• 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!

Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

What you are failing to recognize when you say Reagan raised taxes is he did it as part of a huge spending cut deal with Dem's. obama wants to raise taxes and spending, surly you see the difference.

I don't see evidence that Obama wants to increase spending in the aggregate. Tax increases yes. Spending increases? Not so much, at least when compared to the built-in baseline increases.
 
This country needs a check-up-from-the-neck-up. Federal taxes are presently at the lowest rate relative to GDP that they've been since the 1950s. The last time we had debt problems like this, following WWII, presidents like Truman and Eisenhower established top tax rates north of 90%. Certainly there were plenty of loopholes, but the top effective rate was still far higher than what's being proposed. On top of that, almost all of the economic gains that have been realized over the last 30+ years have accrued to the top 1% and higher.

Why is my tax rate 7% higher than Mitt Romney's?
 
This country needs a check-up-from-the-neck-up. Federal taxes are presently at the lowest rate relative to GDP that they've been since the 1950s. The last time we had debt problems like this, following WWII, presidents like Truman and Eisenhower established top tax rates north of 90%. Certainly there were plenty of loopholes, but the top effective rate was still far higher than what's being proposed. On top of that, almost all of the economic gains that have been realized over the last 30+ years have accrued to the top 1% and higher.

Why is my tax rate 7% higher than Mitt Romney's?

The loopholes are really the interesting part. The government had a tool to focus investment where they wanted it.

For the federal tax rates, are you saying the rates are low, or the income from the tax rates is low?
 
This country needs a check-up-from-the-neck-up. Federal taxes are presently at the lowest rate relative to GDP that they've been since the 1950s. The last time we had debt problems like this, following WWII, presidents like Truman and Eisenhower established top tax rates north of 90%. Certainly there were plenty of loopholes, but the top effective rate was still far higher than what's being proposed. On top of that, almost all of the economic gains that have been realized over the last 30+ years have accrued to the top 1% and higher.

Why is my tax rate 7% higher than Mitt Romney's?

Your effective tax rate is 21%. that puts you most likely in the top 2%. Those of us making 1 to 5 million a year generally have an effective rate of 24%

but you don't pay a higher rate on like income than Romney does and that is what really matters

and of course those who are the best able to compete are going to make more and more money. I don't spend all I make-indeed less than (not counting taxes) 20% of my gross income and the rest I invest.

You seem to think the problem is not taxing those of us who already pay far too much enough

I see the problem is that people like you are content with the spending levels but not willing to pay for them
 
I don't see evidence that Obama wants to increase spending in the aggregate. Tax increases yes. Spending increases? Not so much, at least when compared to the built-in baseline increases.

The fact is Reagan ONLY agreed to increase taxes when congress promised to cut spending 3 dollars for every dollar Reagan raised taxes. If the Dem's would have kept their promise we would be a different country today and when you libs run around saying Reagan raised taxes without putting it in context you are at best distorting the truth at worst telling a bald face lie.
 
The fact is Reagan ONLY agreed to increase taxes when congress promised to cut spending 3 dollars for every dollar Reagan raised taxes. If the Dem's would have kept their promise we would be a different country today and when you libs run around saying Reagan raised taxes without putting it in context you are at best distorting the truth at worst telling a bald face lie.

The point remains that Reagan recognized the fact that tax increases, coupled with spending cuts, were necessary to keep government solvent. In essence, my point was that even Reagan recognized that tax increases were needed, and tax cuts alone wouldn't generate enough revenue, if at all.

This whole conversation began as a challenge to the supply-side argument, which is essentially that tax cuts alone can generate more revenue, which is untrue. So if you could address that part, please. Otherwise you're just trying to counter an argument that I'm not making.
 
Last edited:
The loopholes are really the interesting part. The government had a tool to focus investment where they wanted it.

For the federal tax rates, are you saying the rates are low, or the income from the tax rates is low?

I'm saying that the overall tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has not been this low in over 60 years.
 
Your effective tax rate is 21%. that puts you most likely in the top 2%. Those of us making 1 to 5 million a year generally have an effective rate of 24%

but you don't pay a higher rate on like income than Romney does and that is what really matters

and of course those who are the best able to compete are going to make more and more money. I don't spend all I make-indeed less than (not counting taxes) 20% of my gross income and the rest I invest.

You seem to think the problem is not taxing those of us who already pay far too much enough

I see the problem is that people like you are content with the spending levels but not willing to pay for them

You already said that your tax rate was "around 22%", so once again you seem to have a truth telling problem. In any case, as should be clear, you can't judge someone's income by looking at their tax rate. That's the problem.

What I think is that everyone is paying too little -- not just the rich -- but in the near term it would be a problem for the economy if we raised low and middle income rates. In a few years all rates will have to be raised.
 
This seems to be a good time to share my favorite JFK quote:

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
-- John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference

Ah Camelot, what a wonderful fairytale land it was. Well we tried that...waging 2 wars and cutting taxes and we got trillion dollar deficits. Now Romney wants 4 trillion more in tax cuts for the millionaires, leaving the rest of us swinging in the breeze. What kind of fairytale is that?
 
I'm saying that the overall tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has not been this low in over 60 years.

Has the percentage of people paying into the tax revenue increased or decreased in those 60 years?
 
Read more @: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

Dear god why!? Its common ****ing sense. When we are at a time when we have deficits that need to be closed and we need to make investments to strengthen our economy why cant a simple thing like this pass!?
[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

Common sense dictates that raising taxes won't close the deficit. Deficit spening has nothing to do with income revenue.
 
Your effective tax rate is 21%. that puts you most likely in the top 2%. Those of us making 1 to 5 million a year generally have an effective rate of 24%

but you don't pay a higher rate on like income than Romney does and that is what really matters

and of course those who are the best able to compete are going to make more and more money. I don't spend all I make-indeed less than (not counting taxes) 20% of my gross income and the rest I invest.

You seem to think the problem is not taxing those of us who already pay far too much enough

I see the problem is that people like you are content with the spending levels but not willing to pay for them

You sock away 80% of your income and say you are taxed too much? What are you going to do with that nest egg? We are a consumer economy and you need to get with it. Buy something.
 
30% effective tax is insane. Yu just did your taxes (I would assume).... what was YOUR tax rate?

Not you MAX TAX BRACKET, your effective rate...........

The money grubbing bastards keep 35% of my pay check every week. ****ing taxes are damn well high e-****ing-nough.
 
I can't envision a scenario where ANYONE, including those in the top 1%, is currently paying an effective federal income tax rate of 30%.

You've never filed a 1040. Have you?

And, before you say, "uhhh...yeah-huh!", I know that you've never filed a 1040 if you actually believe what you posted.
 
Common sense dictates that raising taxes won't close the deficit. Deficit spening has nothing to do with income revenue.

Growing the economy is the ONLY way out of deficits. Drastic cuts in spending will only collapse the economy , cutting GDP and dropping revenues which will increase our deficits.
Look at what austerity has done for Greece.

"On the current path - which is not sustainable in my view - we may very well see Greek GDP go down 25-30 percent, which would be historically unprecedented. It's a disastrous crisis for them,» Dadush, a former senior World Bank official, said.



Read more: Is Greece About To See The Biggest Drop In Output In Modern Economic History? - Business Insider
 
You sock away 80% of your income and say you are taxed too much? What are you going to do with that nest egg? We are a consumer economy and you need to get with it. Buy something.

You don't have a clue about the difference between gross and net income. Do you?
 
Growing the economy is the ONLY way out of deficits. Drastic cuts in spending will only collapse the economy , cutting GDP and dropping revenues which will increase our deficits.
Look at what austerity has done for Greece.

"On the current path - which is not sustainable in my view - we may very well see Greek GDP go down 25-30 percent, which would be historically unprecedented. It's a disastrous crisis for them,» Dadush, a former senior World Bank official, said.



Read more: Is Greece About To See The Biggest Drop In Output In Modern Economic History? - Business Insider

The government can't grow the economy.
 
Has the percentage of people paying into the tax revenue increased or decreased in those 60 years?

That I don't know, but I would guess that the percentage has gone down -- mostly as a result of the EITC and various other tax expenditures. Ultimately the wealthy are paying a higher percentage of taxes these days because they are earning much more relative to the other 99% than they used to.
 
Common sense dictates that raising taxes won't close the deficit. Deficit spening has nothing to do with income revenue.

Basic logic would tell you that you're out of your mind. Deficits are nothing more than a negative balance between revenue and spending. If you increase revenue without increasing spending, you will lower deficits.
 
You've never filed a 1040. Have you?

And, before you say, "uhhh...yeah-huh!", I know that you've never filed a 1040 if you actually believe what you posted.

I'm guessing that you have no clue how marginal tax rates work. You would have to work really hard to end up with a 30% effective tax rate (and be pretty stupid).
 
Basic logic would tell you that you're out of your mind.

You claim that an expenditure and a tax credit are the same thing, and I'm out of my mind? :lamo

Deficits are nothing more than a negative balance between revenue and spending. If you increase revenue without increasing spending, you will lower deficits.

Caused by too much spending...

The current government doesn't mind deficit spending, now; they're not going to mind deficit spending after taxes are increased. They're not going to kep spending levles where they are. Give'em more money and more money they will spend. It ain't rocket science.
 
I'm guessing that you have no clue how marginal tax rates work. You would have to work really hard to end up with a 30% effective tax rate (and be pretty stupid).

You don't have a job. Do you?
 
Basic logic would tell you that you're out of your mind. Deficits are nothing more than a negative balance between revenue and spending. If you increase revenue without increasing spending, you will lower deficits.

I will agree to a point with your statement. You really don't think its that simple regarding the federal budget issues. Let me ask, if the Buffet rule was made law, what is in the law that would have the increased revenue brought in go towards the deficit and debt we have? The issue I have is not lowering the deficit but eliminate it and work towards reducing the debt.

In your own words, "you will lower the deficit. OK, what does that really mean? Instead of borrowing .40 of every dollar spent, Congress will what, borrow .20 or .30 of every dollars. Doesn't that means the debt still increases? When is Congress and the President going to realize we must have a balanced budget which includes a lowering of the debt. If we don't do this soon, what is that doing for future generations?
 
You claim that an expenditure and a tax credit are the same thing, and I'm out of my mind? :lamo

A tax credit is a tax expenditure, though it's not the only kind of tax expenditure. Do you actually deny that?

Caused by too much spending...

"Too much" spending simply means spending more money than you can pay for with current revenue. You claim to run a business, right? When you do your books (or hopefully, when someone does them for you), do you ONLY look at how much you're spending to determine how you're doing? Or do you maybe consider how much revenue you're taking in, too?

The current government doesn't mind deficit spending, now; they're not going to mind deficit spending after taxes are increased. They're not going to kep spending levles where they are. Give'em more money and more money they will spend. It ain't rocket science.

That's not what happened under Clinton, when we actually raised taxes and balanced the budget.
 
Back
Top Bottom