• 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!

State of the Union Address

OpportunityCost said:
...Partnerships are taxed the same way. Once when they make it and once when they collect it for use from the business.

Sangha, please reply to the percentage of a business' money that a government should take, Im curious as to your answer and rationale. Same for you Tettsuo, how much do you think is enough? And why?
Click to expand...

You are dead wrong about that. There is no over all tax on a partnership. Each partner is taxed according to his or her partnership share.
 
Tettsuo said:
Here's a prime example of someone not understand the legal entity thing. The corp isn't taxed twice. It's taxed once and the owners are taxed once. If they don't want this to be, go for a Partnership.
Click to expand...

that is disingenuous

the same pool of money created by a private corporation owned by shareholders is taxed twice by the same governmental entity

that is the point

private wealth is taxed twice without any double transactions or transfers of benefit

so you approve of that pool of money being diminished by 61% by the government
 
OpportunityCost said:
...Partnerships are taxed the same way. Once when they make it and once when they collect it for use from the business.
Click to expand...
Not true at all. AdamT provided the details.

Sangha, please reply to the percentage of a business' money that a government should take, Im curious as to your answer and rationale. Same for you Tettsuo, how much do you think is enough? And why?
Click to expand...
I honestly don't know. But I do know it must not be so much that it becomes onerous for a company to function.
 
TurtleDude said:
that is disingenuous

the same pool of money created by a private corporation owned by shareholders is taxed twice by the same governmental entity

that is the point

private wealth is taxed twice without any double transactions or transfers of benefit

so you approve of that pool of money being diminished by 61% by the government
Click to expand...

No that is NOT the point. The point has been made over and over and over to you that there is a legal distinction between the legal entity of a corporation which has its own separate legal obligations and that of an individual who gets dividends from that corporation as a share holder.

Why do you resist that reality?
 
MaggieD said:
These are completely different types of transactions. If you carry your example to it's natural conclusion, the government ends up getting 99.999999% of every dollar. And that's not true. In addition, in your examples using sales tax, completely different animal. Completely different animal.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Haymarket. ;)

(You always make me smile.)
Click to expand...

I was going to tell you why you were wrong. then I read the end of your post. :)

So we agree to disagree. :peace
 
AdamT said:
You are dead wrong about that. There is no over all tax on a partnership. Each partner is taxed according to his or her partnership share.
Click to expand...

So you dont pay quarterlies and then pay your withdraws as income personally? Dont get audited bud.
 
haymarket said:
No that is NOT the point. The point has been made over and over and over to you that there is a legal distinction between the legal entity of a corporation which has its own separate legal obligations and that of an individual who gets dividends from that corporation as a share holder.

Why do you resist that reality?
Click to expand...

that legal distinction is a piss poor argument used to justify the government getting two cracks at money earned by a corporation for the benefit of its owners

tell me why you support the government getting 610K out of a profit of 1 million

don't you understand that I realize it is how the law is set up and the law is blatantly unfair and allows parasitic government behavior.

the government does nothing to justify taking 61% or even 44.74% (the current amount) of the money earned by a corporation for its owners
 
OpportunityCost said:
So you dont pay quarterlies and then pay your withdraws as income personally? Dont get audited bud.
Click to expand...

There is no tax on partnership profit, outside of what individual parnters pay -- period. Get yourself an accountant.
 
TurtleDude said:
that legal distinction is a piss poor argument used to justify the government getting two cracks at money earned by a corporation for the benefit of its owners

tell me why you support the government getting 610K out of a profit of 1 million

don't you understand that I realize it is how the law is set up and the law is blatantly unfair and allows parasitic government behavior.

the government does nothing to justify taking 61% or even 44.74% (the current amount) of the money earned by a corporation for its owners
Click to expand...

Umm, how are you calculating that 61%?
 
American said:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist04z2.xls

Let's talk about defense spending. It was 46.9% of the budget in 1962, and 19.3% in 2010. That's 59% less, and people still think it should be cut even more. Social Security (off-budget) was 13.4% in 1962, and 19.8% in 2010. That's 48% more, and no one wants to touch that.
Click to expand...



Much expense of our optional wars was not on budget, that together with our military spending that was almost as much as the rest of the world combined, was the source of much of our debt. SS on the other hand has not added one dime to our debt.


That is the difference.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Much of the war on terror was not on budget, that and our military spending that was almost as much as the rest of the world combined, was the source of much of our debt. SS on the other hand has not added one dime to our debt.


That is the difference.
Click to expand...

Whether it was in the budget or not is irrelevant as it is part of the debt and shown on bea.gov under expenses. You continue to make up information as you go along to suit your leftwing agenda, all false and complete distortions.
 
Catawba said:
Fail. That does nothing to reduce costs for health care. It just reduces health care.
Click to expand...

The only way to reduce health care, other than govt supplement (which doesn't reduce the cost, just hides it) is to reduce frivolous lawsuits. That's what drove healthcare up, that's what caused over-testing, and that's what caused horrendous liability insurance for doctors and health care facilities.
 
mac said:
The only way to reduce health care, other than govt supplement (which doesn't reduce the cost, just hides it) is to reduce frivolous lawsuits. That's what drove healthcare up, that's what caused over-testing, and that's what caused horrendous liability insurance for doctors and health care facilities.
Click to expand...

If that's true, why haven't health care costs fallen in the many states that have enacted tort reform? Why are health care costs in those states rising just as fast as they are in states that haven't enacted tort reform?
 
mac said:
The only way to reduce health care, other than govt supplement (which doesn't reduce the cost, just hides it) is to reduce frivolous lawsuits. That's what drove healthcare up, that's what caused over-testing, and that's what caused horrendous liability insurance for doctors and health care facilities.
Click to expand...

The only way??? I've seen no proof of this. I would be interested in looking at the statistics of the decrease in health care costs in states that have banned frivolous lawsuits. I believe SC and Texas have, are there others?

What has had most success in every other industrialized country on the planet is UHC.
 
Catawba said:
The only way??? I've seen no proof of this. I would be interested in looking at the statistics of the decrease in health care costs in states that have banned frivolous lawsuits. I believe SC and Texas have, are there others?

What has had most success in every other industrialized country on the planet is UHC.
Click to expand...

I forget the exact number, but about half the states have enacted some form or another of tort reform. What seems to happen is that insurers do save some money, and doctors save some money in the form of lower insurance costs, but they do not pass the savings on to consumers, so health care costs see little or no effect. It just makes the doctors and insurance companies richer.
 
AdamT said:
I forget the exact number, but about half the states have enacted some form or another of tort reform. What seems to happen is that insurers do save some money, and doctors save some money in the form of lower insurance costs, but they do not pass the savings on to consumers, so health care costs see little or no effect. It just makes the doctors and insurance companies richer.
Click to expand...

Just as I suspected. Another of our hard lessons that will eventually bring about UHC, as the only realistic alternative to the most expensive health care system in the world.
 
Catawba said:
Much expense of our optional wars was not on budget, that together with our military spending that was almost as much as the rest of the world combined, was the source of much of our debt. SS on the other hand has not added one dime to our debt.


That is the difference.
Click to expand...

That's bull****, it's all tax dollars. It's about what you want to spend it on, don't try to complicate it as the politicians do. As a percentage defense has decreased while social security has increased.
 
ARealConservative said:
percentage of the total spending is a ridiculous way to demonstrate a lack of growth.
Click to expand...


It's a demonstration of priorities. Liberalism has won the day since 1962, but they're not satisfied.
 
American said:
That's bull****, it's all tax dollars. It's about what you want to spend it on, don't try to complicate it as the politicians do. As a percentage defense has decreased while social security has increased.
Click to expand...

Military threats to America are not proportional to the percentage of military spending in our budget. We just have to spend more than the next top country does.
For the last 30 years we have spent excessively on the military/industrial complex, and in the last decade, we have spent almost as much as the rest of the world combined.

Compare this to SS which has not added to our federal debt.

Romney proposes increasing military spending and further cutting the tax rates for the rich, which just means more of the same borrow and spend policy we have seen from the GOP for the last 30 years!
 
Last edited:
American said:
It's a demonstration of priorities. Liberalism has won the day since 1962, but they're not satisfied.
Click to expand...

Funding towards the well-being of this country's people should supersede the funding for war...
 
Thing is...this is extremely recent (relatively), I could even say this;

The GOP is absolutely nothing like the "Party of Reagan"

I voted Reagan...Then Bush Sr...barely

I never left the Republican Party...it left me.
 
tecoyah said:
Thing is...this is extremely recent (relatively), I could even say this;

The GOP is absolutely nothing like the "Party of Reagan"

I voted Reagan...Then Bush Sr...barely

I never left the Republican Party...it left me.
Click to expand...

Funny, I grew up a Conservative Democrat, a JFK Democrat and the Democratic Party left me. There is no room in today's Democratic Party for a Conservative. The Party of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama is the most liberal and anti Reagan party in U.S. History
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom