• 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!

Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

Smokified said:
Most people did not receive capital gains. I personally had to claim capital loss. Thanks to the rich I was able to get some of the money back that I lost due to our irresponsible government.
Click to expand...

Correct, and that 47% or whatever didn't receive enough income to have paid income taxes.

None of that means that the 47% or the non capital gains payers don't pay taxes.
 
. Those that make the investment are not worried about the tax consequence of the investment, they are worried about the business consequence.
Click to expand...
What percentage of the 47% are start-ups. If it's significant, you have a point. If it's not, you don't.

upsideguy said:
raise the taxes on the highest brackets. They can are the one's most able to contribute at the least pain.
Click to expand...

First, you paying 15% taxes on nothing for example...you'd still pay nothing in taxes. We're talking about someone earning say $40K, should pay *something*. If you lose money, that's not normally taxed...

So you haven't yet actually experienced the taxation at higher tax brackets. Let's give you few years of combined franchise/state plus federal plus payroll plus when you get health insurance, etc.

There are numerous reasons to oppose high taxes, and public policy that caters to a majority that votes the minority to pay their way. If you don't acknowledge both sides, I don't believe you're serious.
 
Smokified said:
Most people did not receive capital gains. I personally had to claim capital loss. Thanks to the rich and all of the income taxes they paid, I was able to get some of the money back that I lost due to our irresponsible government.
Click to expand...

really? you had to liquidate some holdings? so sorry. but how is the govt responsible for your losses?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Correct, and that 47% or whatever didn't receive enough income to have paid income taxes.

None of that means that the 47% or the non capital gains payers don't pay taxes.
Click to expand...

And your justification for trying to impose more taxes on the rich is? What do you feel is enough income to have paid income taxes? Is a household income of $80,000 enough? Statistically families with a household income of $80,000 paid 4% or less, compared to the 500k-1m and 1m+ brackets paying 24% of their income....
 
liblady said:
really? you had to liquidate some holdings? so sorry. but how is the govt responsible for your losses?
Click to expand...

The government has been unable to bring stability to the economy therefore causing businesses to either not grow or fail entirely. This affects the prices of stocks and has much more of an effect on smaller less established investment funds. I am sure that you must be at least remotely aware of how many people have lost 401ks and other invesment accounts throughout this economical disaster caused by our ineffective government.
 
Smokified said:
The government has been unable to bring stability to the economy therefore causing businesses to either not grow or fail entirely. This affects the prices of stocks and has much more of an effect on smaller less established investment funds. I am sure that you must be at least remotely aware of how many people have lost 401ks and other invesment accounts throughout this economical disaster caused by our ineffective government.
Click to expand...

it's a paper loss unless you have to liquidate. 401s should carry low risk investments if a person is close to retirement. that's why investing in the stock market is not for everyone.
 
Smokified said:
And your justification for trying to impose more taxes on the rich is? What do you feel is enough income to have paid income taxes? Is a household income of $80,000 enough? Statistically families with a household income of $80,000 paid 4% or less, compared to the 500k-1m and 1m+ brackets paying 24% of their income....
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm not the one advocating for a tax on the rich.

What would be best is to tax all types of income at the same rate, regardless of source. That sounds more fair to me.
 
liblady said:
it's a paper loss unless you have to liquidate. 401s should carry low risk investments if a person is close to retirement. that's why investing in the stock market is not for everyone.
Click to expand...

Completely irrelevant.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Actually, I'm not the one advocating for a tax on the rich.

What would be best is to tax all types of income at the same rate, regardless of source. That sounds more fair to me.
Click to expand...

Maybe you can elaborate on this a bit more or point me to a post in which you have already.
 
Smokified said:
Maybe you can elaborate on this a bit more or point me to a post in which you have already.
Click to expand...

Currently, income from wages, salaries, is taxed at a rate determined by your income bracket, while capital gains is taxed at a different rate. If you make a large salary, you pay the top marginal tax rate. If you make a similar amount in capital gains, then you pay a much lower rate. Why should it matter whether the source of income is from wages and salaries, or whether it is from capital gains? Tax all income on the same scale, regardless of source, and the situation in which Buffet pays less than his housekeeper, as an example, would disappear.

The problem with that is the same people who make our laws get most of their income from capital gains. Unfortunately, all too many of them are protecting their own interests rather than the interests of the voters who elected them.
 
Smokified said:
The government has been unable to bring stability to the economy therefore causing businesses to either not grow or fail entirely. This affects the prices of stocks and has much more of an effect on smaller less established investment funds. I am sure that you must be at least remotely aware of how many people have lost 401ks and other invesment accounts throughout this economical disaster caused by our ineffective government.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that it's government's job to create and maintain a sound economy? Was it government that caused the financial meltdown? What do you think that government should do to make it all better?
 
AdamT said:
So you're saying that it's government's job to create and maintain a sound economy? Was it government that caused the financial meltdown? What do you think that government should do to make it all better?
Click to expand...

Good point. It wasn't the government that caused the economic meltdown, nor is it the government that should get the credit when the economy is good.

So, why is it that partisans argue over whether this is the "Obama recession" or the "Bush recession"?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Good point. It wasn't the government that caused the economic meltdown, nor is it the government that should get the credit when the economy is good.

So, why is it that partisans argue over whether this is the "Obama recession" or the "Bush recession"?
Click to expand...

Exactly. I keep saying no president or party can control the economy. Being their recession should mean nothing more than it happened during their tenure. And it happened during both's. But neither made it happen or had the power to fix it.

The debt is a different issue. And both presidents, both parties in congress, and presidents and congresses goiong back for a long time all contributed to the debt.
 
Boo Radley said:
Exactly. I keep saying no president or party can control the economy. Being their recession should mean nothing more than it happened during their tenure. And it happened during both's. But neither made it happen or had the power to fix it.

The debt is a different issue. And both presidents, both parties in congress, and presidents and congresses goiong back for a long time all contributed to the debt.
Click to expand...

yes, all the way back to that "arch conservative", RR.

Of course the Republicans blamed the Democrat controlled Congress for the deficit at that time. I wondered what would happen when we had a Republican president and a Republican Congress, and still had a big deficit. When we elected Bush II and his Republican Congress, I found out: It was still the fault of "liberals."
 
Boo Radley said:
Exactly. I keep saying no president or party can control the economy. Being their recession should mean nothing more than it happened during their tenure. And it happened during both's. But neither made it happen or had the power to fix it.

The debt is a different issue. And both presidents, both parties in congress, and presidents and congresses goiong back for a long time all contributed to the debt.
Click to expand...


Control? No. Provide the stability for an economy to prosper? Absolutely! Please explain how anything Obama has done, promotes that...

J-mac
 
j-mac said:
Control? No. Provide the stability for an economy to prosper? Absolutely! Please explain how anything Obama has done, promotes that...

J-mac
Click to expand...

Again, that would require government involvement, government control, socialism. A completely free market has little to nothing from the government. You really are arguing that government is the answer.

But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, show what lack of government action provides stability.



BTW, regulations that prevent disasters does promote stabilty. Not having a huge oil spill is much more stable than having one, for example. Not allowing predatory lenders to fleece the public crerates much more stability, for example. Slowing down the bleeding and keeping some jobs longer is more stable than simply letting everything crash, for example.
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, that would require government involvement, government control, socialism. A completely free market has little to nothing from the government. You really are arguing that government is the answer.

But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, show what lack of government action provides stability.



BTW, regulations that prevent disasters does promote stabilty. Not having a huge oil spill is much more stable than having one, for example. Not allowing predatory lenders to fleece the public crerates much more stability, for example. Slowing down the bleeding and keeping some jobs longer is more stable than simply letting everything crash, for example.
Click to expand...

My sense is a lot of people feel we do need some level of regulation. However there is a reasonable balance between too much and not enough.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Good point. It wasn't the government that caused the economic meltdown, nor is it the government that should get the credit when the economy is good.

So, why is it that partisans argue over whether this is the "Obama recession" or the "Bush recession"?
Click to expand...

I agree that partisans on both sides credit the government with too much power to influence the economy. That said, the government does have a *some* ability to push the economy in one direction or another and it is a problem if the government is pushing it in the wrong direction at the wrong time. A loose money supply, deregulation, and tax cuts contributed to the real estate bubble and subsequent meltdown. That was government pushing in the wrong direction at the wrong time. Obama's administration is pushing in the right direction (stimulus), but they've only pushed the boulder hard enough slow the it's momentum. It was a significant effort when a gargantuan effort was required.
 
What's next? Shoot everyone over 60? Probably, because then he could save even more, and don't bother burrying them, too costly...lets just shoot them and then burn them. After all, we wouldn't want him and his family to miss a vacation because we are broke!
 
AdamT said:
I agree that partisans on both sides credit the government with too much power to influence the economy. That said, the government does have a *some* ability to push the economy in one direction or another and it is a problem if the government is pushing it in the wrong direction at the wrong time. A loose money supply, deregulation, and tax cuts contributed to the real estate bubble and subsequent meltdown. That was government pushing in the wrong direction at the wrong time. Obama's administration is pushing in the right direction (stimulus), but they've only pushed the boulder hard enough slow the it's momentum. It was a significant effort when a gargantuan effort was required.
Click to expand...

but, how much debt would that gargantuan effort generate? The feds already owe more than the entire annual GDP.
 
washunut said:
My sense is a lot of people feel we do need some level of regulation. However there is a reasonable balance between too much and not enough.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. There needs to be balance. And that is where the debate is. Not regulation versus no regulation. Each regulation shoudl be looked at and a determination made as to whether it is necessary or not.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, I agree. There needs to be balance. And that is where the debate is. Not regulation versus no regulation. Each regulation shoudl be looked at and a determination made as to whether it is necessary or not.
Click to expand...

yes, exactly.

Further, it needs to be looked at with the question in mind of whether it will help or hurt the economy and the American people, and not whether it will or won't gain political points for one party or the other.
 
Dittohead not! said:
but, how much debt would that gargantuan effort generate? The feds already owe more than the entire annual GDP.
Click to expand...

It would generate a lot of debt. A huge amount. The stimulus probably should have been two or three times as big as it was. I think it would be cheaper in the long term than bumping along on the ragged edge of recession for another five or ten years.
 
liblady said:
very funny. class warfare is what the gop is waging.
Click to expand...

Both sides are doing it. Just say that, no matter who is in power, I have a bone to pick with Washington......

300278_2313149401941_1645593231_2355030_1584273223_n.jpg
 
AdamT said:
It would generate a lot of debt. A huge amount. The stimulus probably should have been two or three times as big as it was. I think it would be cheaper in the long term than bumping along on the ragged edge of recession for another five or ten years.
Click to expand...

debt that would have to be paid back through inflation, as no one is going to be willing to cut spending and raise taxes to the point of being able to pay it back any other way. Is it worth it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom