• 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:
A 5% increase on Capital gains and a millionaire's surtax would go a long ways in that direction from where we are today, or any of the GOP tax plans.
Click to expand...

if you are not paying such things you have no proper standing to demand that others do

all such tax hikes would do is to encourage your dem masters to spend more to buy votes and send a message to the masses that it is the duty of the rich and the rich alone to pay down the deficit
 
apdst said:
You still believe that Al Gore created the internet? :lamo
Click to expand...

Of course Al Gore did not invent the Internet. Hopefully, however, you are sufficiently educated to understand Al Gore's role in the commercialization of the Internet.
 
Catawba said:
A 5% increase on Capital gains and a millionaire's surtax would go a long ways in that direction from where we are today, or any of the GOP tax plans.
Click to expand...

How much is "a long way"?

Do you have any idea how much money this would bring into DC and how it might effect the annual budget deficit (when they get a budget)?
 
TurtleDude said:
if you are not paying such things you have no proper standing to demand that others do
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grant said:
How much is "a long way"?

Do you have any idea how much money this would bring into DC and how it might effect the annual budget deficit (when they get a budget)?
Click to expand...

A lot more than we are currently not receiving due to the tax breaks. How would more revenue effect the budget? It would provide more money to pay the bills equalling less deficit spending, (See the 90's, before the most recent tax breaks for the rich)
 
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...

As an American voter, you have the right to vote on the subject indirectly, same as they do.

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk
 
Keridan said:
As an American voter, you have the right to vote on the subject indirectly, same as they do.

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

Please define "middle class" as this has very different meanings in different parts of the country. Then please tell us what the "effective" versus the marginal rate is for an average person in this middle class.

I have no problem with the thought that there may need to be an additional bracket for the "super rich" but we should be intellectually honest in the debate. A hotshot trader on wall street who makes millions is probably paying very close to the top marginal rate, especially if he/she rents in NYC as many do. Not to mention that the top rate for a NY state resident is somewhere around 10% and there is a city income tax as well.
 
Objective Voice said:
I guess I should demand my money back from both the State of Alabama and the federal government since I've been a state employee for 10 years and was on active duty in the Navy for 16 years prior and in both cases have filed my state AND federal income taxes every year for the last 26 years!

You, sir, have no idea what you're talking about here.
Click to expand...



I know exactly what I'm talking about and it's common sense. Taxes that are paid by government employees do not create a net profit for the government. It's just common sense.

Selling government financial instruments like bonds won't make up the difference in lost revenue from lower employment numbers or the tax subsidies the Treasury pays out. Bonds are just one way the government makes money but bonds alone will never generate the kind of money the federal government needs to pay the salaries of its employees include members of Congress and the President or provide the services it does to the public. I'm sure your response to this will be "limit/reduce the size of government" but firing people or closing federal offices alone WILL NOT solve our nation's debt and deficit problems.
Click to expand...

Ok. I never said any of that, anyway, so I don't know what your point is.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
Well GDP is in positive territory and proposals coming out of the White House are funded unlike the previous occupants of the White House who had a penchant for unfunded proposals. Like the lame 2003 678 billion dollar jobs proposal.
Click to expand...

If a private company makes a 2% profit, it isn't considered profitable. Do you understand that?
 
washunut said:
Please define "middle class" as this has very different meanings in different parts of the country. Then please tell us what the "effective" versus the marginal rate is for an average person in this middle class.

I have no problem with the thought that there may need to be an additional bracket for the "super rich" but we should be intellectually honest in the debate. A hotshot trader on wall street who makes millions is probably paying very close to the top marginal rate, especially if he/she rents in NYC as many do. Not to mention that the top rate for a NY state resident is somewhere around 10% and there is a city income tax as well.
Click to expand...

"The report, by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, found that when all federal taxes are taken into account — including those on wages, investment income and corporate profits — some households earning more than $1 million a year paid as little as 24 percent of their income to the Internal Revenue Service in 2006.

That’s substantially less than the share paid by many families making less than $100,000 a year that faced a top effective tax rate exceeding 26.5 percent, the report said.

All told, 94,500 millionaires paid a smaller share of their income in taxes than 10 million households with moderate incomes, the report found."

Report: Quarter of millionaires pay lower tax rate than some in middle class - The Washington Post
 
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...

A lower rate, or a smaller tax bill? You may not be thrilled with the actual rate that a rich person pays on their reportable income, after deductions, but it's still a helluva lot larger actual bill than anyone in the middle class.

If the Leftists weren't so tangled hating people with money, they could get out of the middle class's way, and allow more of them become rich; which would result in...anybody...anybody...anobody...yes, that's right more tax revenue. Yaaaaaay!
 
Catawba said:
A lot more than we are currently not receiving due to the tax breaks. How would more revenue effect the budget? It would provide more money to pay the bills equalling less deficit spending, (See the 90's, before the most recent tax breaks for the rich)
Click to expand...

So you have no idea how much money would be involved or how it would effect the annual deficit, correct?

In fact it wouldn't come close to solving the out of control annual deficit and more money would probably go offshore, the same place many businesses are also heading. There has to be some serious control over spending, though that is unlikely to happen any time soon.
 
Grant said:
So you have no idea how much money would be involved or how it would effect the annual deficit, correct?

In fact it wouldn't come close to solving the out of control annual deficit and more money would probably go offshore, the same place many businesses are also heading. There has to be some serious control over spending, though that is unlikely to happen any time soon.
Click to expand...

"The fiscal cost of taxing long-term capital gains at a low rate amounts to $38.5 billion in fiscal year 2012 and $256.3 billion over the five-year period from fiscal 2012 through 2016, according to the Office of Management and Budget."
10 Reasons to Eliminate the Tax Break for Capital Gains - Blog of the Century

A 5% surtax on millionaire's as proposed by Senate Democrats would generate an additional $447 billion dollars.
Senate Democrats Propose Millionaire Surtax

Another $35 billion in tax subsidies to oil companies.
Turn Off the Oil Subsidy Spigot

And $20 billion more in direct subsidy payments to agriculture.
Agricultural subsidy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A quick tally shows you are already up to about $540 billion a year in additional revenues, without placing further hardship on the working class.

I agree that we need to make big spending cuts. For the last decade, we have been spending almost as the rest of the world COMBINED on the military industrial complex. Also, we will eventually have to go with some type of UHC to lower health care costs as the rest of the industrialized world has done.
 
Last edited:
PeteEU said:
/wave Boeing and the military industrial complex for not being "real jobs"....
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges. You forget the Constitution. You are arguing over a duty the government is required to perform.
 
Catawba said:
"The fiscal cost of taxing long-term capital gains at a low rate amounts to $38.5 billion in fiscal year 2012 and $256.3 billion over the five-year period from fiscal 2012 through 2016, according to the Office of Management and Budget."
10 Reasons to Eliminate the Tax Break for Capital Gains - Blog of the Century

A 5% surtax on millionaire's as proposed by Senate Democrats would generate an additional $447 billion dollars.
Senate Democrats Propose Millionaire Surtax

Another $35 billion in tax subsidies to oil companies.
Turn Off the Oil Subsidy Spigot

And $20 billion more in direct subsidy payments to agriculture.
Agricultural subsidy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A quick tally shows you are already up to about $540 billion a year in additional revenues, without placing further hardship on the working class.

I agree that we need to make big spending cuts. For the last decade, we have been spending almost as the rest of the world COMBINED on the military industrial complex. Also, we will eventually have to go with some type of UHC to lower health care costs as the rest of the industrialized world has done.
Click to expand...

That all sounds nice and looks good on paper, but what is the plan in the event that capital gains decrease, because the new taxes suddenly took the profit out of it and you end up with less tax revenue?

BTW, what oil and gas subsidies? Seems to me that the, "we need more tax revenue", crowd would be more concerned about the $115 billion a year that's been lost because of the drilling bans.

Ya know, at the end of the day, I don't disagree with the government earning more tax revenue. What bothers me, is that the Libbos don't have the first damn clue how to generate it.
 
PeteEU said:
/wave Boeing and the military industrial complex for not being "real jobs"....
Click to expand...

How much actual profit does the government see from that investment? Just give us a round number.
 
apdst said:
I know exactly what I'm talking about and it's common sense. Taxes that are paid by government employees do not create a net profit for the government. It's just common sense.
Click to expand...

But that's NOT what you said. You said:

apdst said:
You can't pay tax money with tax money and claim your paying taxes.
Click to expand...

Your commentary did NOT address the argument you're attempting to levy now, i.e. public employee taxation does not create a net profit for government entities. To which, I ask "how do you know this to be a fact"?

Are you taking into consideration local, state and property taxes? Can you link to any report that supports your claim that all taxes paid by public (or federal) employees is tax neutral or comes at a lose in state/federal revenue?

Ok. I never said any of that, anyway, so I don't know what your point is.
Click to expand...

Ummm...yes, you did. From your post #59 on page 6 to this thread...

apdst said:
The only way the government can see any kind of actual revenue, is when the private sector creates wealth and pays a portion of it in taxes.
Click to expand...

To which I responded with the sell of savings bonds by the Treasury as a way the federal government generates revenue after you went off on yet another wild tangent claiming that the "stealfromus bill" :roll raised taxes which has been proven to be false countless times. Do you still claim you never made such statements?
 
apdst said:
How much actual profit does the government see from that investment? Just give us a round number.
Click to expand...

If you really want to know, I'd suggest you ask Boeing, Rytheon, Lockhead/Martin and other such companies that accepts federal contracts for their federal tax records and see if they either paid any federal taxes or if they receive a federal tax refund. It's the only way to be sure.

I'm just saying...
 
apdst said:
That all sounds nice and looks good on paper, but what is the plan in the event that capital gains decrease, because the new taxes suddenly took the profit out of it and you end up with less tax revenue?

BTW, what oil and gas subsidies? Seems to me that the, "we need more tax revenue", crowd would be more concerned about the $115 billion a year that's been lost because of the drilling bans.

Ya know, at the end of the day, I don't disagree with the government earning more tax revenue. What bothers me, is that the Libbos don't have the first damn clue how to generate it.
Click to expand...

I'm curious, apdst, who do you think set most of the tax policies the nation is following today? Moreover, whose tax plan is the nation following today?

Here's a clue: They're not called "the Bush tax cuts" for nothing.

And since Clinton didn't raise taxes nor initiate any significant changes in tax policy that I'm aware of during his tenure but both Reagan, Bush-I and Bush-II did, who do you think is/are the main drivers of our nation's current tax policy? Remember: Aside from the Bush tax cuts, our tax code has remained largely the same since...what...1986? And who was in office at the time?

C'mon, man...stop with the talking heads rhetoric and think before you post!
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
If you really want to know, I'd suggest you ask Boeing, Rytheon, Lockhead/Martin and other such companies that accepts federal contracts for their federal tax records and see if they either paid any federal taxes or if they receive a federal tax refund. It's the only way to be sure.

I'm just saying...
Click to expand...

Sure, the government gives someone like Lockhead 3 billion for a new military aircraft in which they get back a small percentage in return. They have to take this 3 billion from someone else that would either send it elsewhere or invest it themselves.

They then take this aircraft and crash it in the middle east in a war costing billions more.

All that said very few argue against funding the military. It's one of the few legitimate things the government does. It's a huge drain though, not an income generator.
 
1Perry said:
Sure, the government gives someone like Lockhead 3 billion for a new military aircraft in which they get back a small percentage in return. They have to take this 3 billion from someone else that would either send it elsewhere or invest it themselves.

They then take this aircraft and crash it in the middle east in a war costing billions more.

All that said very few argue against funding the military. It's one of the few legitimate things the government does. It's a huge drain though, not an income generator.
Click to expand...

You, my friend, get a :thumbs: for a very insightful post that goes outside the box of traditional thinking. Well played, sir. :)

But, where most people would say "put the brakes on military spending" I say "be careful". The #1 reason no nation will dare come at us directly - military -v- military - is because they know we have superior fire power. Yes, there is alot of wasteful spending within our military, but you have to be careful not to cut too much into our nation's ability to make military hardware, i.e., ships, subs, planes, weapons, survellience equipment, combat/SpecOps training, etc. I'm in that camp that says "use a scalpe, not a chainsaw" where defense spending is concerned.
 
Objective Voice said:
You, my friend, get a :thumbs: for a very insightful post that goes outside the box of traditional thinking. Well played, sir. :)

But, where most people would say "put the brakes on military spending" I say "be careful". The #1 reason no nation will dare come at us directly - military -v- military - is because they know we have superior fire power. Yes, there is alot of wasteful spending within our military, but you have to be careful not to cut too much into our nation's ability to make military hardware, i.e., ships, subs, planes, weapons, survellience equipment, combat/SpecOps training, etc. I'm in that camp that says "use a scalpe, not a chainsaw" where defense spending is concerned.
Click to expand...

I believe we can cut a good portion out of the military if we simply seriously addressed waste and fraud. I do not want to make the military weak either. I want other countries to know that if they mess with us we will return it many times over.

That said we need to hold accountable those who overlook fraud and waste. It seems to me that many will justify it as just the way it works. They need removed and replaced.
 
Catawba said:
10 Reasons to Eliminate the Tax Break for Capital Gains - Blog of the Century

Would this really inject more money into the economy? Keep in mind that attracting businesses is very competitive and they are free to go elsewhere. This is just what many are doing. Overtaxing businesses or forcing them to follow unrealistic regulations only discourages people from the free enterprise system and, if they are truly entrepreneurial, they will likely go elsewhere.

A 5% surtax on millionaire's as proposed by Senate Democrats would generate an additional $447 billion dollars.
Senate Democrats Propose Millionaire Surtax

Another $35 billion in tax subsidies to oil companies.
Turn Off the Oil Subsidy Spigot

And $20 billion more in direct subsidy payments to agriculture.
Agricultural subsidy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A quick tally shows you are already up to about $540 billion a year in additional revenues, without placing further hardship on the working class.

I agree that we need to make big spending cuts. For the last decade, we have been spending almost as the rest of the world COMBINED on the military industrial complex. Also, we will eventually have to go with some type of UHC to lower health care costs as the rest of the industrialized world has done.
Click to expand...

There is every indication that the $540 billion raised from the private sector will only be used to increase the bureaucracy, or used as venture capital to assist Barrack Obama supporters. Had what happened with Solyndra happened at Haliburton or Enron, people would have gone to jail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom