long term, and we will eventually have to go to a single payer system, as the rest of the industrialized world has done to get our health care costs under control. We see the people in the streets now demanding these things become priorities.
 
Do they ask if you've ever attended a protest? Are they allowed to discriminate in hiring in this way?

No they won't ask that but they will ask questions that will determine whether or not someone supports the business they are interviewing for.
 
Conserv, I respect your opinion but honestly, there would be no protests if people were able to go out and find jobs. 35 years ago you could start a decent career straight from high school, if you graduated college, you had some very good prospects. Nowadays you graduate with a Masters and can't find employment. I graduated, worked at a very good Brokerage firm and did well until it went belly up. I was unemployed for about 5 months while searching for another job and (thankfully) I found one. I can completely sympathize with people just out of college unable to find work.

I do think your perspective is totally relevant and true....35 years ago but it's a little condescending as unemployment rates among the younger age groups is much higher than the rest of the population to act like they should just go out and get a job.

Aw, such compassion and sympathy for protesters who have no chance of getting a job acting the way they act. Ever wonder what these people actually do that they have the time to spend all day protesting something that isn't going to change a thing? Attitude and personal responsibility are everything and the only thing you are entitled to is equal opportunity, NOT equal outcome.

People need to think about their future instead of doing simply what they want to do. Getting a graduate degree is great but not if it doesn't lead to a future job opportunity. The difference between today and 35 years ago is attitude and accepting personal responsibility then and not now. 35 years ago I aspired to be one of those evil rich people that people are jealous of and achieved that goal by hard work and dedication. Now some here want to punish that success. Why do you believe that the govt. knows what is the best way to spend personal income?
 
People need to think about their future instead of doing simply what they want to do. Getting a graduate degree is great but not if it doesn't lead to a future job opportunity. The difference between today and 35 years ago is attitude and accepting personal responsibility then and not now. 35 years ago I aspired to be one of those evil rich people that people are jealous of and achieved that goal by hard work and dedication. Now some here want to punish that success. Why do you believe that the govt. knows what is the best way to spend personal income?

I helped you out there.
 
Do you mean to tell me that taking questionable mortgaged backed securities and having one of the rating firms rate these as AAA is not a SCAM??? How about using computers to make millions of trades per second. How about using the commodities markets to speculate rather than used as tool for businesses to plan future business?

Innovative creative people are going to find a way to make money but that is a very small percentage of the population yet you want to punish the entire group because of the actions of a few as you have sympathy for those that signed their names on the bottomline. Where does personaly responsibility lie in your world on both sides?
 
I thought you might be at least fairly intelligent and now I know you are just arrogant, let me help you again she is a "doctor" she would have to look in the mirror and fire herself, she worked hard mostly putting herself through school it took her twelve years to achieve her doctrate. Unlike you she is a real American who knows that it is our differences that make us a great nation. She knows it's not a flashy car or a 6 bedroom house that determines the value of a person. Your superior condescending attitude says all that is needed to be said about you.

The occupy wall street protestors will determine the out come of the 2012 elections, please repeat for me what you think about the demonstrators

Most don't have a clue why they are there and are being manipulated by a group of individuals bent on the destruction of the capitalistic system. What they is destroyed then what? Has your daughter thought that far out?
 
You didn't answer a simple question,

"Since you felt Clinton was to blame this would indicate that you have the realization that it was a bad thing, no?"

Clinton is to blame as much as Bush is to blame, thanks for accepting that
 
Personally I think that the conservatives put out the idea to decrease government just because they want to save the super rich. I think that the super rich got scared because they were actually going to have to pay their fair share.
 
You are the one always accusing others of citing trite talking points. Now, sir, you are the guilty party. This 47% paying no income tax is a favorite of Hannity. Its an effective sound bite, but its so easy for someone with a little intelligence to peel back the veneer.

Lets start with the misstatement that 47% of income earners pay no taxes. Its not income earners, but households. Income earners are a subset of households. Households include the unemployed, retired persons, the disabled and even entrepreneurs (those that are starting small businesses that have no income... of which, BTW, I am one)

Let's go to step two, which requires some understanding of income taxes, which unfortunately very few people understand (including most people currently in this debate). In the 30+ years that I have been somewhat knowledgeable about income taxation (since earning my CPA), income taxes have been focused on discretionary income, not wage income. This is why we have exemptions, standard deductions and credits... so that individuals and families have the income needed for their basic necessities exempt from taxation. The fact that 47% of households have no income liability means that 47% of American households have no discretionary income.

Sorry, but the lower income group has been disproportionately hit by this recession. You want them to pay more taxes, then fix the economy... not just the recession, but the economy that has increasingly favored the very wealthy over the working class in the distribution of the nation's wealth. This Mexicifaction of America trend, if not corrected, will lead to the collapse of our system.





I'm not certain of your point in all this. Do you think this group of people actually is actually stockpiling money? Do you think raising their taxes will move that money from their large bank accounts to fix our deficit issue? Have you ever tried raising a family on $50,000 per year (today's money)? Don't you realize they already pay a much, much higher percentage of their income in sales, payroll tax and use tax then those that have actually done well in this economy? Sorry, but your "let's get blood from a stone" rant is somewhere between ignorant to immoral.View attachment 67116471

Do you have a problem with basic facts, Federal Income taxes fund the major portion of the Federal Govt. period and that is what 47% of the INCOME EARNERS aren't paying. Get back to me when you figure that out? Do you think that lower income people should pay something to the govt? There are over 65 million WORKING Americans paying nothing. Imagine $100 or more a year from those 65 million. Until you address that reality none of your charts have any meaning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom