• 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

The GOP is doing the EXACT same thing by saying they REFUSE to sign ANYTHING that raises taxes.

Both sides are digging their heals into the ground and the American people will suffer in one way or another with BOTH sides doing this type of ****.

The GOP stance has been that we have a spending problem not a revenue problem so they have made a huge concession by agreeing to bring more money into gov coffers. Obama on the other hand will not give an inch.
 
I disagree completely. Obama needs to stand firm on this and let the chips fall where they may. He was elected to do this the first time and caved to the Republicans. He was elected on the same agenda and given a second chance. He cannot allow the Republicans to hold the middle and working class hostage in order to protect the interests of their base. The American people understand that the Republicans care mostly about the wealthy and they will pay the political price if they take the middle class and working class over the cliff.

I'll be curious if you still feel this way after you and or your friends and family lose their jobs, homes and cars.
 
I will be very disappointed if the GOP does not call his bluff.
 
I'll be curious if you still feel this way after you and or your friends and family lose their jobs, homes and cars.

LOL.....sorry....but it is the Republican path of ensuring that the wealth gets more and more redistributed to the wealthy that is going to result in people losing their homes and cars and ensures that the "jobs" will still be there, but keeps the people hungry enough to work for peanuts.
 
LOL.....sorry....but it is the Republican path of ensuring that the wealth gets more and more redistributed to the wealthy...
This can only happen if you re-define "redistribution of wealth" to suit your purposes; when forced to re-define a term to support your argument, your argument is necessarily unsound.
 
Given our #1 spot in the Corporate Tax rankings

The US Coroporate tax ranking may be #1 but in reality the "United States collects less coroporate tax relative to the overall economy than almost any other country in the world.



In fact, the United States collects less corporate tax relative to the overall economy than almost any other country in the world.


And that's a more objective measure of tax burden. Different accounting rules around the world means what's counted as income in one country isn't counted in another -- that makes comparisons of tax rates misleading.

U.S. corporate tax collections totaled only 1.7% of GDP in 2009, the most recent year for which complete data is available, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

On that measure, the United States had the third lowest corporate tax burden, behind France and Germany. [/B]
The worldwide average was 2.8%.

One reason U.S. corporate tax collections are low is that many U.S. small business owners file personal income tax returns, said Eric Toder, co-director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

In other countries, many small businesses pay both corporate and personal income tax. So a business owner in a country with a lower corporate tax rate could end up paying more than his U.S. counterpart.


read more:

The corporate tax myth - Feb. 23, 2012
 
If Obama liked the idea of raising 1.2 trillion in taxes through reform last year, why is he so opposed to that now?

Obama said:
What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues, which could be accomplished without hiking tax rates. It could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could lower rates generally while broadening the base.
 
The GOP stance has been that we have a spending problem not a revenue problem so they have made a huge concession by agreeing to bring more money into gov coffers. Obama on the other hand will not give an inch.

And yet they offer no specifics on HOW they will do this. Wasn't that what conservatives were complaining about the Dems doing? All talk, yet no specifics on actually HOW they will do something.
 
And yet they offer no specifics on HOW they will do this. Wasn't that what conservatives were complaining about the Dems doing? All talk, yet no specifics on actually HOW they will do something.

I'm pretty sure that is par for the course: High on platitudes, low on specifics.

I still think if both sides can't agree on a number( 17% GDP revenue becomes 19% GDP revenue AND 24% GDP spending becomes 20% GDP spending ), take the cliff offering.
 
And yet they offer no specifics on HOW they will do this. Wasn't that what conservatives were complaining about the Dems doing? All talk, yet no specifics on actually HOW they will do something.

Specifics would help.
 
If Obama liked the idea of raising 1.2 trillion in taxes through reform last year, why is he so opposed to that now?

The President is NOT opposed to that but we do not have the time to overhaul the tax code before we go over the 'Fiscal Cliff".

from the following article:
The president did, however, signal some flexibility on his campaign pledge to return tax rates on the top earners to 39.6 percent, which is what they were under former President Clinton.

“I recognize I’m not going to get 100 percent,” Obama said. “But what I’m not going to do is to agree to a plan in which we have some revenue that is vague and potentially comes out of the pockets of middle-class families in exchange for some very specific and tough entitlement cuts that would affect seniors or other folks who are vulnerable. That’s not the kind of balanced plan that I think would be good for growth, good for the economy, or good for the American people.”

The day after House Republicans sent the president a $2.2 trillion offer, the president said “unfortunately, the Speaker’s proposal right now is still out of balance.”

The Republican proposal called for $800 billion in new revenue from closing loopholes and deductions, but would not raise tax rates.

Obama said a comprehensive reform package will not be agreed on in the next two weeks, but expressed confidence a deal can be reached on the middle-class tax cuts.

“What I’ve suggested is, let’s essentially put a down payment. On taxes, let’s let tax rates on the upper-income folks go up,” he said. “And then let’s set up a process with a time certain, at the end of 2013 or the fall of 2013, where we work on tax reform, we look at what loopholes and deductions both Democrats and Republicans are willing to close, and it’s possible that we may be able to lower rates by broadening the base at that point. And I’m happy to work with them.”

read more:

No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says - ABC News
 
If Obama liked the idea of raising 1.2 trillion in taxes through reform last year, why is he so opposed to that now?

Because Obama gets more taxes either way now. The fiscal "cliff" (current law) gives him more taxes since the "Bush" rates revert to the higher Clinton rates for everybody, or a "compromise" gives him more taxes but only from "the rich". Obama just wants the republicants to tax only the rich, hurting their campaign fundraising and making them "break a promise", and the republicants are likely just dumb enough to do that, believing that Obama will then "have to" accept real spending cuts later. Obama will not do that, he will get on the news, campaign accross the land and label the repubicants "haters" of the poor for any cuts, other than defense (which they will likely not make anyway), made to the current income redistribution social programs. Yes he can!
 
Don't be so sure. I haven't heard anything about the budget cuts referring to: Duplicate programs, foreign aid, pork spending (remember bridge to nowhere), and cutting departments. The department of education could be eliminated and schools would keep functioning since most funding is through the state.
 
Good for him and I hope he sticks to it. The republicans are just going to have to shoot themselves or raise taxes. Obama has learned.
 
This can only happen if you re-define "redistribution of wealth" to suit your purposes; when forced to re-define a term to support your argument, your argument is necessarily unsound.

No it doesn't. Wealth is "redistributed" all the time, based on tax rates and deductions. You guys just love to try to define it as "Class warfare" redistribution when it adversely affects the rich...but define it as "getting what is rightfully yours" when it benefits the rich. It seems to me that it is you guys who are defining "redistribution of wealth" to suit your purposes.
 
And yet they offer no specifics on HOW they will do this. Wasn't that what conservatives were complaining about the Dems doing? All talk, yet no specifics on actually HOW they will do something.

Obama should say, if you can raise the amount I want by closing loopholes I will sign it, instead he slammed the door in their faces.
 
Republicans are big boys. They know how to make a specific proposal.
 
Obama's learned to fight back. What most of republicans are falsely accusing Obama of has been republican SOP.

:coffeepap
 
This was never about how much would be generated. It has been a fairness issue.

This isn't "fair" enough for you?

Who Pays Income Taxes?


Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much?

Tax Year 2009





Percentiles Ranked by AGI


AGI Threshold on Percentiles


Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid




Top 1%


$343,927


36.73




Top 5%


$154,643


58.66




Top 10%


$112,124


70.47




Top 25%


$66,193


87.30




Top 50%


$32,396


97.75




Bottom 50%


<$32,396


2.25




Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service
 
Obama should say, if you can raise the amount I want by closing loopholes I will sign it, instead he slammed the door in their faces.

that would assume that obama wants to actually raise revenue rather than play class warfare. its all about the turd in chief crapping on the rich to buy the love of the envious losers who are mad they aren't rich
 
Back
Top Bottom