• 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!

Rep. Ilhan Omar proposes taxing wealthiest Americans up to 90%

marke said:
The chickens are now coming home to roost. Who knew that giving women the right to vote wound result in female idiots invading the halls of Congress to advocate for the destruction of the foundations of American freedoms and prosperity?
Click to expand...

It's not about them being women. There are plenty of idiots in congress. That has nothing to do with gender.

My favorite congressional quote... Rep Hank Johnson on increasing the number of troops stationed on Guam...
"My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize,"
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above) is already the case (as long as you choose to ignore the federal payroll tax of 15.3%), but under the two number system at least nobody "pays" federal income tax at a negative rate.

https://nypost.com/2017/04/18/almost-half-of-americans-wont-pay-federal-income-tax/
Click to expand...

Yeah, its already wrong. But you would be making it more wrong by getting rid of payroll tax and exempting them. Sure, getting rid of actual tax subsidies is a step forward, but not good enough. ANy tax system need to make sure everyone is contributing in some way to the funding of the national defense and justice. All other services should be fee based. Heck, medicare A, and SS, everything else being equal are the two programs that are most fair.
 
jonny5 said:
Yeah, its already wrong. But you would be making it more wrong by getting rid of payroll tax and exempting them. Sure, getting rid of actual tax subsidies is a step forward, but not good enough. ANy tax system need to make sure everyone is contributing in some way to the funding of the national defense and justice. All other services should be fee based. Heck, medicare A, and SS, everything else being equal are the two programs that are most fair.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) assertion is totally false. I challenge you to produce any post of mine indicating that to be my position.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above) assertion is totally false. I challenge you to produce any post of mine indicating that to be my position.
Click to expand...

"There should be fairly generous, yet truly standard, deduction (say $40K) and then a flat tax rate (say 25%) applied to any and all income over that amount. "

Perhaps I misunderstood. Are you saying this would be on top of the existing payroll tax?
 
jonny5 said:
"There should be fairly generous, yet truly standard, deduction (say $40K) and then a flat tax rate (say 25%) applied to any and all income over that amount. "

Perhaps I misunderstood. Are you saying this would be on top of the existing payroll tax?
Click to expand...

Yes, the federal income tax is completely separate from the (FICA) payroll taxes used (exclusively) to fund Social Security and Medicare programs.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL Since when are billionaires "the foundation of American freedoms and prosperity"?
Click to expand...

Individual wealth creation seems to be a foreign concept to you. I was taught to celebrate success and not be jealous of it. Apparently you were taught an entitlement mentality and to be jealous of others.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yes, the federal income tax is completely separate from the (FICA) payroll taxes used (exclusively) to fund Social Security and Medicare programs.
Click to expand...

Fine, I thought your were saying to reduce everything to one flat tax. In any case, your suggestion is still unfair. Payroll tax doesnt pay for all the social services, so everyone who makes more than 40k would be funding most everything.

A simple flat tax to rule them all is better. Exemption for the truly poor, and then everyone pays x% of every dollar above that (ideally with a cap, but we can work on that), and a balanced budget amendment which requires the X to be set at whatever level is required to balance. Adjust it every few years.
 
jonny5 said:
Fine, I thought your were saying to reduce everything to one flat tax. In any case, your suggestion is still unfair. Payroll tax doesnt pay for all the social services, so everyone who makes more than 40k would be funding most everything.

A simple flat tax to rule them all is better. Exemption for the truly poor, and then everyone pays x% of every dollar above that (ideally with a cap, but we can work on that), and a balanced budget amendment which requires the X to be set at whatever level is required to balance. Adjust it every few years.
Click to expand...

We are not that far apart in our thinking on this matter. Where we differ seems to be in how "truly poor" we wish to make/keep folks. My purpose for having a more generous, yet truly standard, deduction is to allow folks to have (keep?) enough of their own income to cover basic living expenses with a bit left over for some discretionary spending before they must start sharing their (excess?) income with the rest of society.

My example suggested a fixed amount (of $40K) but that was simply a nice round number which allows for doing quick math in one's head. In any actual legislation, it would make more sense to express that amount as some percentage (138%?) of the current federal poverty level for a (typical?) 4 person household. In 2014 that actual amount would have been $32,913, in 2017 $33,948 and in 2019 $34,638 as that amount is adjusted (annually) so as not to lose ground due to general inflation or to require re-writing the tax code every year.

What we do now is tinker with the tax code adding in personal exemptions of some fixed amount ($2,300?) for each minor dependent but I want to get away from basing the federal income tax on how, or upon who, that income was later spent. It makes no sense to me that two workers should have to pay a different amount of federal income tax on identical incomes.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
We are not that far apart in our thinking on this matter. Where we differ seems to be in how "truly poor" we wish to make/keep folks. My purpose for having a more generous, yet truly standard, deduction is to allow folks to have (keep?) enough of their own income to cover basic living expenses with a bit left over for some discretionary spending before they must start sharing their (excess?) income with the rest of society.

My example suggested a fixed amount (of $40K) but that was simply a nice round number which allows for doing quick math in one's head. In any actual legislation, it would make more sense to express that amount as some percentage (138%?) of the current federal poverty level for a (typical?) 4 person household. In 2014 that actual amount would have been $32,913, in 2017 $33,948 and in 2019 $34,638 as that amount is adjusted (annually) so as not to lose ground due to general inflation or to require re-writing the tax code every year.

What we do now is tinker with the tax code adding in personal exemptions of some fixed amount ($2,300?) for each minor dependent but I want to get away from basing the federal income tax on how, or upon who, that income was later spent. It makes no sense to me that two workers should have to pay a different amount of federal income tax on identical incomes.
Click to expand...

But see now youre adding complexity back in by having to adjust the exemption. Why should someone who has kids pay LESS taxes? If anything they should be paying more.
 
Conservative said:
Individual wealth creation seems to be a foreign concept to you. I was taught to celebrate success and not be jealous of it. Apparently you were taught an entitlement mentality and to be jealous of others.
Click to expand...

The "foreign concept" is the aristocracy of the wealthy which our founders rebelled against.

The meritocratic class has mastered the old trick of consolidating wealth and passing privilege along at the expense of other people’s children. We are not innocent bystanders to the growing concentration of wealth in our time. We are the principal accomplices in a process that is slowly strangling the economy, destabilizing American politics, and eroding democracy. Our delusions of merit now prevent us from recognizing the nature of the problem that our emergence as a class represents. We tend to think that the victims of our success are just the people excluded from the club. But history shows quite clearly that, in the kind of game we’re playing, everybody loses badly in the end.
Click to expand...

999c60f6b.png


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/
 
iguanaman said:
The "foreign concept" is the aristocracy of the wealthy which our founders rebelled against.



999c60f6b.png


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/
Click to expand...

Wondered when you are going to show up and embarrass yourself again. Our Founders created a small central govt. and part time legislature contrary to what you are supporting here. Individual wealth creation is a foreign concept to you and because you cannot compete you want to destroy the economy for others. We have a growing pie that people not you have a chance to get a part of but your attitude and lack of initiative prevents you from participating
 
Conservative said:
Wondered when you are going to show up and embarrass yourself again. Our Founders created a small central govt. and part time legislature contrary to what you are supporting here. Individual wealth creation is a foreign concept to you and because you cannot compete you want to destroy the economy for others. We have a growing pie that people not you have a chance to get a part of but your attitude and lack of initiative prevents you from participating
Click to expand...

The graph I posted belies everything you claim. Your meritocracy has killed the American dream and American citizens have nearly the worst chance of having a better future than their parents of any country in the world. It is unsustainable and will end in ruin for all. You also have a twisted view of our founders.

Jefferson might not have wanted a lot of government, but he wanted enough government to assert the sovereignty of citizens over corporations. To his view, nothing was more important to the health of the republic.

In the early years of the 19th century, as banks and corporations began to flex their political muscles, he announced that: “I hope we shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

There are those who would have us believe that the founders intended for corporations to control our elections – and, tragically, five of these Tories sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, where they recently ruled that the nation’s biggest businesses may spend whatever they like to buy the results that best serve their bottom lines.
Click to expand...

https://www.thenation.com/article/thomas-jefferson-feared-aristocracy-corporations/
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
The graph I posted belies everything you claim. Your meritocracy has killed the American dream and American citizens have nearly the worst chance of having a better future than their parents of any country in the world. It is unsustainable and will end in ruin for all. You also have a twisted view of our founders.



https://www.thenation.com/article/thomas-jefferson-feared-aristocracy-corporations/
Click to expand...

I am so sorry that you are so miserable and the American dream has passed you buy, guess you didn't have any responsibility for your own failures
 
Manc Skipper said:
The Beatles managed to get rich on 95% tax. See "Taxman"
Click to expand...

In the US, in many states, a 90% federal tax would translate to a tax rate of more than 100% at the state level.

For example, someone with $8M wages and $4M investment income would have roughly $2M taxed at the 90% rate for federal taxes. That means that the last $2M of income cost $1.8M in federal income tax alone. However, on top of that they would also be assessed roughly $95k in additional Medicare tax and Net Investment Income Tax. Then they have to factor in state income tax so, in a state such as California, that last $2M would cost $260k PLUS a Mental Health Services Tax of another $110k. Bottom line is that that last $2M of income would cost $2.2M+ in tax....and somehow or other that's supposed to be "their fair share".
 
Conservative said:
I am so sorry that you are so miserable and the American dream has passed you buy, guess you didn't have any responsibility for your own failures
Click to expand...

You mistake my concern for the future of the country with my personal situation. This is not surprising since you are living a lie every day. You seem to think that your lack of responsibility for the health of the country is not a failing. Being part of the problem most certainly equates to failure. Failure as an American and failure as a guardian of democracy is the hallmark of the meritocracy and of Trumpism.
 
iguanaman said:
You mistake my concern for the future of the country with my personal situation. This is not surprising since you are living a lie every day. You seem to think that your lack of responsibility for the health of the country is not a failing. Being part of the problem most certainly equates to failure. Failure as an American and failure as a guardian of democracy is the hallmark of the meritocracy and of Trumpism.
Click to expand...

Please send me your address so we can discuss my personal situation with you so you can tell me how bad I have it and help overcome the lie I am living every day. You seem to think the world has boy scouts as leaders and need someone you like in the WH regardless of what he does or how he is used. I disagree and what this country has generated in the last two years is the best economy in the history of the nation for any President's first two years in office. You are blinded by hatred and easily swayed by rhetoric. The guardian of democracy is a personal responsibility issue and one of national security, you don't seem to grasp either concept
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Please send me your address so we can discuss my personal situation with you to all you to tell me how bad I have it and help overcome the lie I am living every day. You seem to think the world has boy scouts as leaders and need someone you like in the WH regardless of what he does or how he is used. I disagree and what this country has generated in the last two years is the best economy in the history of the nation for any President's first two years in office. You are blinded by hatred and easily swayed by rhetoric. The guardian of democracy is a personal responsibility issue and one of national security, you don't seem to grasp either concept
Click to expand...

Your "golden boy" is so busy making Russia great again that anything that occurs here is incidental. The long term damage he has done to our Worldwide reputation and influence will last far longer than any economic benefits we may enjoy from his reactionary domestic policies. Yet another failure of your blind support of Trumpism and of your own lack of patriotism.

Putin’s return on investment from Trump’s presidency has been significant.

Here are ten ways that Putin has received his payout:

Putin’s Goal: Weaken and divide the transatlantic alliance.
Putin’s Payout: Trump undermines US relationships with European allies and calls the US’s commitment to NATO into question.
Putin’s Goal: Degrade the European Union and foster pro-Russian political movements.
Putin’s Payout: Trump attacks the EU and actively supports anti-EU, Kremlin-backed parties.
Putin’s Goal: Disrupt American leadership of the global economic order.
Putin’s Payout: Trump is eagerly pushing for an all-out trade war with Europe.
Putin’s Goal: Build global resentment and distrust towards the US and stoke anti-American sentiment.
Putin’s Payout: America’s closest allies are explicitly suspicious and distrusting of the US because of Trump’s rhetoric and actions.
Putin’s Goal: Relieve economic and domestic political pressure from US sanctions on Russia.
Putin’s Payout: Trump tries to roll back, impede, and blunt the impact of sanctions at every step.
Putin’s Goal: Legitimize his regime in the eyes of the world.
Putin’s Payout: Trump repeatedly praises and defends Putin, lending the weight of the US presidency providing validation towards Putin’s cause.
Putin’s Goal: Revive Russia’s status as a great power and gain international recognition for its illegal seizure of Crimea.
Putin’s Payout: Trump publicly says that Crimea is part of Russia and calls for Russia to be welcomed back into the international community with no concessions.
Putin’s Goal: Continue to sow discord in Western democracies and avoid repercussions for interfering in US and European elections.
Putin’s Payout: Trump dismisses Russian interference and has done nothing to prevent future interference, putting him at odds with his own intelligence community.
Putin’s Goal: Soften America’s adversarial stance toward Russia.
Putin’s Payout: Trump is shifting the Republican Party’s generations-long hawkish views on Russia.
Putin’s Goal: Destabilize the US from within.
Putin’s Payout: Trump attacks US institutions while driving divisive politics and eroding democratic norms.
The pattern is clear: Putin has received—and continues to receive—a good payout on his investment.
Click to expand...

https://themoscowproject.org/reports/putins-payout-10-ways-trump-has-supported-putins-foreign-policy-agenda/
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Your "golden boy" is so busy making Russia great again that anything that occurs here is incidental. The long term damage he has done to our Worldwide reputation and influence will last far longer than any economic benefits we may enjoy from his reactionary domestic policies. Yet another failure of your blind support of Trumpism and of your own lack of patriotism.

Putin’s return on investment from Trump’s presidency has been significant.

Here are ten ways that Putin has received his payout:



https://themoscowproject.org/reports/putins-payout-10-ways-trump-has-supported-putins-foreign-policy-agenda/
Click to expand...

Love those leftwing radical talking points and total ignorance of reality. You have been indoctrinated by the left well, a true shame that such negativity and misery held by the left. Only in the liberal world is the cold war mentality alive and well as is the ignorance of the economic results generated that disprove everything you have posted about the Trump/Putin relationship. NATO is stronger today according to the Secretary General but that reality escapes you

Russia got more benefit out of Obama and Hillary than he will ever get out of Trump
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom