• 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.
pbrauer said:
Why would anyone pay more taxes than are required, that's just plain stupid?

(Get you whacks in early since this thread is so close to the 2K mark. Redress is likely to put this thread out of it's misery when she logs into DP today. :mrgreen:}
Click to expand...

That is the liberal logic, if you think taxes aren't high enough and the govt. needs more revenue then do your civic duty and send in more money. Liberals however want to spread their misery equally to everyone else thus you never will see a liberal put their money where their mouth is. Buffet is fighting taxes on his business while promoting higher taxes on everyone else. That is hypocritical.
 
Jryan said:
Lobbyist can be good. The ones that are bad are the ones that are payed millions of dollars by big corporations. The intention of lobbyist was used and is abused by our current system.
Click to expand...

LOL, yes, of course but lobbyists promoting Green energy and stealing taxpayer money like Solyndra are good, right?
 
Jryan said:
Lobbyist can be good. The ones that are bad are the ones that are payed millions of dollars by big corporations. The intention of lobbyist was used and is abused by our current system.
Click to expand...
It's best to keep them all out, because who is to say what is "bad" and what is "good"? Way to subjective and prone to corruption and crony-ism.
 
(Get you whacks in early since this thread is so close to the 2K mark. Redress is likely to put this thread out of it's misery when she logs into DP today. }
Click to expand...

I say someone should recreate the thread as soon as she puts it down.:lol:
 
Ockham said:
It's best to keep them all out, because who is to say what is "bad" and what is "good"? Way to subjective and prone to corruption and crony-ism.
Click to expand...

Well the guy lobbying to build a damn isn't bad, the guy lobbying to release more toxins into the atmosphere is. Which do you think is run by a corporation?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
The recession was caused by mostly Republican policies and was the result of those policies from years prior to 2007. Nothing the Democrats did or didn't do in 2007-2008 caused it. The economy collapsed froom the multitude of toxic loans written years earlier. That was the time to do something about it. By 2007, the damage was done, the housing market had already begun collapsing the year prior while Republicans were still in charge.


Dayam, Conservative, talk about spin ... that is your standard, not mine. I believe the government can create jobs. How the hell do you ascribe your standards onto me and then tell me I'm the one who's wrong??

:naughty:


Yet more BS? I have shown you how every term for every Republican president except for Reagan since Hoover saw the unemployment rate rise; compared to every term for every Democrat president where the unemployment rate never rose. That you think Conservatives know how to drive the economy better than Liberals only speaks to you devotion to your ideology.


That too is BS. Whenever I claim you are lying about something, I back up my accusation with facts. That's usually the point when you retreat to your talking points. That is not an allegation I make lightly and there is no one else on the forum I have said that about. You, on the other hand, are pathological and it's been well documented on here.
Click to expand...

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. 38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings.
 
Conservative said:
Sorry, but you have a very misguided view of corporations as they do not have special rights and priviledges that individuals don't have as any one that incorporates has those same rights. What is a corporation other than a legal entity? How many times do you want to tax a corporation? Corporations can be sued and are sued almost daily so not sure where you get the idea that they aren't
Click to expand...

It's very hard to sue a corporation because the owners of said corporation are allowed to not have their personal funds tied to the business. If the assets of the sole proprietorship or partnership cannot satisfy the debt, creditors can go after each owner's personal bank account, house, etc. to make up the difference. On the other hand, if a corporation runs out of funds, its owners are usually not liable. Meaning, the owner has minimized risk in the actual business itself, anymore, other than the business itself. Trying to sue someone who can drag out court processes for years because they, personally, are not affect, is very hard to do. Now, with today's internet and such, many just settled, but that is a fairly recent development.


Earnings from a sole proprietorship are subject to self-employment taxes, which are currently a combined 13.3% on the first $106,800 of income. With a corporation, only salaries (and not profits) are subject to such taxes. This can save you thousands of dollars per year. This is a HUGE tax break, designed to help big businesses get bigger. It's just one way they have a an unfair competitive advantage over all other businesses.

A corporation has many avenues to raise capital. It can sell shares of stock and create new types of stock, such as preferred stock, with different voting or profit characteristics. Plus, investors can rest assured knowing they are not personally liable for corporate debts. It is this that helped bring about the economic crisis we are currently in. A separation from personal risk and potential profit.

Becoming incorporated is something any business can do once they reach a certain size, but it's not cheap.
 
Conservative said:
LOL, yes, of course but lobbyists promoting Green energy and stealing taxpayer money like Solyndra are good, right?
Click to expand...

I would say that is bad because they are profit motivated not goodness of the community motivated.
 
Jryan said:
Well the guy lobbying to build a damn isn't bad, the guy lobbying to release more toxins into the atmosphere is. Which do you think is run by a corporation?
Click to expand...
Both. Hence the illegitimacy and fecklessness of trying to categorize "good" and "bad".
 
KevinKohler said:
It's very hard to sue a corporation because the owners of said corporation are allowed to not have their personal funds tied to the business. If the assets of the sole proprietorship or partnership cannot satisfy the debt, creditors can go after each owner's personal bank account, house, etc. to make up the difference. On the other hand, if a corporation runs out of funds, its owners are usually not liable. Meaning, the owner has minimized risk in the actual business itself, anymore, other than the business itself. Trying to sue someone who can drag out court processes for years because they, personally, are not affect, is very hard to do. Now, with today's internet and such, many just settled, but that is a fairly recent development.


Earnings from a sole proprietorship are subject to self-employment taxes, which are currently a combined 13.3% on the first $106,800 of income. With a corporation, only salaries (and not profits) are subject to such taxes. This can save you thousands of dollars per year. This is a HUGE tax break, designed to help big businesses get bigger. It's just one way they have a an unfair competitive advantage over all other businesses.

A corporation has many avenues to raise capital. It can sell shares of stock and create new types of stock, such as preferred stock, with different voting or profit characteristics. Plus, investors can rest assured knowing they are not personally liable for corporate debts. It is this that helped bring about the economic crisis we are currently in. A separation from personal risk and potential profit.

Becoming incorporated is something any business can do once they reach a certain size, but it's not cheap.
Click to expand...

It is very easy to sue a corporation as I know first hand. Would love to continue this but this thread is about to be closed.
 
Ockham said:
It's best to keep them all out, because who is to say what is "bad" and what is "good"? Way to subjective and prone to corruption and crony-ism.
Click to expand...

Hang on....Are not 'Lobbyists' per se, just people redressing their representatives of their grievances? And is that not exactly constitutional?

j-mac
 
Conservative said:
The misery index measures individual pain and suffering whether you like it or not. Obama has a 38% JAR today which tells you how they feel. Sorry but how people feel is affected by the Obama economic policy and that misery index is rising. During the Reagan years that misery index dropped. That misery index was a lot lower when Obama took office than it is today and it was much lower than when Reagan took office. What drove that misery index in the early 80's was high inflation and rising unemployment and extremely high interest rates. When Obama took office there were little inflation, very low interest rates, but today there is rising unemployment which isn't even calculated the same today as it was when Reagan was in office.
Click to expand...

The misery index is the sum of unemployment and inflation; that is it. None the less, the "misery index" is known to underweight the misery caused by joblessness.

the estimates suggest that people would trade off a 1-percentage-point increase in the unemployment rate for a 1.7-percentage-point increase in the inflation rate. Hence, according to these findings, the famous misery index W(π +U) under-weighs the unhappiness caused by joblessness.
Click to expand...

source

You might want to find another argument; because the one used to prove that the current economic downturn is not as serious as previous downturns since 1945 is sheer nonsense.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The misery index is the sum of unemployment and inflation; that is it. None the less, the "misery index" is known to underweight the misery caused by joblessness.



source
Click to expand...

Exactly, both impacting the individual financial conditions of every American. High inflation, rising unemployment plus the added pressure of high interest rates(a product of inflation) made the 81-82 recession worse for the American people than the 2007-2009 recession. That is reality and that is why the JAR of Obama is now below 40%. Again, you need to get your nose out of the books and get out into the real world. How do you explain the Obama approval rating this low and let me know when Reagan's ever got that low?

What you also ignore is that Obama had overwhelming Control of Congress his first two years and yet made the problem worse. How long before you hold Obama accountable for his failures?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The misery index is the sum of unemployment and inflation; that is it. None the less, the "misery index" is known to underweight the misery caused by joblessness.



source

You might want to find another argument; because the one used to prove that the current economic downturn is not as serious as previous downturns since 1945 is sheer nonsense.
Click to expand...

Unless you weigh in the fact that inflation is being artificially suppressed right now through the printing of worthless money, and deflating the dollar dangerously. Good plan, I don't think it worked in the past though....

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Hang on....Are not 'Lobbyists' per se, just people redressing their representatives of their grievances? And is that not exactly constitutional?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Lobbyist's are paid representatives who represent (primarily) corporations or interest groups which a specific political agenda. I don't necessarily have a problem with their existence, but where I take issue is where they (for lack of a better word) bribe elected public officials and influence them towards a specific goal that is primarily beneficial to their paid bosses. This bribery can take many non-monetary forms. And no, it's not in the Constitution as such --- to make that claim would be to twist the meaning of the 1st amendment beyond recognition. Lobbyists can exist and even involve government but not where they bend the rules and laws and where all involved are encouraged to cover it up. It's inherently corrupt, breeds corruption and is another function of government that keeps the government from being transparent with the people they represent. Since good and bad lobbyists cannot be discerned and because there is an inherent corruption that goes along with it, all lobbyists should be banned from operating within the government as such, all former lobbyists including their family members, should be exempt from ever holding a Federal position (IMHO) such that the optics of such influence.

We (the people) are better off without lobbyists in the Federal government. If lobbyists want to bring a set of grievances to the government, there are existing methods of doing such a thing - they do not need special access to Congress or the White House.
 
j-mac said:
Unless you weigh in the fact that inflation is being artificially suppressed right now through the printing of worthless money, and deflating the dollar dangerously. Good plan, I don't think it worked in the past though....

j-mac
Click to expand...

I believe Goldenboy is missing the point, we have 140 million working Americans today that are better off than the working Americans were in 1981-82 because of low inflation and low interest rates. Unemployed are always going to be worse off regardless of the recession severity although their unemployment compensation is going further today than it did in the 81-82 recession. He is missing that reality.
 
Conservative said:
Exactly, both impacting the individual financial conditions of every American. High inflation, rising unemployment plus the added pressure of high interest rates(a product of inflation) made the 81-82 recession worse for the American people than the 2007-2009 recession.
Click to expand...

No it did not. You have to at least support your position with something of substance; stating that "people were thowing keys at the banks" and "17.5% interest rates on mortgages" does not accomplish this objective due in part to inaccuracy and misunderstanding of the mortgage process.

What you also ignore is that Obama had overwhelming Control of Congress his first two years and yet made the problem worse. How long before you hold Obama accountable for his failures?
Click to expand...

I understand what a deleveraging cycle in excess of the Great Depression actually means. I understand that when we witness a net loss of wealth in excess of 100% U.S. GDP, there really is no silver bullet solution.

The severity of this downturn has little if nothing to do with our current president.
 
j-mac said:
Unless you weigh in the fact that inflation is being artificially suppressed right now through the printing of worthless money, and deflating the dollar dangerously. Good plan, I don't think it worked in the past though....

j-mac
Click to expand...

The misery index is a bogus measure, period. I cannot even understand what you are trying to convey. Maybe another try would suffice?
 
Ockham said:
Lobbyist's are paid representatives who represent (primarily) corporations or interest groups which a specific political agenda. I don't necessarily have a problem with their existence, but where I take issue is where they (for lack of a better word) bribe elected public officials and influence them towards a specific goal that is primarily beneficial to their paid bosses. This bribery can take many non-monetary forms. And no, it's not in the Constitution as such --- to make that claim would be to twist the meaning of the 1st amendment beyond recognition. Lobbyists can exist and even involve government but not where they bend the rules and laws and where all involved are encouraged to cover it up. It's inherently corrupt, breeds corruption and is another function of government that keeps the government from being transparent with the people they represent. Since good and bad lobbyists cannot be discerned and because there is an inherent corruption that goes along with it, all lobbyists should be banned from operating within the government as such, all former lobbyists including their family members, should be exempt from ever holding a Federal position (IMHO) such that the optics of such influence.

We (the people) are better off without lobbyists in the Federal government. If lobbyists want to bring a set of grievances to the government, there are existing methods of doing such a thing - they do not need special access to Congress or the White House.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you on the level of corruption that exists in the government as it pertains to our elected officials being bought off by special interests in today's climate. However, corporations as such being made up of people, ie; the board, which answers to shareholders that invest in these companies do have interests that they would like to see protected especially in today's Obama world of destructive policy aimed at them.

What is different say, from a corporation like say Boeing lobbying the reps on capitol hill over regulation that effects their bottom line, and say OOIDA lobbying on behalf of truckers in this country?

j-mac
 
Conservative said:
That is the liberal logic, if you think taxes aren't high enough and the govt. needs more revenue then do your civic duty and send in more money. Liberals however want to spread their misery equally to everyone else thus you never will see a liberal put their money where their mouth is. Buffet is fighting taxes on his business while promoting higher taxes on everyone else. That is hypocritical.
Click to expand...
We have a $14 Trillion debt that you constantly whine about, it's impossible to pay that down unless you raise taxes. No amount of spending cuts can erase debt; if you cut it to zero, you still have the debt. It's funny that back when the JFK/LBJ tax were passed, the conservatives of the time were against them. Because they were worried about debt. Today's conservatives give the debt lip service - that's all.
 
Jryan said:
I say someone should recreate the thread as soon as she puts it down.:lol:
Click to expand...


Don,t worry about it, when conservative logs onto a thread it usually goes to the same talking points pretty quick.:2wave:
 
Goldenboy219 said:
No it did not. You have to at least support your position with something of substance; stating that "people were thowing keys at the banks" and "17.5% interest rates on mortgages" does not accomplish this objective due in part to inaccuracy and misunderstanding of the mortgage process.



I understand what a deleveraging cycle in excess of the Great Depression actually means. I understand that when we witness a net loss of wealth in excess of 100% U.S. GDP, there really is no silver bullet solution.

The severity of this downturn has little if nothing to do with our current president.
Click to expand...

What you ignore is the impact on the individuals and with 140 million working Americans they are all better off during this recession than the 81-82 recession due to cost of living. The severity of the downturn was minimized by Reagan allowing taxpayers to keep more of their money, the impact on the current economy was a waste of taxpayer dollars that did nothing to stimulate economic growth. Obama believes in the govt. whereas Reagan believed in the American people thus results and approval ratings at this time in their Presidencies was quite different.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The severity of this downturn has little if nothing to do with our current president.
Click to expand...

So Obama can do anything during his Presidency in terms of policies and never take the blame for their results? Wow, that is a great gig....


j-mac
 
pbrauer said:
We have a $14 Trillion debt that you constantly whine about, it's impossible to pay that down unless you raise taxes. No amount of spending cuts can erase debt; if you cut it to zero, you still have the debt. It's funny that back when the JFK/LBJ tax were passed, the conservatives of the time were against them. Because they were worried about debt. Today's conservatives give the debt lip service - that's all.
Click to expand...

Nope, we need more taxpayers not higher taxes and that is something you simply cannot get through your head. Raising taxes does nothing to put people back to work. You just don't have a clue and obviously have never run a business. Cutting spending sends a dollar to the bottomline just like cutting spending will reduce the deficit because the revenue keeps coming in. Amazing lack of knowledge about business that many have here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom