• 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!

Public opposition to tax bill grows as vote approaches

zimmer said:
This is all very amusing.

You ask a citizen?

Would you like more money?
Would you like more opportunities (for work)?
Would you like more competition, which leads to higher wages?
Would you like more rock solid companies to work for, (vs. those which are unstable or who look to move overseas)?

Do you believe government will do better things with your money... or you?
Do you believe government is honest and efficient with your tax money?
Do you believe there is a tremendous amount of government waste?
Do you believe government waste should be eliminated?

The more people are working, and more companies are staying or moving to and investing in America, if wages are higher, and government revenues are higher... would you be for this scenario?

If we cut government waste, wouldn’t it be ideal?

Of course most people will answer more to all the above, and that government is a problem.

Democrats it seems... think the government is superior to the individual and businesses when it comes to the use of money... though they have never illustrated that superiority... ever.

Or they simply have serious class warfare issues.
Click to expand...
Your last sentence is just a strawman that isn't true but you have unwittingly underscored the divide in American politics. One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state -- a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net -- morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.

The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for divisive rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty.
 
Conservative said:
Please explain to me what the rich are doing that prevents people like you from joining them? How do you give a tax cut to people who don't pay taxes? Liberal logic just isn't logic at all.
Click to expand...

America Is Even Less Socially Mobile Than Most Economists Thought
Grusky and Pablo Mitnik, his co-author and colleague at the Center on Poverty and Inequality, use a new data set provided to them by the IRS to show that in the U.S., roughly half of parental income advantages are passed onto the next generation in the form of higher earnings. This proportion increases for the wealthier: For people whose parents are between the 50th and 90th percentiles of earners, about two-thirds of this parental edge is perpetuated. (It’s also worth noting that two-thirds of 90th-percentile earnings is substantially more money than two-thirds of 50th-percentile earnings.)
Click to expand...
Most of the wealthy are just benefiting from the sperm lottery. Now that the GOP eliminated all estate taxes, the situation will be worse.
 
Anthony60 said:
Gee, that's too bad. Is that a problem in your life?
Click to expand...
Not for me personally but I fear for the country -- which underscores the differences between wealthy Democrats and wealthy Republicans. Wealthy Democrats are willing to sacrifice such things as higher taxes on their wealth for the good of the country. Wealthy Republicans only care about themselves and to hell with everyone else.

A few years ago, Nobel economist, Joseph Stiglitz, wrote a piece for why growing income inequality is dangerous for a society, Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%
. You, and others, should read it.
 
MTAtech said:

America Is Even Less Socially Mobile Than Most Economists Thought
Most of the wealthy are just benefiting from the sperm lottery. Now that the GOP eliminated all estate taxes, the situation will be worse.
Click to expand...

Stunning how valuable the opinion of economists are for you and how little you think of the actual American people. Run on that leftwing radical agenda and keep losing elections. your hatred for rich people is nothing more than jealousy on your part. How did any rich person prevent you from joining them?

I can see it now in 2018, your campaign poster, "I tried to prevent the Republicans from allowing you to keep more of what you earn, VOTE FOR ME!!"

This country obviously isn't for you and you aren't capable of changing it. Have you considered moving to a socialist country more to your liking? Where would that be?
 
MTAtech said:
Let me the bad argument of raising the Social Security retirement age because people are living longer. This sounds plausible until you look at exactly who is living longer. The rise in life expectancy, it turns out, is overwhelmingly a story about affluent, well-educated Americans. Those with lower incomes and less education have, at best, seen hardly any rise in life expectancy at age 65; in fact, those with less education have seen their life expectancy decline. So this common argument amounts to the notion that we have to delay janitors retirements because lawyers are living longer. And lower-income Americans, in case you haven’t noticed, are the people who need Social Security most.

As for Medicaid, this 2015 article undercuts the premise to cut health services, as the government actually does eventually recoup much of what it spends on childhood health care, because healthier adults pay more taxes. How Medicaid for Children Partly Pays for Itself
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that those with less physically demanding jobs, better educations and/or healthier lifestyles live longer. That was not my point.

My point was that very few folks that do have physically demanding jobs can keep on doing those jobs (or be effectively retrained to take another job) past the age of 65. Since the Social Security (SS) disability retirement benefit amount is as high as the SS normal "full benefit" (based on DOB alone) amount many are forced to retire (getting certified as disabled) before their delayed full benefit age of 67.

https://www.nasi.org/learn/socialsecurity/retirement-age

https://www.investopedia.com/adviso...y-disability-benefits-vs-retirement-benefits/

I was talking about Medicare not Medicaid - they are entirely different programs.
 
Last edited:
bluesmoke said:
Your anti-society thinking is why the rich get richer and the poor and middle class get less so. That's the why. The system is gamed in favor of the rich and the corps. This tax plan does such even more than ever before.
Click to expand...

The rich get richer under regimes like Obama. With less upward mobility, with their ability to take advantage of any opportunity, their wealth grows. You think there is a lot of opportunity for upward mobility in Cuba or Venezuela? They all seem to have a very similar standard of living. The USSR had a tremendous amount of equality... as most countries like that, they also had a really priviliged and wealthy elite. You didn’t have a hope of achieving that status.

Go google “rich get richer under Obama”... you’ll see. The rich did get richer under Obama.

In an environment where the opportunities are vast, red tape less, you have tremendous opportunity for upward mobility.

I know about red tape. I have prospered from it magnificently. Governments around the world have placed so many road blocks, that it serves as a mafia-like protection from competition for what I do... and what I do is not a risk to humanity... quite the opposite. Knowing how the system works... that knowledge of the bureaucracy means I get to hold hands for people at great expense.

The life of the middle class in America have it quite good. It’s cool inside when it’s hot outside. It’s warm inside when it’s cold outside. Electricity works. Everyone has a car or three. Fuel is cheap compared with Europe. We all eat well, or as well as we like. We can travel anywhere we like with ease (except the terrorist assholes have made it more complex). There is no difference between the millionaires and middle class. Houses may be bigger, cars more expensive... but in general... everyone lives a pretty decent life.

The way to destroy it... the way to kill upward mobility... is to get government more and more involved. Just ask the Cubans. Venezuelans. Former Soviet slave countries. Ask Canadians about the North Korean styled healthcare.

Don’t worry about what others make. It’s not your business. And stealing from them will not make you wealthy... it will make you poorer. Worry about your goals, your opportunities, and work hard. There is no guarantee you will be mega rich, but you just might be. And if you try and fall short, my guess is you’ll have had a really good life.
 
MTAtech said:
Not for me personally but I fear for the country -- which underscores the differences between wealthy Democrats and wealthy Republicans. Wealthy Democrats are willing to sacrifice such things as higher taxes on their wealth for the good of the country. Wealthy Republicans only care about themselves and to hell with everyone else.

A few years ago, Nobel economist, Joseph Stiglitz, wrote a piece for why growing income inequality is dangerous for a society, Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%
. You, and others, should read it.
Click to expand...

No need to read the leftist propaganda. But, if you believe that Democrats believe in high taxes for the "good of the country", you are dreaming.
 
SMTA said:
That horse**** bill has only 33% approval from American taxpayers.
It is an albatross piece of crap.
Click to expand...

Yeah, until people start getting more in their paychecks. Then all the negative narrative liberals have been pushing on it will be revealed as the pure BS it is.
 
MTAtech said:
Not for me personally but I fear for the country -- which underscores the differences between wealthy Democrats and wealthy Republicans. Wealthy Democrats are willing to sacrifice such things as higher taxes on their wealth for the good of the country. Wealthy Republicans only care about themselves and to hell with everyone else.

A few years ago, Nobel economist, Joseph Stiglitz, wrote a piece for why growing income inequality is dangerous for a society, Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%
. You, and others, should read it.
Click to expand...

Then people like you whom believe that giving more to the government is better, there is a button at USA.gov where you can click on it and give to which ever department your heart desires....Give, give, give....
 
Conservative said:
The new Democratic Campaign slogan, "I tried to keep the Republicans from allowing you to keep more of what you earn, VOTE FOR ME!!"
Click to expand...

The typical old Republican slogan still runs, "I stole future generations' money to buy your vote today. See you tomorrow after we tank the economy again!"
 
poweRob said:
The typical old Republican slogan still runs, "I stole future generations' money to buy your vote today. See you tomorrow when the economy tanks!"
Click to expand...

That 1% reap 83% of the benefits from this bill speaks for itself.
 
Parrish said:
That 1% reap 83% of the benefits from this bill speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

that they preach tax cuts will be a boon for the economy but sunset everyone's tax-cuts but their donor class speaks for itself as well.
 
poweRob said:
The typical old Republican slogan still runs, "I stole future generations' money to buy your vote today. See you tomorrow after we tank the economy again!"
Click to expand...

So when JFK and Reagan both did similar tax cuts during their presidencies, and the economy responded very positively, then why is it wrong for Trump to do it now?
So how come JFK isn't similarly labeled by you as a thief stealing the money of future generations in order to buy votes of his day? Is it just because he's a Democrat, and so same standards don't apply?
 
sanman said:
So when JFK and Reagan both did similar tax cuts during their presidencies, and the economy responded very positively, then why is it wrong for Trump to do it now?
Click to expand...

JFK cut it down from Eisenhower's top marginal tax rate 91%. And Reagans economy was liberal kensyian spending that he put on the credit card that boosted the economy not a tax cut.

sanman said:
So how come JFK isn't similarly labeled by you as a thief stealing the money of future generations in order to buy votes of his day? Is it just because he's a Democrat?
Click to expand...

It's boils down to you not understanding that all tax cuts aren't the same. Kennedy cut the top marginal tax rate from 91% down to 70%. Do you not want to make the the top marginal tax rate 70% because kennedy was a Dem?
 
tres borrachos said:
Your post is a lie, and a big one. You did NOT link to my posts that you claim I made.

Stop lying and quote the posts you claim I made that say "The middle class are not getting a tax cut from this bill". If you don't do it, I will remind you constantly of your lies.
Click to expand...

I even quoted you saying it 2 times now.

In both instance you said you saw no benefit.
Which implies there are no tax cuts.

You then repeated it again that this bill will not help the middle class which again implies that here are no
Tax cuts or anything else that would help middle class people.

These are your words not mine.

I did not lie that is what you said in black and white.
I have showed you otherwise that there is a ton of help to middle class and middle class families and even poor people.

Your refusal to see that is not my issue.

However there is no lie here. You are just attempting to back peddle on what you said.
Since you can't actually justify your argument.
 
poweRob said:
JFK cut it down from Eisenhower's top marginal tax rate 91%. And Reagans economy was liberal kensyian spending that he put on the credit card that boosted the economy not a tax cut.



It's boils down to you not understanding that all tax cuts aren't the same. Kennedy cut the top marginal tax rate from 91% down to 70%. Do you not want to make the the top marginal tax rate 70% because kennedy was a Dem?
Click to expand...

In which no one paid. Because you could write off everything under the sun.
 
poweRob said:
The typical old Republican slogan still runs, "I stole future generations' money to buy your vote today. See you tomorrow after we tank the economy again!"
Click to expand...

No one stole anything from anyone. Allowing people to keep more of their earned money is not steal as it was their money to begin with. You can't steal something that is yours.

Please try and use some logic.
 
ludin said:
In which no one paid. Because you could write off everything under the sun.
Click to expand...

That and they dodged it by basically filtering money back through their companies. It increased internalized spending.
 
ludin said:
No one stole anything from anyone. Allowing people to keep more of their earned money is not steal as it was their money to begin with. You can't steal something that is yours.

Please try and use some logic.
Click to expand...

Whose money is it when you go into $1 trillion in increased deficit spending to pay for the tax break? Logic doesn't seem to be your forte'.
 
poweRob said:
Whose money is it when you go into $1 trillion in increased deficit spending to pay for the tax break? Logic doesn't seem to be your forte'.
Click to expand...

You can only argue this if you believe that all money belongs to the government.
Letting more people keep more of their money is not stealing.

Technically it is the government stealing what they did not earn. That is the essence of a tax.
It isn't the governments money it is my money.

The quicker you learn this the better off you will be.
 
trouble13 said:
Your links are rather bias

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The Wall Street Journal? A study done by the University of California? I believe the "cheatsheet' is about personal finance, its not political. All in, I gave eight cites, most of them from mainstream media.

The Trouble is (pun intended), many people here find any evidence that does not agree with their view (even when they can't support it), "biased". Then, you can overwhelm them with cites (eight of them in my case) and they don't like one and declare "bias". They then offer nothing in defense. It seems somewhere between a silly and an unintelligent response, don't you think?

I think its the facts that are biased... they are biased toward the truth and away from the myths in the head of those that live outside the truth.

I invited the poster to show studies that affirmed his position. Until he does, by fundamental rules of debate (if you make an assertion that you can not support when challenged, the assertion can be considered invalid; a counter-assertion that is supported, will be considered prima facie), I own this issue.

While we are at it, a few more mainstream cites...

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/...ing-but-needing-public-assistance-anyway.html

Two-Thirds Of People On Welfare Are Working Or Have A Family Member Who?s Working

https://www.cbpp.org/research/contr...ver-nine-tenths-of-entitlement-benefits-go-to

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
You can only argue this if you believe that all money belongs to the government.
Click to expand...

No... I argue that the money is already spent and repubs don't want to pay the bill. So it not your money. It our debt that repubilcans want to ignore.

ludin said:
Letting more people keep more of their money is not stealing.

Technically it is the government stealing what they did not earn. That is the essence of a tax.
It isn't the governments money it is my money.

The quicker you learn this the better off you will be.
Click to expand...

Privatize the gains and socialize the losses. It's the Republican way.
 
j-mac said:
Then people like you whom believe that giving more to the government is better, there is a button at USA.gov where you can click on it and give to which ever department your heart desires....Give, give, give....
Click to expand...
None of that is the issue but you don't want to hear the issues. It's not a matter of " giving more to the government is better." It's a matter of in a capitalist society there are people who are underserved. Having the government provide services for those people, from taxes on those that have done very well, is moral and not only moral, it makes a better country.

As Franklin D. Roosevelt, said: "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have little."

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom