• 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!

Rand Paul blocks vote on bill to aid 9/11 first responders

EAt5gq1WwAIfwk0
I love that nick-name: Moscow McConnell.
 
jonny5 said:
How is that wrong? Thats what I said. Cut defense spending in half (300-400bn a year), fine. What about the other 52 trillion we spend in the next decade under the baseline of Obamas last year?

Heck, we CUT defense spending by 120bn from 2011, and its still lower now than it was then. The deficit keeps going up.
Click to expand...

It was wrong because you deducted only 300 billion from a projected 1.5 deficit for the upcoming decade when in fact you needed to deduct 10 times that amount. Now you bring 52 trillion in the conversation, so you change the calculation. How much is going to be the revenues for the next 10 years?
I have no problem with any calculation you want to choose as long as it is correct.

My point is not that we cannot avoid cutting spending. My point is that with an increase in revenues (and taxes) we get from the rich and a generous slash of military expenses, we can reduce the cutting of any expense that goes for social services. I have not done any specific calculations, but I would not be surprised if we will need to do things like increase age of retirement and payroll taxes (which will mostly affect low and middle class families) to fund SS and Medicare. But before we do any of these, we need to go after those at the top. We also need to change out healthcare system which lead us to spend almost double the amount of money per capita for healthcare compared to other developed countries, and we need to have a president who instead of using tariffs in an effort of trying to change ONLY the global trade, he should strong-arm nations in an effort to change the global tax policies. Countries who become tax paradises should be among the first which will feel the consequence of tariffs.
 
pamak said:
It was wrong because you deducted only 300 billion from a projected 1.5 deficit for the upcoming decade when in fact you needed to deduct 10 times that amount. Now you bring 52 trillion in the conversation, so you change the calculation. How much is going to be the revenues for the next 10 years?
I have no problem with any calculation you want to choose as long as it is correct.

My point is not that we cannot avoid cutting spending. My point is that with an increase in revenues (and taxes) we get from the rich and a generous slash of military expenses, we can reduce the cutting of any expense that goes for social services. I have not done any specific calculations, but I would not be surprised if we will need to do things like increase age of retirement and payroll taxes (which will mostly affect low and middle class families) to fund SS and Medicare. But before we do any of these, we need to go after those at the top. We also need to change out healthcare system which lead us to spend almost double the amount of money per capita for healthcare compared to other developed countries, and we need to have a president who instead of using tariffs in an effort of trying to change ONLY the global trade, he should strong-arm nations in an effort to change the global tax policies. Countries who become tax paradises should be among the first which will feel the consequence of tariffs.
Click to expand...

So, cut defense, tax the rich, quadruple healthcare spending? We did that. Federal Healthcare is now over a trillion. Social spending is 70% of all spending. Taxes are higher than ever. The rich pay more than ever. Defense spending is lower. We still have a trillion dollar deficit. And your solution is do more of the same. Thats why we have a trillion dollar deficit.
 
jonny5 said:
So, cut defense, tax the rich, quadruple healthcare spending? We did that. Federal Healthcare is now over a trillion. Social spending is 70% of all spending. Taxes are higher than ever. The rich pay more than ever. Defense spending is lower. We still have a trillion dollar deficit. And your solution is do more of the same. Thats why we have a trillion dollar deficit.
Click to expand...

What do you mean quadruple healthcare spending? If the US healthcare becomes like the European one the healthcare spending overall with be slashed by half!

Health resources - Health spending - OECD Data

And even if the government's portion of spending in healthcare spending will go up, the average and low income citizen will be able to cover it by higher payroll taxes for medicare because he will not have to pay the ridiculous amount of money that is required now under the current healthcare system.

And no it is a lie to say that taxes are now higher than ever when I am talking about the need to tax more the rich at the top 10%! You are wasting my time if you dare to say such nonsense in front of my face because obviously you are not interested in a honest conversation.
 
Last edited:
pamak said:
What do you mean quadruple healthcare spending? If the US healthcare becomes like the European one the healthcare spending overall with be slashed by half!

Health resources - Health spending - OECD Data

And even if the government's portion of spending in healthcare spending will go up, the average and low income citizen will be able to cover it by higher payroll taxes for medicare because he will not have to pay the ridiculous amount of money that is required now under the current healthcare system.

And no it is a lie to say that taxes are now higher than ever when I am talking about the need to tax more the rich at the top 10%! You are wasting my time if you dare to say such nonsense in front of my face because obviously you are not interested in a honest conversation.
Click to expand...

The top 10% already pay most of the taxes, more than ever before. That is a fact. It does not reduce the deficit. For every dollar more they take, YOU want to spend two more.
 
jonny5 said:
The top 10% already pay most of the taxes, more than ever before. That is a fact. It does not reduce the deficit. For every dollar more they take, YOU want to spend two more.
Click to expand...

That is not a fact when we have historically low marginal tax rates and a much more flexible capital which can move easier than ever to tax paradises abroad.



and when
 
pamak said:
That is not a fact when we have historically low marginal tax rates and a much more flexible capital which can move easier than ever to tax paradises abroad.



and when
Click to expand...

It is a fact that the top 10% are paying more total taxes and share of taxes than ever before.
 
jonny5 said:
It is a fact that the top 10% are paying more total taxes and share of taxes than ever before.
Click to expand...

I hope you will support AOC since she wants to lower the taxes for the "job creators" by proposing a marginal rate that is similar to the one we had in the past.

The History Behind The Highs And Lows Of The Marginal Tax Rate : NPR

The History Behind The Highs And Lows Of The Marginal Tax Rate


There was shock this week at the suggestion of a 70 percent tax rate. But law professor Dorothy Brown explains to NPR's Scott Simon that the U.S.'s marginal tax rate has been as high as 94 percent.

We're going to talk about the marginal tax rate now. Please don't turn us off. It's been in the news recently. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposed a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent during a "60 Minutes" interview.



BROWN: What most people don't understand is until World War II, most Americans didn't pay federal income taxes. Our entire tax system, including the marginal tax rates, only applied to the richest Americans. In fact, there was a surtax on incomes greater than $5 million. And for three years, in the mid-1930s, it only applied to one man, and his name was John D. Rockefeller.

BROWN: The mood was tax the rich, tax the rich, tax the rich, to the point that, between like 1918 and 1932, less than 6 percent of the population on average paid federal income taxes; from 1933 to 1939, less than 4 percent.

BROWN: Once World War II came into existence, we needed additional tax revenues. So there was a mood shift. Suddenly - and there literally were cartoons. I've played them in class. Donald Duck helped sell paying taxes to most Americans during World War II.

BROWN: Now, marginal tax rates went as high as 94 percent in the mid-'40s. It was also 91 percent as late as 1963. We had a 70 percent marginal tax rate as late as 1980. And currently, our marginal tax rate is 37 percent. So we've had very high marginal tax rates for many, many years, and we've had lower marginal tax rates.

It is obvious from the above that we had a period when the top 10% paid 100% of the taxes!

And do not start the BS spin of trying to use absolute number of dollars to compare amounts under totally different price regimes separated by an inflation of decades in between!
 
Last edited:
pamak said:
I hope you will support AOC since she wants to lower the taxes for the "job creators" by proposing a marginal rate that is similar to the one we had in the past.
Click to expand...

No, that would be dumb. Nobody paid it. The system had so many loopholes and complexities, the rich avoided. Regardless they still paid more than their share. I support a flat tax system. One rate on all income, one deduction to cover poverty. That would be a good start.
 
jonny5 said:
No, that would be dumb. Nobody paid it. The system had so many loopholes and complexities, the rich avoided. Regardless they still paid more than their share. I support a flat tax system. One rate on all income, one deduction to cover poverty. That would be a good start.
Click to expand...


Now it seems to move from "It is a fact that the top 10% are paying more total taxes and share of taxes than ever before" to "they still paid more than their share" which is different. . It is also still wrong if you try to equate it with their fair share since income taxes for the rich does not take in consideration the fact that payroll and sales taxes affect much more people with lower earned income than people who mostly profit from capital gains.
 
pamak said:
Now it seems to move from "It is a fact that the top 10% are paying more total taxes and share of taxes than ever before" to "they still paid more than their share" which is different. . It is also still wrong if you try to equate it with their fair share since income taxes for the rich does not take in consideration the fact that payroll and sales taxes affect much more people with lower earned income than people who mostly profit from capital gains.
Click to expand...

It isnt, but it doesnt matter either way. Taxing the rich, cutting defense, and increasing spending does not reduce the debt. We tried it. Any dollar collected or saved is spent on something new, two times.
 
Rand Paul is a snakeoil salesman. What did you expect from a capital-R-Republican?
 
jonny5 said:
It isnt, but it doesnt matter either way. Taxing the rich, cutting defense, and increasing spending does not reduce the debt. We tried it. Any dollar collected or saved is spent on something new, two times.
Click to expand...

Nope, we did not try it!

The taxes for the rich followed a general trend of reduction in the late half of the 20th century.. I even GAVE YOU the historical context which showed that in the past it was actually the rich who payed ALL taxes. Everything is a matter of scale. Of course, if spending increases despite a generous defense expense reduction and despite an increase of revenues by taxing the rich heavier, the debt will go up. That is truism.

Truism: a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting.
 
pamak said:
Nope, we did not try it!

The taxes for the rich followed a general trend of reduction in the late half of the 20th century.. I even GAVE YOU the historical context which showed that in the past it was actually the rich who payed ALL taxes. Everything is a matter of scale. Of course, if spending increases despite a generous defense expense reduction and despite an increase of revenues by taxing the rich heavier, the debt will go up. That is truism.

Truism: a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting.
Click to expand...

The historical context doesnt matter since you only want to go back to high tax rates, not low spending. If you want to cut spending to 3% of GDP, then we could really have a flat tax where everyone pays in.
 
jonny5 said:
The historical context doesnt matter since you only want to go back to high tax rates, not low spending. If you want to cut spending to 3% of GDP, then we could really have a flat tax where everyone pays in.
Click to expand...

I never said that I am not into also lowering spending. The fact that I started with a generous cut of the military budget shows that. The historical context was relevant to the claim that the rich today pay the higher taxes of all time. This is simply not true, and the historical recollection was used to show this! I am not interested in a flat tax, unless it is tied to a very high flat tax for capital gains!
 
jonny5 said:
It is a fact that the top 10% are paying more total taxes and share of taxes than ever before.
Click to expand...

I assist in the tax department during the tax busy seasons for one of the big 4, collating and binding tax returns for those that are considered the top "1%" Some are well known public figures that all of us here are aware of. I know exactly what they don't pay. You are seriously misinformed and incorrect.
 
HenryChinaski said:
I assist in the tax department during the tax busy seasons for one of the big 4, collating and binding tax returns for those that are considered the top "1%" Some are well known public figures that all of us here are aware of. I know exactly what they don't pay. You are seriously misinformed and incorrect.
Click to expand...

Anyone can make claims.
 
pamak said:
I never said that I am not into also lowering spending. The fact that I started with a generous cut of the military budget shows that. The historical context was relevant to the claim that the rich today pay the higher taxes of all time. This is simply not true, and the historical recollection was used to show this! I am not interested in a flat tax, unless it is tied to a very high flat tax for capital gains!
Click to expand...

A generous cut of the military budget is meaningless. The cut you proposed is already offset by the additional spending. Cutting the military will not balance the budget and worse, itll reduce the ability of the govt to do one of the mains things its actually supposed to be doing. 300bn cut is nothing. They spend 4 trillion, 3 trillion of it on wealth redistribution. You willing to cut that in half too? I am. Ill match you cut for cut.
 
jonny5 said:
Anyone can make claims.
Click to expand...

Indeed they can, as you are. The difference is you're wrong. I bind tax returns of individuals that have so much money it's falling out of their ears including public figures and a couple of sports teams. This whole system is set up to benefit and serve them, not us. Most of these individuals, corporations and entities don't pay taxes.
 
jonny5 said:
A generous cut of the military budget is meaningless. The cut you proposed is already offset by the additional spending. Cutting the military will not balance the budget and worse, itll reduce the ability of the govt to do one of the mains things its actually supposed to be doing. 300bn cut is nothing. They spend 4 trillion, 3 trillion of it on wealth redistribution. You willing to cut that in half too? I am. Ill match you cut for cut.
Click to expand...

You tried to show the math but you failed. I also never claimed that JUST cuts in military spending will do the job in balancing the budget. This is why I mentioned the increase of taxes for the rich. The wealth redistribution is inadequate. The proof is obvious in the fact that the rich keep moving ahead of the rest of the society.

I want a president who instead of trying to strong-arm other nations to accept trade policies that will still benefit the rich, the will lead the G-20 and even use hardball tactics to change the global tax environment so that the rich everywhere will be taxed much higher. This increase economic inequality is unsustainable. I also want to see economic retaliations to islands that try to become tax paradises in order to lure wealthy rich from developed economies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom