• 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.
Conservative said:
Please stop making a fool of yourself, what were the loopholes in those higher tax rates thus the effective rate that the rich paid, higher or lower than now? I posted a chart showing tax revenue and of course you ignored it.
Click to expand...

As I've previously shown, your chart did not include the effective tax rates, nor did it address the cuts that have been made since in investment returns and Estate taxes.

If you feel that taxes for the rich were lower in the 50's and 60's, I guess that would mean you would have no problem returning to those rates, is that correct?
 
Catawba said:
If your claim that a slightly higher tax for millionaires and billionaires would do away with incentives to be rich than we would have seen no rich people in our history when the tax rates were much higher for millionaires and billionaires then they are today, but that was not the case.
Click to expand...

Did you and whatever Jryan is read what my post was talking to. It had NOTHING TO DO WITH TAX RATES. It was discussing estate taxes. I do not know if you just troll and post B.S. posts for the fun of it, have little reading comprehension, do not understand the difference between a discussion on estate taxes and income taxes or what.

It is responses such as the above that make "debate" sites little more than pick a side and fight sites.
 
winston53660 said:
Ahhh BS on your part. It ihas been demonstrated several times over by various people that the total tax burden is higher on the lower incomes. Yet ya just stick your head in the sand.:2wave:



Again I'm talking the here and now not your made up imaginary fantasy land.
Click to expand...

No you haven't. one person posted a two page talking paper from some union that claims this but it had no citation to evidence nor did it take into account the fact that some states derive most of their income on "regressive" or neutral taxes while some have heavily progressive income and death taxes
 
Catawba said:
As I've previously shown, your chart did not include the effective tax rates, nor did it address the cuts that have been made since in investment returns and Estate taxes.

If you feel that taxes for the rich were lower in the 50's and 60's, I guess that would mean you would have no problem returning to those rates, is that correct?
Click to expand...

Do you pay whatever Jyran is to "like" your rants?
 
winston53660 said:
Ahhh BS on your part. It ihas been demonstrated several times over by various people that the total tax burden is higher on the lower incomes. Yet ya just stick your head in the sand.:2wave:



Again I'm talking the here and now not your made up imaginary fantasy land.
Click to expand...

Total tax burden has nothing to do with the thread topic and funding the Federal Govt. That argument is typical of liberals who don't have a clue where their tax dollars go. Apparently you are in that group.
 
Conservative said:
Let's add Freddie and Fannie to the list of topics that you know nothing about. Where did those subprime loan bundles go? What we need is the govt to get out of the banking business period. Let the banks fail. NO bailouts for private business.
Click to expand...

Once again you completely ignore the documented evidence that refutes your opinion, and you said there were adequate regulations until it was pointed out there wasn't, and you agreed that the most protective regulation against bank failure, the Glass Steagall Act had been repealed, and now you jump to saying there are too many regulations.

You are jumping around like a cat in a room full of rocking chairs without making a single point that you can back up.
 
Jryan said:
Seriously though Turtle, the no punctuation hurts my brain.
Click to expand...

sloppy thinking from college kids who have never really experienced the real world, yet think they have the standing to argue what should be, with those of us who have, makes me want to puke
 
TurtleDude said:
No you haven't. one person posted a two page talking paper from some union that claims this but it had no citation to evidence nor did it take into account the fact that some states derive most of their income on "regressive" or neutral taxes while some have heavily progressive income and death taxes
Click to expand...

First off I said various people had so there is another strike for you counselor.
 
TurtleDude said:
YOur rants about the rich are pathetic

your constant demand that the rich pay more are based on a sickening combination of class envy and the erroneous assumption that the rich somehow don't deserve their wealth
Click to expand...

I will withhold comment to you until you can actually make a point you can back up with evidence.
 
Catawba said:
As I've previously shown, your chart did not include the effective tax rates, nor did it address the cuts that have been made since in investment returns and Estate taxes.

If you feel that taxes for the rich were lower in the 50's and 60's, I guess that would mean you would have no problem returning to those rates, is that correct?
Click to expand...

Loopholes and tax deductions were much greater in the 50's and 60's again showing that tax rates are irrelevant when actually counting the dollars that go to the Federal Govt, which by the way is ZERO from 47% of income earners in the form of FIT. Nice try at diversion. You want more govt. revenue then the best way to do that is fire Obama and put 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans back to work paying full taxes and then collecting something from those that pay zero(65 plus million). So let's figure this out and direct your outrage in the right direction, 25 million unemployed and Under employed PLUS the 65Plus million income earners that pay zero in FIT totals over 90 million people not funding the Federal Govt. leaving that funding to the 64 million who are paying their FAIR SHARE
 
Catawba said:
Once again you completely ignore the documented evidence that refutes your opinion, and you said there were adequate regulations until it was pointed out there wasn't, and you agreed that the most protective regulation against bank failure, the Glass Steagall Act had been repealed, and now you jump to saying there are too many regulations.

You are jumping around like a cat in a room full of rocking chairs without making a single point that you can back up.
Click to expand...

I reject the term predatory lending and always took personal responsibility for the contracts that I signed. Where does personal responsibility rest in your world?
 
Conservative said:
Loopholes and tax deductions were much greater in the 50's and 60's again showing that tax rates are irrelevant when actually counting the dollars that go to the Federal Govt, which by the way is ZERO from 47% of income earners in the form of FIT. Nice try at diversion. You want more govt. revenue then the best way to do that is fire Obama and put 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans back to work paying full taxes and then collecting something from those that pay zero(65 plus million). So let's figure this out and direct your outrage in the right direction, 25 million unemployed and Under employed PLUS the 65Plus million income earners that pay zero in FIT totals over 90 million people not funding the Federal Govt. leaving that funding to the 64 million who are paying their FAIR SHARE
Click to expand...

Did you seriously just suggest slavery?
 
winston53660 said:
First off I said various people had so there is another strike for you counselor.
Click to expand...

several people all cited the same 2 page POS paper that Oldreliable67 pretty much crushed on the economics Forum
 
Catawba said:
I will withhold comment to you until you can actually make a point you can back up with evidence.
Click to expand...

Well I have proven that the top one percent pay about 40% of the income tax, almost all the death tax

what have you proven?
 
washunut said:
Did you and whatever Jryan is read what my post was talking to. It had NOTHING TO DO WITH TAX RATES. It was discussing estate taxes. I do not know if you just troll and post B.S. posts for the fun of it, have little reading comprehension, do not understand the difference between a discussion on estate taxes and income taxes or what.

It is responses such as the above that make "debate" sites little more than pick a side and fight sites.
Click to expand...

I thought I made it clear I opposed cuts to Estate taxes. Just as I opposed the cuts in taxes for investment returns. What are you unclear about?

And how do you address the fact that rich people were taxed on much more of their income in our past and that it didn't remove incentives for the rich to get richer?
 
Conservative said:
I reject the term predatory lending and always took personal responsibility for the contracts that I signed. Where does personal responsibility rest in your world?
Click to expand...

So the banks writing loans that they knew people couldn't afford wasn't their responsibility? Where is the bank's responsibility in all this? Was someone forcing them to do this?
 
Conservative said:
Loopholes and tax deductions were much greater in the 50's and 60's again showing that tax rates are irrelevant when actually counting the dollars that go to the Federal Govt.........
Click to expand...

Great it is noted that you would prefer the tax rates on total income of the 50's and 60's. We will see what we can do to get them back up to that point for you!
 
Conservative said:
I reject the term predatory lending and always took personal responsibility for the contracts that I signed. Where does personal responsibility rest in your world?
Click to expand...

Earlier you blamed the Republican repeal of Glass Steagall Act on Clinton, because he signed it into law. Since you felt Clinton was to blame this would indicate that you have the realization that it was a bad thing, no?
 
Conservative said:
I watched some of the press conference and got sick to my stomach with all the lies that I had to turn it off and watched the cooking channel at my Mom's. He is a total and complete ass and anyone that supports him falls into that category as well
Click to expand...

Great - anybody who supports Obama is an ass...... not just a regular ass but a complete and total ass. I guess to keep this debate on the high level you have introduced this is where we call you a poopoo head?

We can do better than this folks.
 
TurtleDude said:
Well I have proven that the top one percent pay about 40% of the income tax, almost all the death tax

what have you proven?
Click to expand...

If the federal government operated just on income taxes, your point might have some relevance. Or if we had not provided temporary tax cuts to lower the tax on income being passed down in estates, and through investments, your point might have some relevance. Or, if the top one percent of the country did not own much of the country's wealth, your point might have some relevance.

I've proven that the super rich pay a less percentage of their total income than does the middle class.

"the evidence tends to point to the conclusion that the really rich pay less in taxes as a percentage of income then their merely well-to-do counterparts -- if their income comes primarily from investments. Overall, we rate Buffett's statement True."
PolitiFact | Warren Buffett says the super-rich pay lower tax rates than others
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
If the federal government operated just on income taxes, your point might have some relevance. Or if we had not provided temporary tax cuts to lower the tax on income from being passed down in estates, and through investments, your point might have some relevance. Or, if the top one percent of the country did not own much of the country's wealth, your point might have some relevance.

I've proven that the super rich pay a less percentage of their total income than does the middle class.

"the evidence tends to point to the conclusion that the really rich pay less in taxes as a percentage of income then their merely well-to-do counterparts -- if their income comes primarily from investments. Overall, we rate Buffett's statement True."
PolitiFact | Warren Buffett says the super-rich pay lower tax rates than others
Click to expand...
Buffett's Obama-fellation is worthless

first of all the group he whines about is less than 1000 people

secondly it deals with marginal next dollar rather than actual effective tax rates

third to pay an effective rate of 18% you are making far more than what secretaries get paid

fourth, it ignores actual dollars paid

fifth, Even Buffett rejects the "Buffett plan"
 
Catawba said:
I thought I made it clear I opposed cuts to Estate taxes. Just as I opposed the cuts in taxes for investment returns. What are you unclear about?

And how do you address the fact that rich people were taxed on much more of their income in our past and that it didn't remove incentives for the rich to get richer?
Click to expand...

Haymarket you are a coward for "liking" this post but not responding on your own.

As to Catawba, I have no idea where you are coming from so any further response would be meaningless.
 
washunut said:
Haymarket you are a coward for "liking" this post but not responding on your own.

As to Catawba, I have no idea where you are coming from so any further response would be meaningless.
Click to expand...

Why would you call me names simply because I like something in a post? I happen to think he has a valid point that past higher tax rates did not remove the incentives for folks to get rich and make money. Who can argue with the historical record? Why is that something that makes me a coward?
 
Catawba said:
Great it is noted that you would prefer the tax rates on total income of the 50's and 60's. We will see what we can do to get them back up to that point for you!
Click to expand...

Can we assume that spending would remain the same as in the 50's and 60's as well?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom