• 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!

AP POLL: Tax the rich to pay for health bill

There are said to be three ways to become a Cajun: by blood, by marriage, or by the back door.
LOL! No "bro" You have Cajun blood or you don't, you are either a descendent from the people of Arcadia or you are not, but then again, you can't answer a simple question like which of the two New Orleans area law schools you graduated from, and don't know anything about the culture, so why should I be surprised that you fell for such an obvious statement as the "three ways to become cajun".

You have NO, credibility, and even less of a clue.
 
Please stop feeding the bro-troll.
He obviously doesn't have any shame, but I figured I'd give the rest of you a chuckle by kicking the **** out of this little rant of his.
 
But they have a different idea of what equality is. Everyone I think supports equality at some level.

Do you want the government to treat people equally, or do you want people to be equal? Currently the best thing you can do to be a huge success is to be born to the right people. Inherit millions and you're guaranteed to become a millionaire! Personally, I'd like to have a system where everyone has the same chance to succeed. So I support things like a high inheritance tax and higher taxes on investment income than on wages. I can claim I'm for equality as much as anyone else. We just have different opinions on what equality really is.

Yea, but say you work your whole life and become incredibly successful and you only have say 20 years to enjoy the wealth you've created for yourself and perpetuated and grew through investment. Wouldn't you want your children to enjoy the fruits of your physical and/or intellectual labor? I would, and i have no problem with kids (not my future kids, but other people's) that grow up spoiled little brats and are handed the world to them because their parents earned it for them because they will be labeled that their whole life, because that is almost as bad as being unsuccessful most of your life.
 
Wouldn't you want your children to enjoy the fruits of your physical and/or intellectual labor?

In a word: No. My children did nothing to deserve having it over the children of others.
 
In a word: No. My children did nothing to deserve having it over the children of others.

So you would be in favor of a 100% inheritance tax? :shock:
 
In a word: No. My children did nothing to deserve having it over the children of others.

epicdude86-albums-stuff-picture1162-thats-like-your-opinion-man.jpg
 
We know, hoss. That's how the health insurance cartel gained its tyrannical grip on us.

The health insurance company has injected you with mind controlling drugs since birth that makes you type out idiotic statements, bro, hoss, dude, whatever.
 
I won't mind at all if the tax on the rich goes through. I already have more money than I can keep track of.

Well then the Democrat's plan will work out really well for you!:) Because when reform is all up and running you'll be left with just enough money that you will be able to keep track of again!!!

Isn't it great when government works for us?;)
 
I love when people (especially ignorant poor and modest income people who've been Duped by well off 'Libertarians' and Republicans) actually speak not only against their own interest.. but the TRUTH.

The Truth is...
As Warren Buffett has said 5 years ago "there is class warfare and My side is winning"


IOW, the rich pay far less that they did 8 years ago .. or 28 years ago or 48 years ago.
MUCH LESS.
Cap Gains and div taxes went down from 28% to 15% under Bush alone and Estate taxes all but Vanished. Top rates below.

When the govt threatens to even revert/reverse this to anywhere near historically fair, the side, whose absolutely WAILED on the country with the help of the low/no-tax crowd starts SCREECHING liike this is going to be sweden.

Here's a look at Rates when there was less income diffrential and a larger Middle Class. THAT is what separates america and makes it a great country:
Not the increasing Wealth polarity we have more Every year.

Some perspective on who'se NOT getting taxed enough

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003

Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)
Table

Year/ Top Rate%/ Over

1913 --- 7% 500,000
1914 --- 7% 500,000
1915 --- 7% 500,000
1916 --- 15% 2,000,000
1917 --- 67% 2,000,000
1918 --- 77% 1,000,000
1919 --- 73% 1,000,000
1920 --- 73% 1,000,000
1921 --- 73% 1,000,000
1922 --- 58% 200,000
1923 --- 43.5% 200,000
1924 --- 46% 500,000
1925 --- 25% 100,000
1926 --- 25% 100,000
1927 --- 25% 100,000
1928 --- 25% 100,000
1929 --- 24% 100,000
1930 --- 25% 100,000
1931 --- 25% 100,000
1932 --- 63% 1,000,000
1933 --- 63% 1,000,000
1934 --- 63% 1,000,000
1935 --- 63% 1,000,000
1936 --- 79% 5,000,000
1937 --- 79% 5,000,000
1938 --- 79% 5,000,000
1939 --- 79% 5,000,000
1940 --- 81% 5,000,000
1941 --- 81% 5,000,000
1942 --- 88% 200,000
1943 --- 88% 200,000
1944--- 94 200,000
1945 --- 94% 200,000
1946 --- 86% 200,000
1947 --- 86% 200,000
1948 --- 82.% 400,000
1949 --- 82% 400,000
1950 --- 84.36% 400,000
1951 --- 91% 400,000
1952 --- 92% 400,000
1953 --- 92% 400,000
1954 --- 91% 400,000
1955 --- 91% 400,000
1956 --- 91% 400,000
1957 --- 91% 400,000
1958 --- 91% 400,000
1959 --- 91% 400,000
1960 --- 91% 400,000
1961 --- 91% 400,000
1962 --- 91% 400,000
1963 --- 91% 400,000
1964 --- 77% 400,000
1965 --- 70% 200,000
1966 --- 70% 200,000
1967 --- 70% 200,000
1968 --- 75.25% 200,000
1969 --- 77% 200,000
1970 --- 71.75% 200,000
1971 --- 70% 60% 200,000
1972 --- 70% 50 200,000
1973 --- 70% 50 200,000
1974 --- 70% 50 200,000
1975 ----70% 50 200,000
1976 --- 70% 50 200,000
1977 --- 70% 50 203,200
1978 --- 70% 50 203,200
1979 --- 70% 50 215,400
1980 --- 70% 50 215,400
1981 --- 69% 50 215,400
1982 --- 50% 85,600
1983 --- 50% 109,400
1984 --- 50% 162,400
1985 --- 50 % 169,020
1986 --- 50 % 175,250

1987 --- 38.5% 90,000
1988 --- 28% <8> 29,750 <8>
1989 --- 28% <8> 30,950 <8>
1990 --- 28% <8> 32,450 <8>
1991 --- 31% 82,150
1992 --- 31% 86,500
1993 --- 39.6% 89,150
1994 --- 39.6% 250,000
1995 --- 39.6% 256,500
1996 --- 39.6% 263,750
1997 --- 39.6% 271,050
1998 --- 39.6% 278,450
1999 --- 39.6% 283,150
2000 --- 39.6% 288,350
2001 --- 39.1% 297,350
2002 --- 38.6% 307,050
2003 --- 35% 311,950

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)
-
 
Last edited:
I love when people (especially ignorant poor and modest income people who've been Duped by well off 'Libertarians' and Republicans) actually speak not only against their own interest.. but the TRUTH.

The Truth is...
As Warren Buffett has said 5 years ago "there is class warfare and My side is winning"

IOW, the rich pay far less that they did 8 years ago .. or 28 years ago or 48 years ago.
MUCH LESS.
When the govt threatens to even revert/reverse this to anywhere near historically fair, the side, whose absolutely WAILED on the country with the help of the low/no-tax crowd starts SCREECHING liike this is going to be sweden

Here's a look at Rates when there was lessincvome diffrential and a larger Middle Class. THAT is what separates america and makes it a great country:
Not the increasing Wealth polarity we have more Every year.

Some perspective on who'se NOT getting taxed enough

And those figures are absolutely useless unless you look at the number of people they affect and the total funds involved. If you look at the real numbers, you'll find something a bit more surprising:

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

The richest 1% pay more than 40% of all federal income tax despite earning only 22% of all income.
 
and Mr Right-herwith me-inNYC..

(Hold your breath)

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT 'FAIR' IS.

I know that sounds unjust!
(no tax is 'fair' on some basis)

What matters is what is Viable and what's POSSIBLE.

We need more money and we ain't getting from people/families who make 50k or less.

Even the Rich love/agree/NEED when the govt sends out those 600/1200 rebate checks so all the little guys who really need the money can buy computers and cars (and food and medication) from the companies they own stock in.
Otherwise we all go down.
(I invest for a living)

These rebates of the last few years, in fact, are PROOF, the middle/middle-low/low cannot pay a cent more and someone else IS going to have to pay.

Figure it out. Who Do Dat leave?
-
 
Last edited:
and Mr Right-herwith me-inNYC..

(Hold your breath)

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT 'FAIR' IS.

I know that sounds unjust!
(no tax is 'fair' on some basis)

What matters is what Viable and what's POSSIBLE.

We need more money and we ain't getting from people/families who make 50k or less.

Even the Rich love/agree/NEED when they send out those 600/1200 checks so all the little guys who really need the money can buy computers and cars (and food and medication) from the companies they own stock in.
Otherwise we all go down.
(I invest for a living)

These rebates of the last few years, in fact, are PROOF, the middle/middle-low/low cannot pay a cent more and someone else (DUH) IS going to have to pay.

Figure it out. Who Do Dat leave?
-

Can you point out where I mentioned "fairness"? My post was strictly limited to pointing out the flaws in yours and offering more useful data.
 
Back
Top Bottom