• 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!

ABC's "20/20 - Lessons from Billionaires: Tax ME to create jobs IN AMERICA!"

Catawba said:
As an American voter, I have the necessary standing to demand that the rich not be allowed to pay a lower tax rate on their income than the middle class.
Click to expand...

you apparently have the right to post lies as well

the rich pay higher taxes on like income

and you seem to have no problem with most of america paying much lower rates than the rich so your indignation is a joke

and no, you have no credibility to demand others pay more when they are already paying much more than you do and getting NOTHING additional in return
 
Catawba said:
According to the Turtledude, only the rich should be allowed to vote, because the middle class (unlike the rich) vote selfishly for their own interest.
Click to expand...

stop lying. I said you should not be able to vote on increasing a tax if that increase does not affect your tax bills
 
TurtleDude said:
stop lying. I said you should not be able to vote on increasing a tax if that increase does not affect your tax bills
Click to expand...

oh, so you want folks who don't pay any income taxes to be able to vote in Federal elections?

glad to hear it.
 
TurtleDude said:
stop lying. I said you should not be able to vote on increasing a tax if that increase does not affect your tax bills
Click to expand...

Um. T-dude.

They don't get to vote on increasing taxes. Congress does that.
 
Dickieboy said:
But:
Last week, the CBO reported that if Congress simply left taxes as they are today, tax revenues would return to normal levels -18 percent of the gross domestic product - in just six years … and keep growing after that. Eventually we would need to cut taxes to keep them from reaching an all-time high. [Note: In this scenario, tax rates stay the same for all taxpayers, middle-income families continue to escape the clutches of the alternative minimum tax, and other tax-reducing provisions now set to expire remain in effect.]


DUBAY: Tax hikes not needed to balance budget - Washington Times
Click to expand...

It will depend on whether the American people want tax revenues to slowly increase over many years, or to increase more rapidly through elimination of tax breaks for the rich to help address our budget deficit and to stimulate our economy.

According to the polls, the majority of Americans are saying they think the tax breaks for the rich should be eliminated.
 
TurtleDude said:
the rich pay higher taxes on like income
Click to expand...

Yep, that's what needs to be fixed, all the income that the rich pay a lower tax rate on.
 
TurtleDude said:
stop lying. I said you should not be able to vote on increasing a tax if that increase does not affect your tax bills
Click to expand...

That would make sense only if the rich had not been allowed to vote (or buying off politicians) to decrease their taxes over the last 30 years.
 
Catawba said:
That would make sense only if the rich had not been allowed to vote (or buying off politicians) to decrease their taxes over the last 30 years.
Click to expand...


Wow, now this is amazing. Now watch what happens when I change one word....

"That would make sense only if the Unions had not been allowed to vote (or buying off politicians) to decrease their taxes over the last 30 years."


j-mac
 
How convenient.

Billionaires, whose money can't be taxed after the fact, want FUTURE up-and-coming billionaires to have their pants taxed off.

Sounds like an ingenius way to keep the Billionaires Club to a minimal membership. Aristocracy?
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Wow, now this is amazing. Now watch what happens when I change one word....

"That would make sense only if the Unions had not been allowed to vote (or buying off politicians) to decrease their taxes over the last 30 years."


j-mac
Click to expand...

Only two failures with your analogy there J: 1, unions have decreased in power over the last 30 years, and 2, tax rates have decreased more for the rich than they have the working class over the last 30 years.

You did spell unions correctly however, so you get points for that!
 
rosie1 said:
I worked at the government trough for 30 years. The term "public servant" in quite accurate. We were constantly underfunded and understaffed at the (health) agency where I worked. The paper work was never caught up.
Click to expand...

Yes, aperwork often times seems to be more important that helping the tax payer. (not a knock on social workers but with those who think so much paperwork is needed).

Services to the poor, women/children and the mentally ill were always being cut. This made for waiting lists for services. Physically ill, mentally ill and sometimes even dangerous people waited for services. Our staff were will trained to deal any emergency which might appear at our front counter. We had to be pleasant and precise to people who were at their best civil and at their worst rude, abusive and frequently scarey. We could not wear religious jewery, have any such material in sight at our desks, any political bumper stickers on our cars; nor could we express our political views in public. If staff as group had decided where the biggest cuts were made, it likely would have been in management. But, I've seldom seen that happen enough in any agency.
Click to expand...

Controlling bunch weren't they?
 
Catawba said:
Only two failures with your analogy there J: 1, unions have decreased in power over the last 30 years, and 2, tax rates have decreased more for the rich than they have the working class over the last 30 years.

You did spell unions correctly however, so you get points for that!
Click to expand...


Decreasing in popularity are by no means a decrease in power...Take a quick gander at who is in the WH, and who has the ear of the President. I'd say that is a significant increase in power. Also, considering the recent payoffs Unions enjoyed at the hand of the tax payer through stimulus, and now the proposed stimulus II, they are just fine, it is the people that are hurting.

Now you do however get points for sticking to the strategic talking points.

j-mac
 
Thunder said:
tunnels, and buildings for material failures and other safety hazard, its still a total loss to the govt. and the tax payer?
Click to expand...

Hard to say because he only known way of reliably determining market value, is a sufficiently large and unburdened "free" market. Hence, the issue. How much of it is waste due to unions, or due to lobbyists, or due to revolving door w/private sector. Or politics, or corruption, or laxness due to overly high job security. Who are going to ask, the fox in the hen house? And wait, we don't have a direct choice? Ouch.

I do sympathize in that it IS a hard issues to tackle, the minute you start using taxpayer money at that large of a degree, all of these dillemas do arise because of human nature. Sure a retired teacher may claim the laborers they represented in union efforts deserved what they got, and he deserved his really nice pension, but then why would he not? The fact that people had no direct choice in the matter in supporting that, creates the conflict.

That's one reason reducing governments footprint is a solution, it solves a lot of this type of an issue.
 
j-mac said:
Decreasing in popularity are by no means a decrease in power...

j-mac
Click to expand...

Decreasing union membership means decreasing power, as evidenced by tax rates for the working class being reduced less than tax rates for the rich.
 
Erod said:
How convenient.

Billionaires, whose money can't be taxed after the fact, want FUTURE up-and-coming billionaires to have their pants taxed off.

Sounds like an ingenius way to keep the Billionaires Club to a minimal membership. Aristocracy?
Click to expand...

Just means less competition for them.
 
Catawba said:
Decreasing union membership means decreasing power, as evidenced by tax rates for the working class being reduced less than tax rates for the rich.
Click to expand...

Never mind the foriegn competition influence. I make $26.50 an hour non union. I'm not even at the top of the pay scale.
 
1Perry said:
Never mind the foriegn competition influence. I make $26.50 an hour non union. I'm not even at the top of the pay scale.
Click to expand...

Not sure of the point you are trying to make, are you saying you think you are overpaid in your non-union job there?
 
I still don't understand why a billionaire must wait for a law to be passed, before giving more to the government, if that's what they feel must happen...


Money ----------->mouth.

Make it happen.
 
Catawba said:
According to the polls, the majority of Americans are saying they think the tax breaks for the rich should be eliminated.
Click to expand...

Do you think the poll results would be the same if the SAME MAJORITY were the 'rich'?
 
Catawba said:
Decreasing union membership means decreasing power, as evidenced by tax rates for the working class being reduced less than tax rates for the rich.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Union power was never in the numbers that were in the membership, but more so in the allies that held real power as with most quasi criminal organizations.

j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom