• 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!

Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income

Blue_State said:
Not sure if we can still call it the Bush Recession, but whatever.

They will never cut spending. Even now, when they say they are cutting spending, they are only cutting the rate of the budget growth. Take the "cuts" that were suppose to go into effect when the super committee couldn't make budget recommendations. Those "cuts" were just a slowdown in spending, but the budget was still growing.
Click to expand...

The Recession that Obama inherited was created under the Bush Administration.

You can't cut spending in a Recession or you make it worse.
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't believe in any taxes on income

but most experts support a lower tax on LTCG as benefiting society

you seem to be mad that the rich have more LTCG than others and you are apparently upset that all the rich's income is not taxed at 35% even though you cannot articulate a sound economic reason for taxing LTCG at that rate
Click to expand...

You still fail to make any argument why we should give a preferential and far more favorable rate to capital gains. An oblique reference to "most experts" does not cut it.
 
Catawba said:
The Recession that Obama inherited was created under the Bush Administration.

You can't cut spending in a Recession or you make it worse.
Click to expand...

I agreed Obama inherited a recession that happened during the Bush Administration. Was it created by Bush, No. It was created by a horrible piece of legislation.

You can't ever cut government spending. Just doesn't happen.
 
Our current tax laws :
1. Differentiate just about every source imaginable
2. Include a vast array of different rates
3. Include a vast array of exclusions, caveats, loopholes, features, etc.

The argument that somehow captial gains is "bad" *because* it's not treated like <something else> is absurd. See above.

To argue there should be no differentiation in taxation, is an absolute flat tax. If you prefer that, just come out and say it. If not, then you necessarily imply that exclusions are acceptable. And where you draw the line is then the matter of arbitrary debate.

This is exactly why some people want a flatter-tax (not an absolute flat tax), they want to discriminate and give the poorest a free-tax break, but they also want to greatly simplify the myriad of complexities that make this sort of back and forth finger pointing absurd and wasteful.
 
Mach said:
Our current tax laws :
1. Differentiate just about every source imaginable
2. Include a vast array of different rates
3. Include a vast array of exclusions, caveats, loopholes, features, etc.

The argument that somehow captial gains is "bad" *because* it's not treated like <something else> is absurd. See above.

To argue there should be no differentiation in taxation, is an absolute flat tax. If you prefer that, just come out and say it. If not, then you necessarily imply that exclusions are acceptable. And where you draw the line is then the matter of arbitrary debate.

This is exactly why some people want a flatter-tax (not an absolute flat tax), they want to discriminate and give the poorest a free-tax break, but they also want to greatly simplify the myriad of complexities that make this sort of back and forth finger pointing absurd and wasteful.
Click to expand...

And you also failed utterly to attempt to justify a far more discriminatory rate for capital gains. I am beginning to think it is not possible.... at least from its defenders here whose argument pretty much comes down to 'because it benefits me and mine'.

Why should not all INCOME - regardless of the source - be subject to the same rate schedules?
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
how much capital gains income do you have or is just another case of you pretending that tax hikes on OTHERS won't hurt YOU
Click to expand...

Poor TD would only make 1.5 million next year. :(

There is an episode of South Park called "Not A Big Deal" that reminds me of you, TD.
 
haymarket said:
And you also failed utterly to attempt to justify a far more discriminatory rate for capital gains. I am beginning to think it is not possible.... at least from its defenders here whose argument pretty much comes down to 'because it benefits me and mine'.

Why should not all INCOME - regardless of the source - be subject to the same rate schedules?
Click to expand...

The standard conservative argument is that cap gains should be taxed little, if at all, because that would encourage investment. Of course another way to describe it would be artificially distorting the economy to encourage more leverage and more risk taking.
 
whysoserious said:
Poor TD would only make 1.5 million next year. :(

There is an episode of South Park called "Not A Big Deal" that reminds me of you, TD.
Click to expand...

But what benefit would it bring to everyone?

The government has continually proven it cannot handle, manage and disperse our nation's taxes and revenues as it is - what argument does anyone have to prove that raising anything is going to turn into something good?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
But what benefit would it bring to everyone?

The government has continually proven it cannot handle, manage and disperse our nation's taxes and revenues as it is - what argument does anyone have to prove that raising anything is going to turn into something good?
Click to expand...

I think the government can't thing is rather overstated. Mail lasted a long time and frankly only changing times have diminished it, for example. We live much better here than many other countries largely due to government efforts. So while you can certinaly find examples of poor management, just as you can in the rpivate sector, government, dispite the advesarial nature of a plit government, has done rather well all and all.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
But what benefit would it bring to everyone?

The government has continually proven it cannot handle, manage and disperse our nation's taxes and revenues as it is - what argument does anyone have to prove that raising anything is going to turn into something good?
Click to expand...

Last I checked the government has run for over 200+ years. Got any businesses with a record that long? Raising capital gains tax would work towards balancing the budget - that's the benefit it would bring to everyone.
 
whysoserious said:
Last I checked the government has run for over 200+ years. Got any businesses with a record that long? Raising capital gains tax would work towards balancing the budget - that's the benefit it would bring to everyone.
Click to expand...

The government has shown absolutely 0 interest in balancing the budget or cutting back any excessive spending and MAINTAINING those efforts. Instead: they've proven - with a mountain of evidence - that they're more than interested in doing the exact opposite, passing bills that hike our costs and skyrocket our national debt and harm us more thoroughly as a nation.

The only thing keeping us going is that the world has had no choice.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
The government has shown absolutely 0 interest in balancing the budget or cutting back any excessive spending and MAINTAINING those efforts. Instead: they've proven - with a mountain of evidence - that they're more than interested in doing the exact opposite, passing bills that hike our costs and skyrocket our national debt and harm us more thoroughly as a nation.

The only thing keeping us going is that the world has had no choice.
Click to expand...


Is true we've opporated in the red from almost the begining.

However, we are the government.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
The government has shown absolutely 0 interest in balancing the budget or cutting back any excessive spending and MAINTAINING those efforts. Instead: they've proven - with a mountain of evidence - that they're more than interested in doing the exact opposite, passing bills that hike our costs and skyrocket our national debt and harm us more thoroughly as a nation.

The only thing keeping us going is that the world has had no choice.
Click to expand...

It is simply not the case that pace of spending has increased -- other than for the wars and emergency spending to address the recession. What has happened is simply that revenues have not kept pace, and that is clearly tied to Republican tax cuts -- first Reagan's and then Bush's. The national debt as a percentage of GDP consistently fell from the end of WWII until Reagan. Then, with Reaganomics, the gap between spending and revenue began to widen, and it continued to widen until Clinton put in place higher tax rates. Then the gap began to close, with revenue actually exceeding spending ... until Bush came in and hacked tax rates again. Then it began to explode again. Do you see a pattern here?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
The government has shown absolutely 0 interest in balancing the budget or cutting back any excessive spending and MAINTAINING those efforts. Instead: they've proven - with a mountain of evidence - that they're more than interested in doing the exact opposite, passing bills that hike our costs and skyrocket our national debt and harm us more thoroughly as a nation.

The only thing keeping us going is that the world has had no choice.
Click to expand...

Not a company lady I see. Yes, We need to cut into this deficit. I agree, we should probably let the Bush tax cuts expire as soon as possible (sooner rather than later assuming economists estimate it will not bring about a double-dip recession) and sure, why not raise capital gains taxes?

Assuming Obama gets reelected, he should be able to address the budget much more effectively in his second term.
 
AdamT said:
The standard conservative argument is that cap gains should be taxed little, if at all, because that would encourage investment. Of course another way to describe it would be artificially distorting the economy to encourage more leverage and more risk taking.
Click to expand...

It's not artificial if it's permanent.
 
Blue_State said:
It's not artificial if it's permanent.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's still artificial in the sense that the tax code would put in place a *permanent* disparity between ordinary income and capital gains income. That just creates a permanent incentive to shift more resources towards risk and to increased leverage.
 
AdamT said:
Yes, it's still artificial in the sense that the tax code would put in place a *permanent* disparity between ordinary income and capital gains income. That just creates a permanent incentive to shift more resources towards risk and to increased leverage.
Click to expand...

I read that as growth.
 
Blue_State said:
I agreed Obama inherited a recession that happened during the Bush Administration. Was it created by Bush, No. It was created by a horrible piece of legislation.
Click to expand...

Are you speaking of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act???

You can't ever cut government spending. Just doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

See the debt to GDP ratio before the Reagan Administration, and also see spending cuts in the 1990s under the Clinton Administration.
 
Catawba said:
Are you speaking of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act???



See the debt to GDP ratio before the Reagan Administration, and also see spending cuts in the 1990s under the Clinton Administration.
Click to expand...

Yes.

I have.
 
Blue_State said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

I agree the repeal of the firewall between investment banks and commercial banks was the cause of the Recession, that and too much wealth concentrated at the top by 30 years of tax cuts for the rich. The Democrats have proposed bills to correct both of those problems. Guess who is blocking them?

I have.
Click to expand...

Than you should be aware we never had a debt to GDP ratio problem before Reagan, and we cut spending and raised revenues in the 1990s so that by the end of Clinton's term, we had no deficit spending.
 
Blue_State said:
I read that as growth.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, we had a lot of leverage/risk-based growth from 2002-2006. How'd that work out?

No, the sensible thing to do is to say that income is income, no matter the source. We don't want to create additional incentives to push our best and brightest into high finance, as opposed to science, mathematics, and engineering. Been there, done that.
 
AdamT said:
Well yeah, we had a lot of leverage/risk-based growth from 2002-2006. How'd that work out?

No, the sensible thing to do is to say that income is income, no matter the source. We don't want to create additional incentives to push our best and brightest into high finance, as opposed to science, mathematics, and engineering. Been there, done that.
Click to expand...

We are in 100% disagreement.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Why should not all INCOME - regardless of the source - be subject to the same rate schedules?
Click to expand...
Why should it be treated the same? There is no correct or incorrect way, to suggest it (again) is as absurd as it was in prior posts.

1. There is no "should" on an issue like taxation, with regards to what policies are actually in place. You should know this already, that you are still questioning it leads me to believe you have motiations other than seeking the truth.

2. Again, income is widely differentiated on a lot more than simply long-term cap gains, check the IRS:
Tax Topics - Topic 400 Types of Income

For any one of these, say, pensions (you have a nice public pension, do you not?), is treated differently, than other income sources, depending on the state, how it was contributed to, and in some part, the whim of whatever government officials set up whatever laws relate to it.

If you don't understand this, and really just want to learn more about capital gains, here, I'll wiki it for you.
Capital gains tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the United States, individuals and corporations pay income tax on the net total of all their capital gains just as they do on other sorts of income. Capital gains are generally taxed at a preferential rate in comparison to ordinary income (26 U.S.C. §1(h)). This is intended to provide incentives for investors to make capital investments, to fund entrepreneurial activity, and to compensate for the effect of inflation and the corporate income tax.
Click to expand...

Of course, simplifying the tax code is a good thing that a number of candidates have as part of their rhetoric. We know from other posts you oppose flat taxes though (correct?), seems odd to someone I'm sure.
 
Mach said:
Why should it be treated the same? There is no correct or incorrect way, to suggest it (again) is as absurd as it was in prior posts.
Click to expand...

There is a very good reason to treat all income the same. Quite simply, if you create a tax preference for one type of income over another you are distorting the market. You are creating a PREFERENCE for investment income versus earned income.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom