• 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!

No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

TurtleDude said:
uh that is because the rich pay far more of the taxes but the Bush rates mean that the RICH PAY A HIGHER SHARE OF THE INCOME TAX BURDEN THAN THEY DID BEFORE THEM

do you realize how STUPID your post is? if the top 5% pay more than HALF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX a tax cut is going to mean that 5% gets more cuts than those who pay ALMOST NOTHING.
Click to expand...



Turtle reply to everything is your stupid because I disagree with you with nothing to back it up!
 
TurtleDude said:
LOL more of the nonsense that all wealth belongs to the government crap
Click to expand...

More hyperbole, from the person who thinks the country should walk away from its debt owed to Social Security. Don't they call people like that deadbeats?
 
Catawba said:
More hyperbole, from the person who thinks the country should walk away from its debt owed to Social Security. Don't they call people like that deadbeats?
Click to expand...

wanna find a post supporting that stupid claim.
 
By slicing the top rate on dividends and long-term capital gains from 28 percent to 15 percent the wealthy benefited much more than the small reduction in taxes that was given to the middleclass by lowering the income tax rate on all the income brackets.

The tax cuts enacted at the urging of President George W. Bush magnified what CRS calls the “disequalizing” impact of this shift. The 1986 tax reform eliminated the gap between the ordinary and capital gains rates. The gap began to widen again during President Bill Clinton’s second term, but the Bush tax cuts of 2003 blew it wide open by slicing the top rate on dividends and long-term capital gains from 28 percent to 15 percent. The tax code as of 2006 was still progressive, in that top earners paid a greater share of their income to Washington than everyone else. But thanks largely to the more favorable treatment of investment income, the code was significantly less progressive in 2006 than it was in 1996, CRS found.
Click to expand...

Bush tax cuts helped the rich get richer - Washington Post
 
TurtleDude said:
wanna find a post supporting that stupid claim.
Click to expand...

You say it in every post, you call those who expect the rich who have done so well at the expense of SS to repay their debt, moochers, or parasites, etc, etc.
 
minnie616 said:
By slicing the top rate on dividends and long-term capital gains from 28 percent to 15 percent the wealthy benefited much more than the small reduction in taxes that was given to the middleclass by lowering the income tax rate on all the income brackets.



Bush tax cuts helped the rich get richer - Washington Post
Click to expand...

how can you benefit those who pay far less of the taxes? its a stupid comment you made and the CRS is wrong

the tax code is now MORE PROGRESSIVE-the rich pay MORE OF THE FIT BURDEN AFTER THOSE TAX RATES

Evil Bush Tax Rates Made Rich Bastards Pay More Taxes! - Hit & Run : Reason.com
 
Catawba said:
You say it in every post, you call those who expect the rich who have done so well at the expense of SS to repay their debt, moochers, or parasites, etc, etc.
Click to expand...

in other words you lied in the post and have no support for your dishonest claim
 
TurtleDude said:
in other words you lied in the post and have no support for your dishonest claim
Click to expand...

Your famous shell game, if caught red handed, try to refocus attention elsewhere. :cool:
 
Catawba said:
Your famous shell game, if caught red handed, try to refocus attention elsewhere. :cool:
Click to expand...

NO you lied about what I have said and I merely demanded you cite the post of mine where I said what you claimed. You could not and now you whine it is you who was caught red handed.

I think SS is a ponzi scheme but I have never said that those who paid it should lose the benefits they paid for
 
TurtleDude said:
NO you lied about what I have said and I merely demanded you cite the post of mine where I said what you claimed. You could not and now you whine it is you who was caught red handed.

I think SS is a ponzi scheme but I have never said that those who paid it should lose the benefits they paid for
Click to expand...

Where do you propose the $2.6 trillion dollars comes from to repay SS the money that was taken so the rich could get huge tax breaks without fulfilling their obligation to provide jobs in return?
 
In the USA:

In 1983 the top 1% owned 33.8% of the weath and the bottom 80% of the people owned 18.7% of the wealth.
By 2010 the top 1% owned 35.4% of the wealth and the bottom 80% only owned 11.1%.

The rich are getting richer and the bottom 80% are getting poorer.
The Wealth Distribution

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2010, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).

In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.1%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details, drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2012).
Click to expand...

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
In the USA:

In 1983 the top 1% owned 33.8% of the weath and the bottom 80% of the people owned 18.7% of the wealth.
By 2010 the top 1% owned 35.4% of the wealth and the bottom 80% only owned 11.1%.

The rich are getting richer and the bottom 80% are getting poorer.


Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
Click to expand...

Of course. As government grows so the middle class shrinks.

Big government is hugely expensive and inevitably unaffordable as it keeps growing. Given that the country is $16,000,000,000,000 in debt and obligated for about $75,000,000,000,000 more, who do you think is going to pay for it?
 
minnie616 said:
They are still the Bush tax cuts just as Beatle's songs will always be Beatle's songs even if other artists sing them.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of people who proudly do cover songs and get credit for them. Bush got the credit for his tax cuts and Obama should get credit for extending them.

And why not? He was very pleased and proud when he did it. Let the man continue to share in the glory.
 
Grant said:
There are a lot of people who proudly do cover songs and get credit for them. Bush got the credit for his tax cuts and Obama should get credit for extending them.

And why not? He was very pleased and proud when he did it. Let the man continue to share in the glory.
Click to expand...

President Bush should get credit for his tax cuts just as President Reagan
got credit for his tax cuts.

President Obama merly extended the Bush tax cuts as part of compromise so taxes would not be raised on the middleclass and President Obama gets credit for extending them as part of that compromise.
The BUsh tax cuts will always be called the Bush tax cuts
because President Bush first introduced them and got them passed.
 
minnie616 said:
President Bush should get credit for his tax cuts just as President Reagan
got credit for his tax cuts.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If it happened during the Reagan Presidency or the Bush Presidency each should take credit or responsibility. That seems rather obvious.

President Obama merly extended the Bush tax cuts as part of compromise so taxes would not be raised on the middleclass and President Obama gets credit for extending them as part of that compromise.
Click to expand...

And the moment he extended them, and took credit for them, they became the Obama Tax Cuts. Surely that is self explanatory.

The BUsh tax cuts will always be called the Bush tax cuts because President Bush first introduced them and got them passed.
Click to expand...

And Obama supported, endorsed and took credit for continuing those same cuts. It seems that the Bush Cuts are often used as an excuse to fault Bush rather than to praise him, wouldn't you agree?
 
According to the following article allowing the disparity [between the rich and the middleclass]" to continue is both bad economic policy and bad social policy."

In 2010, as the nation continued to recover from the recession, a dizzying 93 percent of the additional income created in the country that year, compared to 2009 — $288 billion — went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers, those with at least $352,000 in income. That delivered an average single-year pay increase of 11.6 percent to each of these households.

Still more astonishing was the extent to which the super rich got rich faster than the merely rich. In 2010, 37 percent of these additional earnings went to just the top 0.01 percent, a teaspoon-size collection of about 15,000 households with average incomes of $23.8 million. These fortunate few saw their incomes rise by 21.5 percent.


The bottom 99 percent received a microscopic $80 increase in pay per person in 2010, after adjusting for inflation.
The top 1 percent, whose average income is $1,019,089, had an 11.6 percent increase in income.

This new data, derived by the French economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez from American tax returns, also suggests that those at the top were more likely to earn than inherit their riches. That’s not completely surprising: the rapid growth of new American industries — from technology to financial services — has increased the need for highly educated and skilled workers. At the same time, old industries like manufacturing are employing fewer blue-collar workers.
<SNIP>
The only way to redress the income imbalance is by implementing policies that are oriented toward reversing the forces that caused it. That means letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthy and adding money to some of the programs that House Republicans seek to cut. Allowing this disparity to continue is both bad economic policy and bad social policy. We owe those at the bottom a fairer shot at moving up.
Click to expand...

Read more:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/the-rich-get-even-richer.html?_r=0
 
Grant said:
I agree that BHO is responsible for bad economic policies as well as bad social policies. There appears to be no debate here.
Click to expand...

Not what was said.
 
minnie616 said:
According to the following article allowing the disparity [between the rich and the middleclass]" to continue is both bad economic policy and bad social policy."


Read more:

The Rich Get Even Richer - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...



Exactly right, as Henry Ford found in the past, many of the super smart rich folks today like Warren Buffett and the other millionaires that petitioned Congress to raise the tax rates of the wealthy understood, its bad for the long term economy to have so little wealth in the consumer class that it hurts consumer demand.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not what was said.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

THe article was stating that the reason why there is a disparity [between the rich and the middleclass]" is because of the Bush tax cuts.

That means letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthy and adding money to some of the programs that House Republicans seek to cut.
Click to expand...
 
minnie616 said:
Exactly.

THe article was stating that the reason why there is a disparity [between the rich and the middleclass]" is because of the Bush tax cuts.
Click to expand...

The Bush tax cuts which were endorsed, supported and passed by the Obama Administration, right? And BHO took credit for this legislation, correct?

When does BHO become responsible for legislation passed during his own Presidency?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom