• 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!

N.Y. millionaire tax gets a push from poll, Occupy Wall St.

Harry Guerrilla said:
It's more likely that the engineer pays more.
That's the problem with the current tax rates.

It's not the middle class getting fleeced, it's the lower end rich paying more than the upper end rich.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly......

At the very least it should be equal, rate wise.
Click to expand...

The top marginal tax bracket should be in excess of $10 million. But don't quote me on that, because i have not been bored enough to means test such a policy to ensure it wouldn't result in an even greater revenue shortfall.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The government's role was a limited (although they do share some fault) one. IMO, 95% of the fault goes to a combination of bad lenders and irresponsible recipients of loans.
Click to expand...

It's difficult to apportion the blame in terms of percentages, IMHO. But suffice it to say that many factors came together to produce a whole ****storm, and it was a whole lot more complicated than "da gubmint made people feel entitled to homes dey couldn't afford and crashed the housing market."
 
Goldenboy219 said:
That is because they have a standard of living that is more than millions of Americans SOL combined! I have no problem paying an extra 5% given the level of U.S. federal debt...... Until i am forced to that is.
Click to expand...

1) anyone who thinks the rich merely paying more taxes will decrease the deficit is loony given the politicians who need to keep spending to keep winning elections. as long as most people dont see paying more taxes as THEIR duty or their cost of more government they will continue to push for more spending

2) I am waiting for you to explain what justifies someone who has done well having to pay more and more and more for absolutely no additional governmental benefits.

saying they can 'afford' it or the voters can coerce them aren't answers I find morally or intellectually valid
 
Reg said:
And they all have flat screens, smartphones, and $250 athletic shoes. I see them every day.

Why do you think you can confiscate other people's money?
Click to expand...

lol they do can you show me the stats please? Such a sterotype!
 
Higgins86 said:
lol they do can you show me the stats please? Such a sterotype!
Click to expand...

No, there are no poor people in America. They get lots of goodies.
 
Reg said:
No, there are no poor people in America. They get lots of goodies.
Click to expand...


no poor people in America, you sure you want to stand by that statement?
 
Get out and see the world, then tell me what "poor" is.
 
if the 15.1% of people who fell below the poverty line in 2010 are not poor then what does that make a millionaire in America?

p.s Basra Iraq, I have seen poor and parts of detriot didnt look much better!
 
TurtleDude said:
1) anyone who thinks the rich merely paying more taxes will decrease the deficit is loony given the politicians who need to keep spending to keep winning elections. as long as most people dont see paying more taxes as THEIR duty or their cost of more government they will continue to push for more spending

2) I am waiting for you to explain what justifies someone who has done well having to pay more and more and more for absolutely no additional governmental benefits.

saying they can 'afford' it or the voters can coerce them aren't answers I find morally or intellectually valid
Click to expand...

What he's really getting at is that, it's very likely right now, that all the Turtle Dudes in the U.S. are paying more, in a percentage of taxes, than all the Buffets and Gates.
Now personally, I'm all for low tax rates, but the top end rich paying less than, the mid to low end rich, is not fair.
 
Reg said:
The government backed the paper of the garbage loans they made. Those loans were never made until government backed them.
Click to expand...

Because they trusted quantitative researchers at the nations largest financial institutions to price and rate these securities correctly. Unless of course you believe that is the governments job.

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were complicit in the Countrywide/FNMA debacle and should be in prison.
Click to expand...

Again. NO BANK WAS EVER FORCED TO MAKE A LOAN TO SOMEONE WHO THEY VIEWED AS A CREDIT RISK.

I cannot say the same thing about the government (see CIT). They were kinda forced into lending into the system.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
What he's really getting at is that, it's very likely right now, that all the Turtle Dudes in the U.S. are paying more, in a percentage of taxes, than all the Buffets and Gates.
Now personally, I'm all for low tax rates, but the top end rich paying less than, the mid to low end rich, is not fair.
Click to expand...

Exactly! lkj dlkjl;
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Because they trusted quantitative researchers at the nations largest financial institutions to price and rate these securities correctly. Unless of course you believe that is the governments job.



Again. NO BANK WAS EVER FORCED TO MAKE A LOAN TO SOMEONE WHO THEY VIEWED AS A CREDIT RISK.

I cannot say the same thing about the government (see CIT). They were kinda forced into lending into the system.
Click to expand...

Yes they were. Entitlement crashed the housing market. They were ordered to look the other way when qualifying buyers and community organizers like Barack Hussein Obama were leading the throngs to bang down their doors and demand loans.

The petulant little man-child is still doing that from the Oval Office.
 
Reg said:
Yes they were. Entitlement crashed the housing market. They were ordered to look the other way when qualifying buyers and community organizers like Barack Hussein Obama were leading the throngs to bang down their doors and demand loans.

The petulant little man-child is still doing that from the Oval Office.
Click to expand...

you mean President Obama right?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Exactly! lkj dlkjl;
Click to expand...

I'd personally rather have the corporate income tax removed, put cap gains back under regular income tax rates and then design a program to encourage more low and middle income investment towards shares and bonds.
Something like ID accounts, that match investments dollar for dollar, to a limit.
 
TurtleDude said:
saying they can 'afford' it or the voters can coerce them aren't answers I find morally or intellectually valid
Click to expand...

There is little point in ushering in another economic downturn given how much we have already invested to prevent that very thing. Cutting spending as a means of "starving the beast" is not only irresponsible, but rather short sighted. I believe i have stated this before; the private sector is not ready to be the engine of growth.

If we cut the federal budget to fit current revenue, we will go into a severe recession that was greater than what was felt in 2008/2009.

Once the private sector once again becomes that engine, federal spending will subside and we should demand even greater spending reductions. Timing is the essence of life.
 
Higgins86 said:
if the 15.1% of people who fell below the poverty line in 2010 are not poor then what does that make a millionaire in America?

p.s Basra Iraq, I have seen poor and parts of detriot didnt look much better!
Click to expand...

Detroit is what you get when you rely on government wealth transfer.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
There is little point in ushering in another economic downturn given how much we have already invested to prevent that very thing. Cutting spending as a means of "starving the beast" is not only irresponsible, but rather short sighted. I believe i have stated this before; the private sector is not ready to be the engine of growth.

If we cut the federal budget to fit current revenue, we will go into a severe recession that was greater than what was felt in 2008/2009.

Once the private sector once again becomes that engine, federal spending will subside and we should demand even greater spending reductions. Timing is the essence of life.
Click to expand...

We're already back into a recession, and government spending and deficits have exploded in the past 2.5 years.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'd personally rather have the corporate income tax removed, put cap gains back under regular income tax rates and then design a program to encourage more low and middle income investment towards shares and bonds.
Click to expand...

Radical shifts in the tax policy could result in a period of short-termism (such as the 2003 repatriation debacle); it is not as if the current effective corporate tax rate is really that high. Our trading partners would likely view such a move as "beggar-thy-neighbor".

Something like ID accounts, that match investments dollar for dollar, to a limit.
Click to expand...

As in employer tax credits for participation?

IMHO, we should be using the corporate tax structure to encourage a greater reliance on skilled labor and technological innovation.
 
Last edited:
Reg said:
We're already back into a recession, and government spending and deficits have exploded in the past 2.5 years.
Click to expand...

No we're not.
 
Reg said:
Yes we are.
Click to expand...

Prove it.

Four trillion in new debt has failed to promote a recovery. A drop in the bucket cut will do no harm.
Click to expand...

Recoveries following cataclysmic wealth shocks are slow and painful.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Radical shifts in the tax policy could result in a period of short-termism (such as the 2003 repatriation debacle); it is not as if the current effective corporate tax rate is really that high. Our trading partners would likely view such a move as "beggar-thy-neighbor".
Click to expand...

They aren't but business cost accounting can add to the firms personnel costs and instead of companies using resources to avoid taxes, they should be focused on more productive en devours.

Goldenboy219 said:
As in employer tax credits for participation?
Click to expand...

I was thinking of something akin to IRA's.
Instead, it not be for retirement but to encourage participatory capitalism, for middle and lower income groups.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Prove it.



Recoveries following cataclysmic wealth shocks are slow and painful.
Click to expand...

Read the news. It's a double dip. How can $35B stop that when $4T could not?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
They aren't but business cost accounting can add to the firms personnel costs and instead of companies using resources to avoid taxes, they should be focused on more productive en devours.
Click to expand...

I agree to a point. Accounting costs tied to lowering a tax burden is only a portion of total accounting costs. Accounting for managerial and credit/investment purposes will still exists in the absence of a capital gains tax. We would still be facing short-termism as corporations would rush to pay dividends to shareholders (ala 2003). Then we would have to worry about the possibility of a tax retaliation from nations who lose corporations to our lower rates, which makes me nervous.


I was thinking of something akin to IRA's. Instead, it not be for retirement but to encourage participatory capitalism, for middle and lower income groups.
Click to expand...

It would be an interesting idea if a sort of income threshold to capital gains was included, e.g. no capital gains tax on LTCG for people earning under $75k/year.
 
Reg said:
Read the news. It's a double dip. How can $35B stop that when $4T could not?
Click to expand...

Follow your own advice; we are not currently in a recession (there was 100k+ job growth for christ sakes!). Where did you get this $35 billion figure?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom