• 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!"

You are correct there is no top dollar amount of potential wealth. However that is completely beside the point. We have statistics that show that for the last 3 decades there has been more of the country's wealth going to the top 1% than to the remaining 99% which has resulted in a declining middle class who are the consumers that make our economy work.

Your thought process is flawed. If economics is NOT a zero sum game, which you seem to agree with...then the rich getting richer by the fistful should have no effect on anyone else. The declining middle class is a result of a change of culture, a change in the very meaning of the term, and, more importantly, globalization.
 
They are not asking anyone to do what they themselves are not willing to do.

Your words, not mine. Are they able to give more of their income in taxes? Yes. HAVE they given more of their income in taxes? No. If someone is able, but yet doesn't do a thing, I typically think of them as being unwilling. They can have a plethora of reasons, which I care nothing about...maybe they claim they won't till everyone else does because them alone won't be effective...that still means UNWILLING. And in this case, it's because they don't want to be leaders on the issue...they only want to "go with the flow"....so long as that flow is going EXACTLY where they wish it to go.

You still don't understand yet how fishy it sounds for a group of rich folk who made their fortunes by avoiding taxes to all of a sudden come out in favor of increasing their income tax burden.

I give up on trying to explain it to you. I don't think you will ever understand someone wanting a change to make their country better, even though it will increase their taxes too.

The important thing is that the majority of the country gets it!
 
so you're saying people who don't have capital gains are losers?

those who want those with CG to pay higher tax rates because they whine having CG is unfair are losers
 
When the country needs revenue, it's a good reason to raise taxes, especially on people that have been able to pay less than their share. If there's almost no good reason to raise taxes then why are your leaders so anxious to raise the payroll tax that only affects the middle-class?

your problem is you are in a world of delusion where you think the rich aren't paying their fair share when in reality, the rich are the only group paying a HIGHER SHARE OF THE INCOME TAX burden than their share of the income.
 
your problem is you are in a world of delusion where you think the rich aren't paying their fair share when in reality, the rich are the only group paying a HIGHER SHARE OF THE INCOME TAX burden than their share of the income.

Still trying to pretend that federal income taxes are all the taxes people pay???

"It’s true that the top 1 percent of wage earners paid 38 percent of the federal income taxes in 2008 (the most recent year for which data is available). But people forget that the income tax is less than half of federal taxes and only one-fifth of taxes at all levels of government.

Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes (known as payroll taxes) are paid mostly by the bottom 90 percent of wage earners. That’s because, once you reach $106,800 of income, you pay no more for Social Security, though the much smaller Medicare tax applies to all wages. Warren Buffett pays the exact same amount of Social Security taxes as someone who earns $106,800."

"The Internal Revenue Service issues an annual report on the 400 highest income-tax payers. In 1961, there were 398 taxpayers who made $1 million or more, so I compared their income tax burdens from that year to 2007.

Despite skyrocketing incomes, the federal tax burden on the richest 400 has been slashed, thanks to a variety of loopholes, allowable deductions and other tools. The actual share of their income paid in taxes, according to the IRS, is 16.6 percent. Adding payroll taxes barely nudges that number.

Compare that to the vast majority of Americans, whose share of their income going to federal taxes increased from 13.1 percent in 1961 to 22.5 percent in 2007."


http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html


Despite that you think you are, you are not fooling the American people, the great majority agree its time to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
 
This just out ~ The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

"Capital gains are the key ingredient of income disparity in the US-- and the force behind the winner takes all mantra of our economic system. If you want even out earning power in the U.S, you have to raise the 15% capital gains tax.

Income and wealth disparities become even more absurd if we look at the top 0.1% of the nation's earners-- rather than the more common 1%. The top 0.1%-- about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million-- are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.

It's crystal clear that the Bush tax reduction on capital gains and dividend income in 2003 was the cutting edge policy that has created the immense increase in net worth of corporate executives, Wall St. professionals and other entrepreneurs.

The reduction in the tax from 20% to 15% continued the step-by-step tradition of cutting this tax to create more wealth. It had first been reduced from 35% in 1978 at a time of stock market and economic stagnation to 28% . Again 1981, at the start of the Reagan era, it was reduced again to 20%-- raised back to 28% in 1987, on the eve of the October 19 232% crash in the market. In 1997 Clinton agreed to reduce it back to 20%, which move was an inducement for the explosion of hedge funds and private equity firms-- the most "rapidly rising cohort within the top 1 per cent."

Make no mistake; the battle that is to be fought over the coming attempt to reverse this reduction in capital gains will be bloody and intense. The facts are clear according to the Congressional Budget Office more than 80% of the increase in income inequality was the result of an increase in the share of household income from capital gains. In fact, you can go so far as to claim that "Capital Gains income is the most unevenly distributed-- and volatile-- source of household income," according to Laura D'Andrea Tyson, University of California business professor and former chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton."

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Yahoo! News
 
This just out ~ The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

"Capital gains are the key ingredient of income disparity in the US-- and the force behind the winner takes all mantra of our economic system. If you want even out earning power in the U.S, you have to raise the 15% capital gains tax.

Income and wealth disparities become even more absurd if we look at the top 0.1% of the nation's earners-- rather than the more common 1%. The top 0.1%-- about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million-- are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.

It's crystal clear that the Bush tax reduction on capital gains and dividend income in 2003 was the cutting edge policy that has created the immense increase in net worth of corporate executives, Wall St. professionals and other entrepreneurs.

The reduction in the tax from 20% to 15% continued the step-by-step tradition of cutting this tax to create more wealth. It had first been reduced from 35% in 1978 at a time of stock market and economic stagnation to 28% . Again 1981, at the start of the Reagan era, it was reduced again to 20%-- raised back to 28% in 1987, on the eve of the October 19 232% crash in the market. In 1997 Clinton agreed to reduce it back to 20%, which move was an inducement for the explosion of hedge funds and private equity firms-- the most "rapidly rising cohort within the top 1 per cent."

Make no mistake; the battle that is to be fought over the coming attempt to reverse this reduction in capital gains will be bloody and intense. The facts are clear according to the Congressional Budget Office more than 80% of the increase in income inequality was the result of an increase in the share of household income from capital gains. In fact, you can go so far as to claim that "Capital Gains income is the most unevenly distributed-- and volatile-- source of household income," according to Laura D'Andrea Tyson, University of California business professor and former chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton."

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Yahoo! News

ie more tax the rich nonsense.
 
Still trying to pretend that federal income taxes are all the taxes people pay???

"It’s true that the top 1 percent of wage earners paid 38 percent of the federal income taxes in 2008 (the most recent year for which data is available). But people forget that the income tax is less than half of federal taxes and only one-fifth of taxes at all levels of government.

Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes (known as payroll taxes) are paid mostly by the bottom 90 percent of wage earners. That’s because, once you reach $106,800 of income, you pay no more for Social Security, though the much smaller Medicare tax applies to all wages. Warren Buffett pays the exact same amount of Social Security taxes as someone who earns $106,800."

"The Internal Revenue Service issues an annual report on the 400 highest income-tax payers. In 1961, there were 398 taxpayers who made $1 million or more, so I compared their income tax burdens from that year to 2007.

Despite skyrocketing incomes, the federal tax burden on the richest 400 has been slashed, thanks to a variety of loopholes, allowable deductions and other tools. The actual share of their income paid in taxes, according to the IRS, is 16.6 percent. Adding payroll taxes barely nudges that number.

Compare that to the vast majority of Americans, whose share of their income going to federal taxes increased from 13.1 percent in 1961 to 22.5 percent in 2007."


9 Things The Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes


Despite that you think you are, you are not fooling the American people, the great majority agree its time to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

still evading the issue? mertex claimed the rich aren't paying their fair share of the income tax which is moronic. why do you class warfare advocates scream about the top 400 when you want to soak everyone making more than 200K a year? payroll taxes were designed to pay for defined benefits. a billionaire gets no more benefits than a guy making 130K a year since they pay the same. If a billionaire has no taxable (for FICA) income his benefits are LESS than say someone like me who maxes out on FICA
 
We have other ways of taxing besides capital gains. Capital gains is a return on investment. Investments are the most important fuel we have for creating business opportunities and jobs. Raise income taxes if you want. Tax more of personal income. Reduce deductions on certain items. I say leave capital gains alone because you want investments like that to remain a very attractive vheicle to make money.
 
I give up on trying to explain it to you. I don't think you will ever understand someone wanting a change to make their country better, even though it will increase their taxes too.

The important thing is that the majority of the country gets it!

I fully understand why someone would want to effect change that helps the country. What I can't wrap my mind around is why these people don't step up to the plate, and put their money where their mouth is. Be FAR more effective of a tool to convince people of their sencerity than what it is they're doing now...

Right now, all I see is a few rich people who use tax avoidance to get, and remain rich, trying to impose taxes on others, possibly even opening up a new line of customers for themselves.
 
To put it simply, actions speak louder than words.
 
If I have this correct, what I am seeing in here is that those on the Liberal side of the argument such as Cat, and hay are making the argument that wealthy Americans should be whacked in taxes for more and more of their wealth, so that it can be redistributed to the middle class, and poor by government. Now let's leave aside the outright socialist nature of this argument for a second, and focus on the dishonesty of their argument.

1. The argument is that the "The top 1% are making 40% of the wealth in this nation" a popular meme of the "99% protests" and that somehow this isn't fair. Why not? Does the fact that you may make more than me somehow limit what I can make? I don't think so.

2. "The wealthy should pay more in tax than they currently do." Considering that the columns that even these Liberals have provided already state that the top 1% already pay 38% of taxes in this country my question is how much of the tax burden should they pay to fit their qualification of "fair share"?

3. Jon Kerry was just on Fox speaking from the echo chamber hallway in DC, and made the statement that they would accept the Toomey plan if the republicans would drop their opposition for letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Well, that is a hit on everyone....

A press release from the Tax Foundation states: "Report Shows How Expiration of Bush-Era Tax Cuts Would Affect Average Middle-Income Family by State, Congressional District." It is an informative report that clearly shows that the direct tax increases on the middle class will be significant, let alone the fact that it will hurt those who invest in job creation and the jobs they produce.

The study examines an average family in the middle 20 percent of the income spectrum and compares their 2011 tax burden to what it would be if the tax cuts are extended. The study notes that, nationally, the typical middle-income family with a median income of $63,366, would see its federal income taxes go up by $1,540 if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. This number is well below the magic "up to $200,000" spoken by Obama and his surrogates in the 2008 campaign as an income level that would be exempt from tax increases during his administration.

If the Bush tax cuts expire, the middle class will suffer

How is this not a tax hike on EVERYONE, or am I rich now?

If there are areas that need to be looked at in the tax code for this country, and I think we all agree that there are, then it should be looked at fairly, and not under a microscope of class warfare that does little but to divide this nation. The tax code today is some 88,000 pages and is so cumbersome that even a middle class family like mine that owns a home, and has certain deductions for the job I do, needs an accountant to understand what my tax even is. That is not right.

A truly fair system would take a look at those that don't pay anything to see if they are in need of this help from the rest of the country, or just gaming the system.

j-mac
 
So you think that living in a communist state is better than here?


j-mac

What it looks like is that a communist government knows how to exercise market control, I would have to question why 279 republicans who sold thier negotiating rights to a republican lobbyist " grover norquist" would care about creating a level playing field for american workers
 
What it looks like is that a communist government knows how to exercise market control, I would have to question why 279 republicans who sold thier negotiating rights to a republican lobbyist " grover norquist" would care about creating a level playing field for american workers

It was a simple question, so I'll pose it to you as well...Do you think that living in a communist country would be better than here in the US?

j-mac
 
It was a simple question, so I'll pose it to you as well...Do you think that living in a communist country would be better than here in the US?

j-mac

You are right it was a simple leading question, I understand what you are trying to insinuate, keep trying. The chinese government understands the demands of the market place and is willing to engage in what ever activity they need to in order to gain market share. Our government is handicapped by a government where 279 republicans have sworn to bow down to the commands of one republican lobbyist. Let me repeat it for you 279 republicans have sworn to bow down to the commands of one republican lobbyist. 279 elected republicans signed a pledge to Grover and gave up thier right to think and act for the people who voted for them. When the voter is not the primary author of the way an elected official views his/her job is that the way our system works? Let me ask you a question what type of government is run by dictatorship, why would you vote for a representative who signs a pledge to one republican lobbyist who is working for the two multi-billionaire Koch Brothers?
 
You are right it was a simple leading question, I understand what you are trying to insinuate, keep trying. The chinese government understands the demands of the market place and is willing to engage in what ever activity they need to in order to gain market share. Our government is handicapped by a government where 279 republicans have sworn to bow down to the commands of one republican lobbyist. Let me repeat it for you 279 republicans have sworn to bow down to the commands of one republican lobbyist. 279 elected republicans signed a pledge to Grover and gave up thier right to think and act for the people who voted for them. When the voter is not the primary author of the way an elected official views his/her job is that the way our system works? Let me ask you a question what type of government is run by dictatorship, why would you vote for a representative who signs a pledge to one republican lobbyist who is working for the two multi-billionaire Koch Brothers?


Ok, I am with you, I can not in good conscience say that I agree with politicians pledging anything other than to uphold the constitution. But you lose me with your attempt to tie Norquist to the Koch Brothers. That would be like me saying that Obama has a secret pledge with Soros...Do you think that true?

j-mac
 
Ok, I am with you, I can not in good conscience say that I agree with politicians pledging anything other than to uphold the constitution. But you lose me with your attempt to tie Norquist to the Koch Brothers. That would be like me saying that Obama has a secret pledge with Soros...Do you think that true?

j-mac

Truth can be sourced Grover owns 279 elected Republicans, The Koch Brothers control Grover, the conservative party is controlled by a few rich people not the people who elected them

Grover Norquist: The Billionaires' Best Friend | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Norquist cemented his influence by forging an early alliance with Karl Rove and setting himself up as a gatekeeper to George W. Bush's inner circle. Then, after Obama was elected, this ultimate Washington insider positioned himself as a leader of the anti-establishment Tea Party, complete with financial support from the billionaire Koch brothers. "These Tea Party people, in effect, take their orders from him," says Bruce Bartlett, an architect of the Reagan tax cuts. "He decides: This is a permissible tax action, or this is not a permissible tax action. And of course, anything that cuts taxes is per se OK."

Today, GOP politicians who have signed Norquist's anti-tax pledge include every top Republican running for president, 13 governors, 1,300 state lawmakers, 40 of the 47 Republicans in the Senate, and 236 of the 242 Republicans in the House. What's more, the GOP's Tea Party foot soldiers are marshaled by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor – a veteran of Norquist's farm team, who first signed the pledge as an ambitious member of the Virginia legislature. Under Cantor's leadership, Norquist's anti-tax pledge was directly responsible for last summer's debt-ceiling standoff that wrecked the nation's credit rating by leading the nation to the brink of default. "Congress was willing to cause severe economic damage to the entire population," marvels Paul O'Neill, Bush's former Treasury secretary, "simply because they were slaves to an idiot's idea of how the world works."

Read more: Grover Norquist: The Billionaires' Best Friend | Politics News | Rolling Stone
 
We have other ways of taxing besides capital gains. Capital gains is a return on investment. Investments are the most important fuel we have for creating business opportunities and jobs. Raise income taxes if you want. Tax more of personal income. Reduce deductions on certain items. I say leave capital gains alone because you want investments like that to remain a very attractive vheicle to make money.



Where are the jobs that conservatives said they would create with capital gains tax cuts we continued last year???
 
Truth can be sourced Grover owns 279 elected Republicans, The Koch Brothers control Grover, the conservative party is controlled by a few rich people not the people who elected them

You are relying on an opinion piece from Rolling Stone to make your claim? Really? The person who wrote the piece is Tim Dickinson, a HuffPost contributor, and self prescribed "Progressive American political correspondent" What makes you think that truth has anything to do at all with his writing?

j-mac
 
Truth can be sourced Grover owns 279 elected Republicans, The Koch Brothers control Grover, the conservative party is controlled by a few rich people not the people who elected them

nah its the freemasons, the trilateral commission and the skull and bones guys
 
Where are the jobs that conservatives said they would create with capital gains tax cuts we continued last year???

They were there all the way up to the point that the ever lisping Barney Frank and friends started running blocker for Fannie, and Freddie to fend off regulations to buy votes with houses.


j-mac
 
I know the stardard rhetorical argument from Conservatives/Republicans "why do you hate the rich?, why do you want to take money from wealthy people? all poor people want are hand-outs" and all the other "redistribution of wealth" arguments, but I've got news for you people. It's no longers just Warren Buffet saying "tax me! I'm good for it" to create jobs in America.

These promonent BILLIONAIRES are also saying "TAX ME! We want to create jobs IN AMERICA because the People want...NEED to work!" Watch these video interviews given by Barbara Walters on ABC's "20/20" of BILLIONAIRES who are saying "TAX ME! CREATE JOBS IN AMERICA!" Even they agree with the Occupiers need to put America back to work!!

Again, the Occupy Movement IS NOT anti-capitalism. It IS anti-corruption. The People just want a job and for AMERICA to get back to work!!!

Millionaires and Billionaires are usually educated people, so why won't we listen...

Are the GOP financial backers really that greedy?

They'd rather bring the country down than do the right and intelligent thing?
 
Millionaires and Billionaires are usually educated people, so why won't we listen...

Are the GOP financial backers really that greedy?

They'd rather bring the country down than do the right and intelligent thing?

So the intelligent thing to you is to keep doing that which has failed for the past 3 years eh? Sounds like the definition of insanity to me.

j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom