• 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

epicdude86-albums-stuff-picture1227-troll-comes-down.png
 
We should be balancing the budget every year, period. If some years need more money, taxes go up that year only. Allowing deficits and debt to accumulate is just plain stupid...

I think the other side of that argument goes that operating with a manageable debt and deficit is ok. The reason why is that the economy, on average, grows faster than the interest on the debt, even as the debt grows from the addition of the deficit.

The problems happen when the deficit (and debt) get to unmanageable levels.

Another way to solve the problem (and create additional problems) is let loose inflation and inflate the currency to where the debt shrinks in terms of real dollars. I am nothing like an economist so this all guesswork.
 
I don't think anyone would deny that. The question is how much constitutes "some."

I think 20% is reasonable. Their businesses certainly would not work if:

The government-run road system didn't exist.
The government-run FAA didn't manage flights.
The government-run military didn't defend the nation.
The government-run police didn't protect their assets.
The government-run court system didn't protect their rights.
The government-run public utilities didn't deliver infrastructural services.
The government-subsidized railroads didn't deliver goods.
The government-subsidized farms didn't produce cheap corn.

And so on and so forth.

Consider that back in the 1950s, they were taxed at 90% and were still drowning in money. (but I'm just saying!)
The country was very prosperous back then.
There was no talk of evil government repression.
I think Ronald Reagan screwed us up really well when he allowed our businesses to outsource their manufacturing.
 
I think 20% is reasonable. Their businesses certainly would not work if:

The government-run road system didn't exist.
The government-run FAA didn't manage flights.
The government-run military didn't defend the nation.
The government-run police didn't protect their assets.
The government-run court system didn't protect their rights.
The government-run public utilities didn't deliver infrastructural services.
The government-subsidized railroads didn't deliver goods.
The government-subsidized farms didn't produce cheap corn.

And so on and so forth.

Consider that back in the 1950s, they were taxed at 90% and were still drowning in money. (but I'm just saying!)
The country was very prosperous back then.
There was no talk of evil government repression.
I think Ronald Reagan screwed us up really well when he allowed our businesses to outsource their manufacturing.
th_clapping.gif
th_clapping.gif
th_clapping.gif
th_clapping.gif
th_clapping.gif
 
We should be balancing the budget every year, period. If some years need more money, taxes go up that year only. Allowing deficits and debt to accumulate is just plain stupid...

One ought to be drawing surpluses in times of prosperity to prepare for future recessions (avoid debt later).
 
We should be balancing the budget every year, period. If some years need more money, taxes go up that year only. Allowing deficits and debt to accumulate is just plain stupid...

Because of the nature of our legislative system, that is not possible. Anyone who votes to raise taxes will most probably be voted out immediately thereafter.
Therefore, politicians are forced to continuously keep offering to cut taxes and increase services.

I'm not an expert on public finance, but I don't see what the problem with just printing more money is. Someone please explain that to me.
 
Because of the nature of our legislative system, that is not possible. Anyone who votes to raise taxes will most probably be voted out immediately thereafter.
Therefore, politicians are forced to continuously keep offering to cut taxes and increase services.

I'm not an expert on public finance, but I don't see what the problem with just printing more money is. Someone please explain that to me.

Maybe all Government jobs should be put on a set wage/salary that we the people get to vote on, not them. I'm down for knocking Congress down to say...$20/hour ONLY for hours that they show up to work. That's about what I made cleaning carpets and I know being a Congressional representative isn't that hard.
 
I think 20% is reasonable. Their businesses certainly would not work if:

The government-run road system didn't exist.
The government-run FAA didn't manage flights.
The government-run military didn't defend the nation.
The government-run police didn't protect their assets.
The government-run court system didn't protect their rights.
The government-run public utilities didn't deliver infrastructural services.
The government-subsidized railroads didn't deliver goods.
The government-subsidized farms didn't produce cheap corn.

And so on and so forth.

I would agree with this. We tax them something like double that, so that might be where the disagreement comes from.

Consider that back in the 1950s, they were taxed at 90% and were still drowning in money. (but I'm just saying!)

This is a highly misleading stat, as the number of people that fell into the top tax bracket back then was absolutely minuscule compared to today. The top marginal tax rate from 1950 kicked in at $3.5m in 2008 dollars. Today, the top tax bracket kicks in at approximately 1/10th of that.

The country was very prosperous back then.
There was no talk of evil government repression.
I think Ronald Reagan screwed us up really well when he allowed our businesses to outsource their manufacturing.

There was no talk of evil government repression from the 50's until Reagan?
 
We should be balancing the budget every year, period. If some years need more money, taxes go up that year only. Allowing deficits and debt to accumulate is just plain stupid...

That would be bad. Take a recession for example. Because people are making less money, the taxes are going to fall. So if it was a balanced budget before, it'll be a deficit now. If you increase the taxes to make it balance you're removing even more money from the economy. Which of course, will just make the recession worse. You would just end up making it worse that much faster.

I think long-term we should have a balanced budget. But we can do that with deficits during recessions and surpluses the rest of the time to make it balance out. This also provides a more stable tax system, rates wouldn't need to wildly change every year.
 
I would agree with this. We tax them something like double that, so that might be where the disagreement comes from.

I guess it depends on the state. Here in Alaska, there's no state income tax.
California has much higher taxes. It is still more prosperous. The rich people in California are a lot richer than the rich people in Alaska. There's a lot more poverty here, mainly among Alaska Natives. They are an unfortunate lot.



This is a highly misleading stat, as the number of people that fell into the top tax bracket back then was absolutely minuscule compared to today. The top marginal tax rate from 1950 kicked in at $3.5m in 2008 dollars. Today, the top tax bracket kicks in at approximately 1/10th of that.
I think everyone should pay the same percentage. If everyone paid 10% to the federal government and 10% to state governments, there would be enough public funding and people would not have so much trouble with their taxes.



There was no talk of evil government repression from the 50's until Reagan?
There was, but the talk was about hypothetical fears of communism coming to America. The fear was aimed at people outside of government, people who could potentially be in government. Today, there's talk of the actual sitting government being communist. That's nonsense. There's nothing communist about our corporatist (big-government capitalism) government.
 
I guess it depends on the state. Here in Alaska, there's no state income tax.
California has much higher taxes. It is still more prosperous. The rich people in California are a lot richer than the rich people in Alaska. There's a lot more poverty here, mainly among Alaska Natives. They are an unfortunate lot.

Texas has no state income tax and an unemployment rate around 4.2% lower than CA's. I don't think the two are necessarily related.

I think everyone should pay the same percentage. If everyone paid 10% to the federal government and 10% to state governments, there would be enough public funding and people would not have so much trouble with their taxes.

I don't think that would actually create enough revenue.

There was, but the talk was about hypothetical fears of communism coming to America. The fear was aimed at people outside of government, people who could potentially be in government. Today, there's talk of the actual sitting government being communist. That's nonsense. There's nothing communist about our corporatist (big-government capitalism) government.

There was plenty of criticism of the government as being fascists/corporatists/etc. back then. Vietnam?
 
Texas has no state income tax and an unemployment rate around 4.2% lower than CA's. I don't think the two are necessarily related.
Well, conditions need to be such that people have an incentive to open up businesses and hire people. Lowering taxes alone won't do the trick. Helping people that are already rich doesn't help at all. What the government needs to do is create new businesses opportunities. For example, the government's DARPA made the internet, which created a very, very large industry in a matter of a few years. We need to look for more things like this that could be stimuli.



I don't think that would actually create enough revenue.
Not with the current level of spending. Currently our government spends money quite inefficiently. Medicaid and Medicare are very, very expensive. If we had one national healthcare system instead of those, we'd save money and cover more people. Our military is also very wasteful. It spends money on weapons that will never be used, such as the F-22, or all of those aircraft carriers. They are very, very expensive and frankly unnecessary.



There was plenty of criticism of the government as being fascists/corporatists/etc. back then. Vietnam?
Sure, but it had nothing to do with taxes being high. It was mostly criticism from the left-wing about the Vietnam War and how it was making weapon makers rich.
 
Well, conditions need to be such that people have an incentive to open up businesses and hire people. Lowering taxes alone won't do the trick. Helping people that are already rich doesn't help at all. What the government needs to do is create new businesses opportunities. For example, the government's DARPA made the internet, which created a very, very large industry in a matter of a few years. We need to look for more things like this that could be stimuli.

But how many "automobile" or ".com" Industries can we expect to spring up?

Not with the current level of spending. Currently our government spends money quite inefficiently. Medicaid and Medicare are very, very expensive. If we had one national healthcare system instead of those, we'd save money and cover more people.

Yes, let's send more budgeting responsibility to the Federal Level. :roll:


Our military is also very wasteful. It spends money on weapons that will never be used, such as the F-22, or all of those aircraft carriers. They are very, very expensive and frankly unnecessary.

Oh! Excellent idea, let's cut funding to the one part of the Government that physically ensures the safety of our Freedoms! Because laws in books and international conventions/agreements, like the U.N. can do all that for us. :roll:
 
Well, conditions need to be such that people have an incentive to open up businesses and hire people. Lowering taxes alone won't do the trick. Helping people that are already rich doesn't help at all. What the government needs to do is create new businesses opportunities. For example, the government's DARPA made the internet, which created a very, very large industry in a matter of a few years. We need to look for more things like this that could be stimuli.

And I'm sure that the government would love to come up with innovations on the scale of the internet, much like any number of private companies would. It's not exactly an easy process.

Not with the current level of spending. Currently our government spends money quite inefficiently. Medicaid and Medicare are very, very expensive. If we had one national healthcare system instead of those, we'd save money and cover more people.

And you're basing this conclusion on?

Our military is also very wasteful. It spends money on weapons that will never be used, such as the F-22, or all of those aircraft carriers. They are very, very expensive and frankly unnecessary.

Of course we can make some cuts, but you've shown nothing that would indicate that this would resolve the problem that you've identified. Do you have any idea of the numbers for your proposals?

Sure, but it had nothing to do with taxes being high. It was mostly criticism from the left-wing about the Vietnam War and how it was making weapon makers rich.

You don't think people complained about taxes being high and the government being overly intrusive before recent years? Really?
 
But how many "automobile" or ".com" Industries can we expect to spring up?
That's come and gone. I mean new things that we can come up with. Look at the space industry. It is going somewhere.



Yes, let's send more budgeting responsibility to the Federal Level. :roll:
Actually, it would be the same responsibility, because it would remove Medicare and Medicaid and replace it with something else. It would not be an add-on, what I propose, like what is going to get voted on in the Senate today.




Oh! Excellent idea, let's cut funding to the one part of the Government that physically ensures the safety of our Freedoms! Because laws in books and international conventions/agreements, like the U.N. can do all that for us. :roll:

F-22s and a bunch of aircraft carriers don't protect our freedoms. China isn't going to invade us. Russia isn't going to invade us. Nobody is going to invade us. We have enough firepower with our F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s. We have thousands of Abrams tanks. We have hundreds of helicopters. We have plenty to defend ourselves.
Aircraft carriers are offensive weapons. They are not meant to protect our freedoms. They are meant to force other countries to bend to our will.

They are meant to take freedom away (from other people).

You get the idea, right?
 
That's come and gone. I mean new things that we can come up with. Look at the space industry. It is going somewhere.

That's not exactly a viable industry atm. Once space related businesses can be made available to the average consumer, then maybe there might be another industry there.

Actually, it would be the same responsibility, because it would remove Medicare and Medicaid and replace it with something else. It would not be an add-on, what I propose, like what is going to get voted on in the Senate today.

I think we need to shift power from the National level to the State level. The Federal level is not in tune with the entire nation of people, however States are more in tune with their citizens.

F-22s and a bunch of aircraft carriers don't protect our freedoms. China isn't going to invade us. Russia isn't going to invade us. Nobody is going to invade us. We have enough firepower with our F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s. We have thousands of Abrams tanks. We have hundreds of helicopters. We have plenty to defend ourselves.
Aircraft carriers are offensive weapons. They are not meant to protect our freedoms. They are meant to force other countries to bend to our will.

We'd like to think that but Russia isn't exactly our friend, and can you really trust a Nation that cheated in the Olympics??

They are meant to take freedom away (from other people).

You get the idea, right?

I get what you're saying, but I don't necessarily agree entirely.

:D
 
There are two Democratic plans, hoss.

What?! And you're expecting both of them to get passed?!?:roll:

I think we both know, if anything gets through it will be just one bill.

Man! Some folks are really difficult to have a conversation with!?!
 
That's not exactly a viable industry atm. Once space related businesses can be made available to the average consumer, then maybe there might be another industry there.
That's what they said about computers in the 1960s.



I think we need to shift power from the National level to the State level. The Federal level is not in tune with the entire nation of people, however States are more in tune with their citizens.
No, they are not. Not even city governments are in tune with the citizens. For example, Alaska's state government spends crazy amounts of money on improving conditions for Alaska Natives, but nothing improves. The Municipality of Anchorage spends money like crazy on clearing ice off the roads, but never uses salt... it would damage the pavement... which would be easier to repair than having to keep clearing ice! But oh well. Even school districts can't get anything right... the Anchorage SD has a budget crisis but instead of selling computers (they have hundreds piled up in a warehouse) to help pay it off, they fire teachers and make classes even larger and stupider.




We'd like to think that but Russia isn't exactly our friend, and can you really trust a Nation that cheated in the Olympics??
.
Can they really trust a nation that kills people for oil?



I get what you're saying, but I don't necessarily agree entirely.

:D
OK.
 
That's what they said about computers in the 1960s.

Tell me what money there is to be made in space. Upper atmospheric travel? Yeah that sounds like it would be great. Moon resorts? Travel to distant planets that are months upon months away, to do what when we get there?

Computers actually have applications in the here and now. ANd they were a big help since their inception. But as you can see, unlike our Space Program, they went somewhere in a big way. We've been to the moon once (maybe not) and haven't gone back since. We've shot a bomb at the moon...for what? And now people are selling real estate on the moon...Though that might be the only good industry. To buy and sell real estate on other planets so that ONE day when we get there, people will have passed on land and property to their great great great grandchildren so they can homestead on Mars.
 
Tell me what money there is to be made in space. Upper atmospheric travel? Yeah that sounds like it would be great. Moon resorts? Travel to distant planets that are months upon months away, to do what when we get there?

Computers actually have applications in the here and now. ANd they were a big help since their inception. But as you can see, unlike our Space Program, they went somewhere in a big way. We've been to the moon once (maybe not) and haven't gone back since. We've shot a bomb at the moon...for what? And now people are selling real estate on the moon...Though that might be the only good industry. To buy and sell real estate on other planets so that ONE day when we get there, people will have passed on land and property to their great great great grandchildren so they can homestead on Mars.

Think big-scale, my friend.
Humanity isn't gonna be stuck on this rock forever.
We're going to expand, and mining on other celestial bodies will happen.
It'll be a huge business.
Imagine meteorites made of pure iron.
Imagine all that we could do!

Consider that back in the 1960s, computers had the computing power of... well... my watch today.

Space exploration is in its infancy. Give it time. It's gonna be huge.

There's gonna be 10 billion humans on Earth by 2030.
We're gonna start to get crammed. We need somewhere else to go.
 
Think big-scale, my friend.
Humanity isn't gonna be stuck on this rock forever.
We're going to expand, and mining on other celestial bodies will happen.
It'll be a huge business.
Imagine meteorites made of pure iron.
Imagine all that we could do!

Consider that back in the 1960s, computers had the computing power of... well... my watch today.

Space exploration is in its infancy. Give it time. It's gonna be huge.

There's gonna be 10 billion humans on Earth by 2030.
We're gonna start to get crammed. We need somewhere else to go.



I've played Red Faction so I don't know if I want the Government in charge of Extra-terrestrial mining organizations...
 
The rich created the coverage void to suit their own personal agenda.

Now it is only fair they pay for their greed and anal retentiveness until it makes them bleed for the same orifice from which they have been making the poor bleed.
 
Back
Top Bottom