• 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!

The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

JasperL said:
Yes, he did. Here's one of them - in 1982. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also in California! Reagan's Forgotten Tax Record | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games



Bottom line is Reagan preferred lower taxes and lower spending, but wasn't a fiscal idiot and so raised taxes in the face of budget deficits.
Click to expand...

I will contend that the differing opinion seems to me on tax rates vs. tax breaks.

In general, tax rates were reduced under Reagan, but tax breaks were also reduced!
 
j-mac said:
Go on.....
Click to expand...

The recession required people to exercise self-control which depleted brain glucose levels causing people to feel weak. Being exposed to and empathizing with such people, caused other people's brains to become depleted of glucose as well even if they were not significantly impacted by the recession. As this epidemic of less sugary brains spread like a cancer, people mentally rebelled, and now obsess about the top 1% to exorcise their imagined level of oppression. As a result, we need to double turtledude's taxes so that the masses feel that have won a victory, glucose levels will rise in the collective brains, and we can get back to the business of depleting the world's resources at a faster rate to satisfy our insatiable need to keep up with the Kardashians....or something like that. I have been painting with Killz oil paint this afternoon so I may be a little fumey.
 
Declan said:
The recession required people to exercise self-control which depleted brain glucose levels causing people to feel weak. Being exposed to and empathizing with such people, caused other people's brains to become depleted of glucose as well even if they were not significantly impacted by the recession. As this epidemic of less sugary brains spread like a cancer, people mentally rebelled, and now obsess about the top 1% to exorcise their imagined level of oppression. As a result, we need to double turtledude's taxes so that the masses feel that have won a victory, glucose levels will rise in the collective brains, and we can get back to the business of depleting the world's resources at a faster rate to satisfy our insatiable need to keep up with the Kardashians....or something like that. I have been painting with Killz oil paint this afternoon so I may be a little fumey.
Click to expand...

What the hell was that...."fumey"? I'd say....
 
j-mac said:
What the hell was that...."fumey"? I'd say....
Click to expand...

And yet true. Let me put it to you another way: People feel victimized and they are pissed and will remain pissed until somebody gets their ass whipped.

Blacks--Doesn't matter if the cop is justified or not. The community feels it is victimized by the police and they will not be satisfied until some cops go into the volcano--virgins or not.

Workers who lost their job: They feel victimized by their employers. They put in their day's work and got screwed.

Workers who did not lose their job: They see companies making record profits while they are falling further and further behind.

Consumers: People are afraid to take long-term commitments like houses after what the housing market went through. All those people who had to in some way change their lifestyle in a negative way because of the recession are pissed at corporations, banks, the government for propping up corporations and banks while they suffer.

Either way, until people have their vengeance in some form, something the government can only do on their behalf, good luck getting them spending on other than necessities. They are used to it after 6 years.

The thing about the brain glucose levels, however, is nonetheless real.
 
Declan said:
And yet true. Let me put it to you another way: People feel victimized and they are pissed and will remain pissed until somebody gets their ass whipped.

Blacks--Doesn't matter if the cop is justified or not. The community feels it is victimized by the police and they will not be satisfied until some cops go into the volcano--virgins or not.

Workers who lost their job: They feel victimized by their employers. They put in their day's work and got screwed.

Workers who did not lose their job: They see companies making record profits while they are falling further and further behind.

Consumers: People are afraid to take long-term commitments like houses after what the housing market went through. All those people who had to in some way change their lifestyle in a negative way because of the recession are pissed at corporations, banks, the government for propping up corporations and banks while they suffer.

Either way, until people have their vengeance in some form, something the government can only do on their behalf, good luck getting them spending on other than necessities. They are used to it after 6 years.

The thing about the brain glucose levels, however, is nonetheless real.
Click to expand...

Victimization is how the progressive views the world...Thanks for laying that out.
 
j-mac said:
Victimization is how the progressive views the world...Thanks for laying that out.
Click to expand...

It isn't so much one of them damn "progressive views" as it is scientific research into brain chemistry. I could provide you links, but you finding it yourself will exorcise the aggression you feel so that you will be in a more open mind when you find it yourself and discover that I am right and you are ignorant of that which your bias prevents you from learning to expand your world view. I read a lot when the bread is baking. The psychology of consumer spending and the lack thereof are relevant to my enterprises.

P.S.- You are welcome.
 
Declan said:
It isn't so much one of them damn "progressive views" as it is scientific research into brain chemistry. I could provide you links, but you finding it yourself will exorcise the aggression you feel so that you will be in a more open mind when you find it yourself and discover that I am right and you are ignorant of that which your bias prevents you from learning to expand your world view. I read a lot when the bread is baking. The psychology of consumer spending and the lack thereof are relevant to my enterprises.

P.S.- You are welcome.
Click to expand...

Are you saying victimization is not correct?

Please explain.
 
Declan said:
It isn't so much one of them damn "progressive views" as it is scientific research into brain chemistry. I could provide you links, but you finding it yourself will exorcise the aggression you feel so that you will be in a more open mind when you find it yourself and discover that I am right and you are ignorant of that which your bias prevents you from learning to expand your world view. I read a lot when the bread is baking. The psychology of consumer spending and the lack thereof are relevant to my enterprises.

P.S.- You are welcome.
Click to expand...

Haha....Classic....I didn't say "Damn" anything, nor have I called you any names at all, but you felt the need to call me "ignorant", then claim I'm the aggressive one? Typical.
 
JasperL said:
Yes, he did. Here's one of them - in 1982. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also in California! Reagan's Forgotten Tax Record | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games



Bottom line is Reagan preferred lower taxes and lower spending, but wasn't a fiscal idiot and so raised taxes in the face of budget deficits.
Click to expand...

What you continue to show is you have no idea what you are talking about as Reagan did NOT raise Federal Income Taxes, he cut loopholes and that isn't raising taxes, he cut the rates and every taxpayer got a tax cut, What he did in California is irrelevant to me as I was living in Indiana at the time.
 
Conservative said:
What you continue to show is you have no idea what you are talking about as Reagan did NOT raise Federal Income Taxes, he cut loopholes and that isn't raising taxes, he cut the rates and every taxpayer got a tax cut, What he did in California is irrelevant to me as I was living in Indiana at the time.
Click to expand...

OK, so if the law changes and taxpayers have to pay $160 billion more in federal income taxes the next year, that is NOT a tax increase! :doh

That's the inflation adjusted estimate of TEFRA - a tax increase of about 1% of GDP per year.
 
JasperL said:
OK, so if the law changes and taxpayers have to pay $160 billion more in federal income taxes the next year, that is NOT a tax increase! :doh

That's the inflation adjusted estimate of TEFRA - a tax increase of about 1% of GDP per year.
Click to expand...

The tax rates were cut and what you got was an increase in revenue as result of closing loopholes on those evil rich people. Isn't that what you wanted? There was no tax increase as the tax rates were reduced
 
Conservative said:
The tax rates were cut and what you got was an increase in revenue as result of closing loopholes on those evil rich people. Isn't that what you wanted? There was no tax increase as the tax rates were reduced
Click to expand...

Loopholes were closed on the evil middle class as well.
 
JasperL said:
He also raised income taxes - many times. And payroll taxes.
Click to expand...

what counts is what were the rates when Reagan started his administration

and what were the rates when Reagan left office

want to tell us?
 
TurtleDude said:
what counts is what were the rates when Reagan started his administration

and what were the rates when Reagan left office

want to tell us?
Click to expand...

I'll let you answer your own question, but he did lower rates, deficits went up and the debt nearly tripled. I've never argued about any of that.
 
Conservative said:
The tax rates were cut and what you got was an increase in revenue as result of closing loopholes on those evil rich people. Isn't that what you wanted? There was no tax increase as the tax rates were reduced
Click to expand...

I don't know about you, but what most people care about is how much in taxes they pay. And if on the same income, the amount of taxes they have to pay goes UP, that's commonly referred to as a 'tax increase.' Most people don't care all that much WHY - they just know they had to send in more money.
 
JasperL said:
I'll let you answer your own question, but he did lower rates, deficits went up and the debt nearly tripled. I've never argued about any of that.
Click to expand...

many of those who voted for Reagan (I did not in 80-I was part of the Clark campaign) did so because they were tired of the confiscatory tax rates
 
TurtleDude said:
many of those who voted for Reagan (I did not in 80-I was part of the Clark campaign) did so because they were tired of the confiscatory tax rates
Click to expand...

Not only the tax rates, but we have to remember the times...We measured things in what they called a 'misery index'... Americans were told much like today, that this was as good as we could do, and that America was no longer great...Houses, and auto's were sold with 18% interest rates...People didn't have the money to get by, and the American dream was disappearing...And Reagan not only restored the economy, but gave American's a sense that there was a path back to the dream...Carter was a disaster, just as Obama is today, and instead of recognizing the pattern with progressive ideas and ideals here we keep repeating this destructive ideology...
 
Keep being convinced that killing your own is a way out of poverty and the 1% will have more and more. Economic inequality can only be sustained if the "have nots" are kept at a manageable level.

If you don't believe this than you are ignorant of economics.
 
Sietske22 said:
I personally don't care about the dynamics of wealthy distribution, as long as all citizens get their basic needs taken care of.

If it wasn't for our hyper-consumerist, greedy, hyper-materialistic society, folks would be much more content with what they had and wouldn't give a **** what rich people possess.
Click to expand...
Really? You don't? How in the world can anyone see information like what one reads in the OP and not be moved enough to see the bigger picture is beyond me.

1% ( a small sliver of people.) owning 99% (1 more percent and they would practically own you and all of your belongings too, in a sense.) of the wealth. And you are not moved by that huh? Amazing! :roll:
 
TurtleDude said:
many of those who voted for Reagan (I did not in 80-I was part of the Clark campaign) did so because they were tired of the confiscatory tax rates
Click to expand...

I'm sure they did. It's another discussion, though.
 
Bob N said:
Really? You don't? How in the world can anyone see information like what one reads in the OP and not be moved enough to see the bigger picture is beyond me.

1% ( a small sliver of people.) owning 99% (1 more percent and they would practically own you and all of your belongings too, in a sense.) of the wealth. And you are not moved by that huh? Amazing! :roll:
Click to expand...

Oh please stop....Our poor are richer than 99% of the world....Address that one.
 
JasperL said:
I don't know about you, but what most people care about is how much in taxes they pay. And if on the same income, the amount of taxes they have to pay goes UP, that's commonly referred to as a 'tax increase.' Most people don't care all that much WHY - they just know they had to send in more money.
Click to expand...


Obviously the American people got it and benefited from the Reagan stimulus. Reagan won 49 states in 1984. That says it all and shows that the Reagan positive results were recognized.
 
Bob N said:
Really? You don't? How in the world can anyone see information like what one reads in the OP and not be moved enough to see the bigger picture is beyond me.

1% ( a small sliver of people.) owning 99% (1 more percent and they would practically own you and all of your belongings too, in a sense.) of the wealth. And you are not moved by that huh? Amazing! :roll:
Click to expand...

They don't own 99% . They own more than the other 99% of the world. They own just over 50%, not 99%
 
Conservative said:
Obviously the American people got it and benefited from the Reagan stimulus. Reagan won 49 states in 1984. That says it all and shows that the Reagan positive results were recognized.
Click to expand...

And the American people didn't care that the huge tax cut (3% of GDP) of ERTA 1981, was followed with tax increases (1% of GDP) with TEFRA 82.

Sheesh, is Reagan's status as modern day conservative saint so fragile that we can't speak of documented events in the public record?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom