• 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.
Are we jumping btwn U6 and U3 again?

Like when you indiscriminately compare real and nominal numbers.

You're harping up the wrong tree if you think you can get Conservative to use the same terms in comparisons. We've been over this at least a dozen times. Conservatives picks whatever he thinks supports his position, even when it makes little to no sense.
 
Allow me to point out that to this day, you have yet to cite a single bill they passed in 2007 which led to Bush's Great Recession. Obviously, you're full of ****, you simply just can't admit that Republicans and Bush were the ones mostly to blame.


"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech

Nor can you point out a single bill from 2007 or earily 2008, that would have done anything to to slow, stop, or even ease the pain of the crash, can you ? What does that say about your liberal party ?
 
The question should be how can the unemployment rate be below 8%. President Reagan stradegy worked well, he lowered the high tax rates and started to gear up to fight a war, that created jobs the problem was that he left the tax cuts in place to long.

President Obama can't cut the tax rates by 50%, the wars he has in progress are a drain on our economy. Efforts to deal with the Chinese undervalued currency are being opposed by members of both parties. If we want our jobs back we need to realize that the war we are engaged in is an economic war and we are not winning it

We can all keep pointing our fingers at the other side but the truth is both sides share in the lost of American jobs. The trade deficit is the driver of lost jobs in America, the only way to see the lost jobs return is for us to demand that trade agreements are adhered to, if we don’t nothing is going to bring those jobs back. Any politician who opposes the enforcement of trade agreements should be voted out of office.

Barack Obama is in over his head on running a private sector economy. He has no clue as he is a leftwing ideologue whose goal is to fundamentally change America into a European Socialist model that has failed. I have zero confidence in him as does the business community. The best way to get out of this mess is to fire Obama, like it or not, that is reality.
 
You know a lot of my family and friends I have are very religious. Because of this and my personal lack of faith I've been invited to a lot of different churches, all christian but I've seen a wide variety of denominations, I am curious however which denomination you belong to. It's always been my understanding the judgment of others was for god and god alone. That you should help those who are misguided and unfortunate along the path to spiritual enlightenment. Those are the Christians I'm used to.

I am a Catholic and converted in 1997. Before that I was a Protestant. I don't discuss religion on line because it isn't my goal to change anyone. I believe in free will and someone has to find their own way.
 
Allow me to point out that to this day, you have yet to cite a single bill they passed in 2007 which led to Bush's Great Recession. Obviously, you're full of ****, you simply just can't admit that Republicans and Bush were the ones mostly to blame.


"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech

Allow me to point out this is 2011 and the numbers today are worse than when Obama took office. There are over 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans TODAY and over 4 trillion added to the debt in the last 2 1/2 years. That is reality and it has nothing to do with Bush.
 
38% looks pretty good if you compare it to the approval rating of congress which is 11%, I have bolded the parts for you that will determine the 2012 elections



Republican candidates referring to the OWS demonstrators as mobs, republicans referring to OWS demonstrators as idiots and worst will be on the minds of the demonstrators when they enter the voting booth in 2012

The American jobs bill has the support of the majority of Americans they will remember who heard them when they enter the voting booth in 2012


Now come on, in reality …. those numbers are amazing low, when you consider that less then 1% of our population earn 1 million or more.

It's human nature to say .. sure tax someone else as long as it's not me … and seeing over 99% of the population makes under 1 million dollars per year, those numbers are very low.

I've always been one of the few conservatives that have said over and over, I'm in favor of letting all the 2010 tax cuts that were extended end. But only if they let them all end, for everyone.

Well I could be convinced for a nominal rate hike on the so called rich, I'm even more in favor of making the 45% that pay nothing in federal income tax, pay something I don't care if it's only 5 dollars a week. We have to have all people have a dog in the hunt. When you pay nothing, then you have no reason to worry about the deficit, or our debt, or for that matter anything the government does.

So while most liberals are so concerned with 7.8 million people that make 1 million or more I'm wondering why there isn't more concern over the 70 million people that contribute nothing in the way of federal income tax.
 
The other differences you choose to ignore ... Reagan wasn't handed an economy which lost 1.1 million jobs in the month he started ... Reagan wasn't handed an economy with 21 million people underemployed ... Reagan wasn't handed an economy in recession ... Reagan wasn't handed an economy with -8.9% GDP ... Reagan wasn't handed an economy with a crushed housing market ... Reagan wasn't handed an economy with an unemployment rate of 14%.

You also choose to ignore that polls continue to reveal that most people still blame Bush for the current economic conditions by a margin of roughly 3 to 2.

Reagan was handed an economy with a misery index of 20 and rising unemployment. The interest rates were 17.5%. You have to get over your hatred of Reagan and accept responsibility for the failure of Obama. It is foolish to continue to look backwards because it blinds you to the present.
 
You're harping up the wrong tree if you think you can get Conservative to use the same terms in comparisons. We've been over this at least a dozen times. Conservatives picks whatever he thinks supports his position, even when it makes little to no sense.

I know how fair you and others want to be so I am confident that you don't want to mislead anyone else here by claiming that the unemployment numbers prior to 1994 are the same as the numbers today? Prior to 1994 which I am sure you understand discouraged workers were included in the unemployment numbers but after 1994 they were taken out. That obviously was just an oversight on your part. Hopefully in the future you won't make that same mistake. Reagan's unemployment rate included the discouraged whereas today's rate of 9.1% doesn't thus leaving out over a million that dropped out of the labor market and off the unemployment roles. That would have put the unemployment rate at 9.8%
 
Now come on, in reality …. those numbers are amazing low, when you consider that less then 1% of our population earn 1 million or more.

It's human nature to say .. sure tax someone else as long as it's not me … and seeing over 99% of the population makes under 1 million dollars per year, those numbers are very low.

I've always been one of the few conservatives that have said over and over, I'm in favor of letting all the 2010 tax cuts that were extended end. But only if they let them all end, for everyone.

Well I could be convinced for a nominal rate hike on the so called rich, I'm even more in favor of making the 45% that pay nothing in federal income tax, pay something I don't care if it's only 5 dollars a week. We have to have all people have a dog in the hunt. When you pay nothing, then you have no reason to worry about the deficit, or our debt, or for that matter anything the government does.

So while most liberals are so concerned with 7.8 million people that make 1 million or more I'm wondering why there isn't more concern over the 70 million people that contribute nothing in the way of federal income tax.

Gallup has Obama approval rating at 38% so to divert from that liberals and other Obama supporters always point to Congressional Approval ratings as if Congressional elections are national. The only poll that matters in Congressional ratings are the local ones for even most of the liberals here support their Congressioal Representative even though the rest of the country may not.

It is also human nature for people that don't pay any taxes to support increases in taxes on those that do pay taxes and that is the problem here. In addition logic and common sense have no place in this debate for as you rightly pointed out there aren't enough rich people to fund the liberal spending appetite nor will there ever be. You won't find many here even acknowledge the 70 million income earners that are paying ZERO in FIT for to do so destroys their argument. What they will do is point to other taxes which have nothing to do with funding the Federal Govt. That is a losing argument for liberals and they know it.
 
Reagan was handed an economy with a misery index of 20 and rising unemployment. The interest rates were 17.5%.

Which is a cake walk compared to a financial recession marred by vicious deleveraging cycle. Even the savings and loans crisis was a far more damaging than an economic downturn manufactured by then Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker.

"This has been the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. There is no question about it," said Mark Gertler, a New York University economist who worked with fellow academic Ben Bernanke, now the Federal Reserve chairman, to explain how financial turmoil can infect the overall economy. "But at the same time we have the policy mechanisms in place fighting it, which is something we didn't have during the Great Depression."

source
 
I will never support a tax increase until the loopholes are closed on ALL taxpayers so that the 65 Plus million WORKING Americans pay something in taxes and then actual spending cuts starting with taking the budget back to the 2008 levels. After that is done then we can discuss Tax increases.

Great. Close the loopholes. On everyone, and count capital gains as the income that it is, and enact a flat tax. I'd be in favor of that. No loopholes = everyone pays their fair share. Not that you'd be in favor of that when you saw the reality of that.

So what's so great about the 2008 spending? Wasn't it out of control then? Or was everything magical and wonderful because the President was a Republican?
 
Nor can you point out a single bill from 2007 or earily 2008, that would have done anything to to slow, stop, or even ease the pain of the crash, can you ? What does that say about your liberal party ?
Of course I can't show you a bill from 2007 or 2008 that would have prevented the crash because by then, the damage had been done, there was nothing they could have done to prevent the housing and credit meltdown. The housing bubble began to crash in 2006. The time to do something to curb the greed which took hold in the credit market was years earlier. What Republicans and Conservatives, who are desperate to blame Democrats in order to save the Replican party, refuse (by choice) to understand, is that the 2008 crash was years in the making. It wasn't caused by events in 2007 or 2008. It occurred because so many people took out loans years earlier which delayed interest payments they couldn't afford, while many others found themselves upsidedown on their loans because housing prices devalued so quickly. There's simply no way you can pin this on Democrats. Clinton is the only Democrat with proverbial blood on his hands. He enabled this to occur by signing the Republican Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill. Republicans pushed homeownership through Congress during Clinton's term and then through Bush's terms. Democrats were on the wrong side of the issue as well but they weren't in control of the Congress until it was too late to prevent the impending collapse.
 
Allow me to point out this is 2011 and the numbers today are worse than when Obama took office. There are over 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans TODAY and over 4 trillion added to the debt in the last 2 1/2 years. That is reality and it has nothing to do with Bush.

That has everything to do with Bush. Bush's Great Recession lost 12 million to underemployment in 18 months. At no time in history has the U.S. lost so many that quickly. The number of unemployed doubled. On top of that, Bush led us into the Great Depression, crashing the housing markets and the credit markets. No president could recover from that this quickly. That's why polls still reflect that most still blame Bush for today's ecomomy. You don't have to accept that for that to be the case.

Furthermore, the 4 million additional underemployed on Obama's watch occurred during his first 5 months in office, during Bush's Great Recession. That's all on Bush, not Obama.
 
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.

You have such a unique argument style. In retort, you offer no new facts nor do you do anything to better support or explain your original assertion. Instead, you simply YELL and insult. Though this is the modus operandi of Fox News, its not a winning strategy in too many debate circles.

I did have a problem with your original fact: It is not 47% of Income Earners, its 47% of households (Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax - Yahoo! Finance) and (Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer. - NYTimes.com).

Income earners are a subset of households. As I pointed out, the pool of persons not paying income tax includes those living only on social security, the unemployed and the entrepreneur, whose business is not yet in the black. These people have no taxable income... moreover, you also fail to understand that our income tax system does not now, nor has it ever, taxed dollar one of income. It taxes discretionary income. The fact is, that only half of US households have discretionary income. In fact, from 2007 to 2009, the percentage of households not paying FIT

That is just arguing FIT. Personally, I think the distinction between FIT and taxes is general is beyond moot. Very few people really understand what tax pays for what anyway. In fact, in Washington, they have used payroll taxes to make up the shortfall caused by income tax cuts...so arguing there is much of a distinction is rapidly evolving into an irrelevant academic exercise. All in, we have a flat tax system with just about everyone paying 25%.
 

Attachments

  • Distribution of tax burden.jpg
    Distribution of tax burden.jpg
    26.4 KB · Views: 32
Reagan was handed an economy with a misery index of 20 and rising unemployment. The interest rates were 17.5%.
It's pathetic that you can't understand how you lose your argument when you lie. The truth is, Reagan was not handed an economy with rising unemployment, you lied. The unemployment rate peaked in June '80 at 7.8% and trickled down to 7.5% by January '81. And interest rates, which if you knew anything, you'd know are not an economic indicator, were artificially high to combat inflation, which was a huge problem at the time.

Now stop lying.


You have to get over your hatred of Reagan and accept responsibility for the failure of Obama. It is foolish to continue to look backwards because it blinds you to the present.
I bear no hatred for Reagan and even told you that I voted for him -- stop the ****ing lying, will ya? Or can't you? Maybe you're just a pathological liar and you can't help yourself.
 
You have such a unique argument style. In retort, you offer no new facts nor do you do anything to better support or explain your original assertion. Instead, you simply YELL and insult. Though this is the modus operandi of Fox News, its not a winning strategy in too many debate circles.

I did have a problem with your original fact: It is not 47% of Income Earners, its 47% of households (Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax - Yahoo! Finance) and (Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer. - NYTimes.com).

Income earners are a subset of households. As I pointed out, the pool of persons not paying income tax includes those living only on social security, the unemployed and the entrepreneur, whose business is not yet in the black. These people have no taxable income... moreover, you also fail to understand that our income tax system does not now, nor has it ever, taxed dollar one of income. It taxes discretionary income. The fact is, that only half of US households have discretionary income. In fact, from 2007 to 2009, the percentage of households not paying FIT

That is just arguing FIT. Personally, I think the distinction between FIT and taxes is general is beyond moot. Very few people really understand what tax pays for what anyway. In fact, in Washington, they have used payroll taxes to make up the shortfall caused by income tax cuts...so arguing there is much of a distinction is rapidly evolving into an irrelevant academic exercise. All in, we have a flat tax system with just about everyone paying 25%.
You're aruging sound reasoning and common sense against someone capable only of arguing talking points.
 
You're aruging sound reasoning and common sense against someone capable only of arguing talking points.

That's not true - I've seen you use logic before and even factual information (albiet you're use of statistics and numbers are well known to be suspect).
 
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.
The fact is that it's not just low income earners who pay no FIT, there are millionaires who have paid no FITeither. Anyone who has no taxable income after taking their legal deductions pay won't have FIT bill.

Here is the tax table for 2011:


2011
Married Filing JointlyMarried Filing SeparatelySingleHead of Household
MarginalTax BracketsMarginalTax BracketsMarginalTax BracketsMarginalTax Brackets
Tax RateOverBut Not OverTax RateOverBut Not OverTax RateOverBut Not OverTax RateOverBut Not Over
10.0%$0$17,00010.0%$0$8,50010.0%$0$8,50010.0%$0$12,150
15.0%$17,000$69,00015.0%$8,500$34,50015.0%$8,500$34,50015.0%$12,150$46,250
25.0%$69,000$139,35025.0%$34,500$69,67525.0%$34,500$83,60025.0%$46,250$119,400
28.0%$139,350$212,30028.0%$69,675$106,15028.0%$83,600$174,40028.0%$119,400$193,350
33.0%$212,300$379,15033.0%$106,150$189,57533.0%$174,400$379,15033.0%$193,350$379,150
35.0%$379,150-35.0%$189,575-35.0%$379,150-35.0%$379,150-
 
Which is a cake walk compared to a financial recession marred by vicious deleveraging cycle. Even the savings and loans crisis was a far more damaging than an economic downturn manufactured by then Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker.



source

Sorry, but I lived and worked during both and don't have any faith in what economists say but instead what the real people are feeling. When people had to pay 17.5% for a home mortage and had double digit inflation they were throwing the keys at the bankers. Today people think it is a depression when they don't get their IPAD. More importantly Reagan had a policy in place that got us out of the Malaise and Obama's policies have made things worse. There is no incentive now on the part of business to hire people and in fact the Obama Administration is a disincentive for private business to hire regardless of what your economists claim.
 
Great. Close the loopholes. On everyone, and count capital gains as the income that it is, and enact a flat tax. I'd be in favor of that. No loopholes = everyone pays their fair share. Not that you'd be in favor of that when you saw the reality of that.

So what's so great about the 2008 spending? Wasn't it out of control then? Or was everything magical and wonderful because the President was a Republican?

What was great about the 2008 spending is that it didn't include TARP and the Obama Stimulus. That is where I would start and then deduct the winddown of the Iraq War from that budget and start cutting from there.
 
You have such a unique argument style. In retort, you offer no new facts nor do you do anything to better support or explain your original assertion. Instead, you simply YELL and insult. Though this is the modus operandi of Fox News, its not a winning strategy in too many debate circles.

I did have a problem with your original fact: It is not 47% of Income Earners, its 47% of households (Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax - Yahoo! Finance) and (Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer. - NYTimes.com).

Income earners are a subset of households. As I pointed out, the pool of persons not paying income tax includes those living only on social security, the unemployed and the entrepreneur, whose business is not yet in the black. These people have no taxable income... moreover, you also fail to understand that our income tax system does not now, nor has it ever, taxed dollar one of income. It taxes discretionary income. The fact is, that only half of US households have discretionary income. In fact, from 2007 to 2009, the percentage of households not paying FIT

That is just arguing FIT. Personally, I think the distinction between FIT and taxes is general is beyond moot. Very few people really understand what tax pays for what anyway. In fact, in Washington, they have used payroll taxes to make up the shortfall caused by income tax cuts...so arguing there is much of a distinction is rapidly evolving into an irrelevant academic exercise. All in, we have a flat tax system with just about everyone paying 25%.


The article is quite clear and all these people earn income and if they paid $5 a week that is better than what they are doing now. You need to figure out what funds the FEDERAL GOVT. and why income earners at any level don't pay any FIT. Eliminate the loopholes for all taxpayers or better yet implement a flat tax. Any chart and graph you post is irrelevant but it is important that the American people get educated on what taxes fund what and liberals have to stop confusing people by trying to lump state and local taxes, FICA taxes into funding for the Federal Govt. None of those taxes fund the Feds.
 
The fact is that it's not just low income earners who pay no FIT, there are millionaires who have paid no FITeither. Anyone who has no taxable income after taking their legal deductions pay won't have FIT bill.

Here is the tax table for 2011:


2011
Married Filing JointlyMarried Filing SeparatelySingleHead of Household
MarginalTax BracketsMarginalTax BracketsMarginalTax BracketsMarginalTax Brackets
Tax RateOverBut Not OverTax RateOverBut Not OverTax RateOverBut Not OverTax RateOverBut Not Over
10.0%$0$17,00010.0%$0$8,50010.0%$0$8,50010.0%$0$12,150
15.0%$17,000$69,00015.0%$8,500$34,50015.0%$8,500$34,50015.0%$12,150$46,250
25.0%$69,000$139,35025.0%$34,500$69,67525.0%$34,500$83,60025.0%$46,250$119,400
28.0%$139,350$212,30028.0%$69,675$106,15028.0%$83,600$174,40028.0%$119,400$193,350
33.0%$212,300$379,15033.0%$106,150$189,57533.0%$174,400$379,15033.0%$193,350$379,150
35.0%$379,150-35.0%$189,575-35.0%$379,150-35.0%$379,150-

thus the need for a flat tax for all Americans. Thanks for posting the chart but tell me why any income earner cannot pay something for the services they receive from the Federal Govt.
 
That's not true - I've seen you use logic before and even factual information (albiet you're use of statistics and numbers are well known to be suspect).

Sheik continues to bait and troll. I will not be responding to that kind of post. He does post actual percentage change but ignores actual dollars or unemployment changes and when confused by the actual numbers he diverts more and gets madder. People like Sheik deserve Barack Obama, the rest of us don't
 
thus the need for a flat tax for all Americans. Thanks for posting the chart but tell me why any income earner cannot pay something for the services they receive from the Federal Govt.
Why don't the millionaires pay for the wars they profited from?
 
Sorry, but I lived and worked during both and don't have any faith in what economists say but instead what the real people are feeling. When people had to pay 17.5% for a home mortage and had double digit inflation they were throwing the keys at the bankers. Today people think it is a depression when they don't get their IPAD. More importantly Reagan had a policy in place that got us out of the Malaise and Obama's policies have made things worse. There is no incentive now on the part of business to hire people and in fact the Obama Administration is a disincentive for private business to hire regardless of what your economists claim.


I lived during them times as well, I’m here to tell you this bush recession puts the misery index into overdrive.:2wave:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom