• 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

Neitzluber said:
That's come and gone. I mean new things that we can come up with. Look at the space industry. It is going somewhere.




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.






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?
Click to expand...
Uh no I don't, whose freedoms have we taken away since we started using aircraft carriers?
 
Neitzluber said:
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?
Click to expand...
I get the idea that... you are wrong.

First:
The US Navy protects our freedom by protecting the SLOC between us and our trading partners, ensuring that our economy is free from as many outside hostile influences as possible.

Second:
Part of protecting us from direct military threat is the ability to project force, both as a deterrent and as an ability to react. CVNs do exactly that, in a way nothing else can.
 
Goobieman said:
I get the idea that... you are wrong.

First:
The US Navy protects our freedom by protecting the SLOC between us and our trading partners, ensuring that our economy is free from as many outside hostile influences as possible.

Second:
Part of protecting us from direct military threat is the ability to project force, both as a deterrent and as an ability to react. CVNs do exactly that, in a way nothing else can.
Click to expand...

First:
Protecting our ships from pirates using aircraft carriers would be hundreds of times more expensive than the cost of simply not doing trade. That is the reason we haven't deployed warships to guard the coast of Somalia.

Second:
We already have 12,000 nukes and that's enough.
In case you haven't noticed, we are only capable of bullying countries that have no nukes.
We don't poke Pakistan, or India, or Israel around too much because they can go ballistic on us.
We stopped messing with China when we saw they had nukes.
Aircraft carriers are irrelevant.
Nothing is a better deterrent than a nuclear missile.
 
EpicDude86 said:
I've played Red Faction so I don't know if I want the Government in charge of Extra-terrestrial mining organizations...
Click to expand...

Do you want private companies in charge?

What's the damn difference?

Private companies are more brutal to their workers because they expect BIG PROFIT RIGHT NOW and they will kill whoever they have to kill to get it that way.
 
Neitzluber said:
Do you want private companies in charge?

What's the damn difference?

Private companies are more brutal to their workers because they expect BIG PROFIT RIGHT NOW and they will kill whoever they have to kill to get it that way.
Click to expand...

When I was young back in the 70s era, a big buzz word in socio/politico conversations was "opportunity". "Opportunity" is the damn difference.

Sure, private enterprise has its drawbacks. But so too, hand over more control to central (federal) government and you will see less opportunity for the masses to attain wealth and independence.

Every option has its advantages and drawbacks. Make your choice.
 
Telecaster said:
When I was young back in the 70s era, a big buzz word in socio/politico conversations was "opportunity". "Opportunity" is the damn difference.

Sure, private enterprise has its drawbacks. But so too, hand over more control to central (federal) government and you will see less opportunity for the masses to attain wealth and independence.

Every option has its advantages and drawbacks. Make your choice.
Click to expand...

Correction on my final remark. I should have said; Choose your preference.
 
Telecaster said:
When I was young back in the 70s era, a big buzz word in socio/politico conversations was "opportunity". "Opportunity" is the damn difference.

Sure, private enterprise has its drawbacks. But so too, hand over more control to central (federal) government and you will see less opportunity for the masses to attain wealth and independence.

Every option has its advantages and drawbacks. Make your choice.
Click to expand...

Meh, "opportunity" just goes to more rich people to make them even richer.
What's the point?

Sustainability, not growth, is what an economy needs.
 
Neitzluber said:
Meh, "opportunity" just goes to more rich people to make them even richer.
What's the point?

Sustainability, not growth, is what an economy needs.
Click to expand...

Sustainability is important. However, nothing in a economic structure will be purenialy sustained, regardless of what controls it (public vs private). And the important factor in what you propose is, to what level of quality is the economy to be sustained? At what point are Americans supposed to be satisfied with lessened opportunity to advance and grow?

Your statement makes it obvious you seek to limit or decrease the population of "rich people".
 
Last edited:
Neitzluber said:
Do you want private companies in charge?

What's the damn difference?

Private companies are more brutal to their workers because they expect BIG PROFIT RIGHT NOW and they will kill whoever they have to kill to get it that way.
Click to expand...

If the government wants to be one of the organizations in mining, yes, but not the ONLY organization. If they want to mine extraterrestrial ore that's great, but it had better lower my taxes or they can **** off. :D
 
Grim17 said:
Tax the rich... Kill the economy...

Sounds like a democratic plan to me.

.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because we've never had a healthy economy when the wealthy pay taxes higher than they do now...:roll::roll::roll::roll:


What you fail to understand is that when wealth becomes 'frozen' at the top, it does not trickle down... These are the conditions that lead to the great depression--the poker game analogy: when one player controls all the chips--the game is over.
 
Neitzluber said:
First:
Protecting our ships from pirates using aircraft carriers would be hundreds of times more expensive than the cost of simply not doing trade. That is the reason we haven't deployed warships to guard the coast of Somalia.
Click to expand...
This is a clear indication that you do not have a big-picture point of view.

Second:
We already have 12,000 nukes and that's enough.
Click to expand...
Incorrect - we have about 5500 - and even if we did have 12000 warheads, its not relevant to what I said.
CVN groups project CONVENTIONAL power. Your response indiclates a clear failure to understand the importance of that distinction.
 
Last edited:
hazlnut said:
Yeah, because we've never had a healthy economy when the wealthy pay taxes higher than they do now...:roll::roll::roll::roll:


What you fail to understand is that when wealth becomes 'frozen' at the top, it does not trickle down... These are the conditions that lead to the great depression--the poker game analogy: when one player controls all the chips--the game is over.
Click to expand...

As typically practiced in modern America, how does wealth get "frozen at the top"?!? Can you give an example of when that last happened to us?

And as for "trickle down" economics...do you realize what it is that is actually trickling down to the masses?
 
Telecaster said:
As typically practiced in modern America, how does wealth get "frozen at the top"?!? Can you give an example of when that last happened to us?

And as for "trickle down" economics...do you realize what it is that is actually trickling down to the masses?
Click to expand...
'Trickle down' and Marxism do the same thing -- spread the weaith.
One does it thru the free market and freedom to chose, the other does it at the point of a gun.
 
Goobieman said:
'Trickle down' and Marxism do the same thing -- spread the weaith.
One does it thru the free market and freedom to chose, the other does it at the point of a gun.
Click to expand...
That's "freedom to CHOOSE".
:doh
 
Why wouldn't we increase the taxes? It was pretty obvious under the Bush tax cuts that tax revenue went down. Therefore, according to the laffer curve, the revenue maximizing taxation rate would be above the current percentage.
 
Between 2001 and 2004 the tax revenues were below that of the year 2000, despite the fact the GNP,GDP, taxable income, ect. continued to rise. How would you explain that?
 
drz-400 said:
Between 2001 and 2004 the tax revenues were below that of the year 2000, despite the fact the GNP,GDP, taxable income, ect. continued to rise. How would you explain that?
Click to expand...

Okay, revenues fell. Initially. And then they began to rise again somewhere between that '01 and '04 period, evetually surpassing '00 revenues. So you in turn can explain that.

But there is nothing wrong with decreased revenues as long as Congress would adjust it's spending. And that is the only real problem in all of this. They usually don't control their spending in peace time (the wars didn't help).

So we can see here, from what you've helped to show, despite tax rate and revenue reductions, the economy will grow. Even out of recession (which Bush inherited in 2001).
 
Last edited:
Revenues only began to rise again after 2003. The GNP grew by twice the amount in 2003-2004 as opposed to 2001-2002. This would signify to me that economic growth is a contributing factor to tax revenues.

In 2008 revenues declined rather than increased due to a small rise in GNP once again. However, during this time tax revenues remained higher than that of 2000. This would signifiy to me that economic growth is not the sole contributor to tax revenues; the size of the economy also matters.

In 2007-2008 the GNP grew by $.6 billion. In 1999-2000 the GNP grew by $3.6billion. The economy in 2007-2008 grew at a much smaller rate than in 1999-2000; 17% of that in 1999-2000. However the GNP in 2008 was $17 billion dollars higher than in 2000. Thats a 120% larger economy than in 2000. This seems to show that the size of the economy is a much larger contributor to tax revenues than growth of the economy.

In 1999-2000 the GNP grew by $3.6 billion. In 2004-2005 the GNP grew by $3.0 billion. Therefore the economy in 2004-2005 grew about 83% of that in 1999-2000.

In 2005, when the revenues were once again higher than that of 2000 the GNP was about $12 billion larger. Thats a 113% larger private economy in the U.S. than in 2000. The size of the economy should have a much larger effect on tax revenue, therefore I conclude this is the larger contributing factor to the increase in revenues.

Total tax revenues in year 2000 were $1.9 trillion. Tax revenues in 2005 were $2.0 trillion. Thats 105% higher in 2005 than in 2000.

However all this can be more easily seen when looking at the total AGI reported on tax returns (at least if we are talking of income taxes) as this seems to follow these general guildines I have stated.

The total AGI reported on tax returns in 2000 was $6.36 trillion. The total AGI reported on tax returns in 2005 was $7.4 trillion. Thats 117% higher in 2005 than in 2000.

Income tax revenue did not increase from 2000 levels until 2006. But taking 2005's gross income tax revenue we will see the they are 97% of 2000's. The net income tax collection for 2005 was 90% of that in 2000.

Why would the increases in all three cases not be the same if the government was maximizing it's revenue?

According to the laffer curve, if the government is bringing in less than maximum revenue and the tax was too low (we can assume it is too low because the tax rate was reduced and revenues seem to have dropped), then tax rates should be increased to maximize revenue. I could go ahead and analyze every year after the bush tax cuts but it is pretty obvious they dropped tax revenue and if we raised the tax percentage we would see an increase in revenues.

Why would the government not want to maximize revenue when it has a $12 trillion loan to pay off and happens to be in a war? The senate can say we are going to pay less this year, but it will still have $12 trillion to owe.

As far as coming out of a recession. We have come out of a recession with high tax rates (ie. the great depression) and with low tax rates (ie. the 1970's stagflation). What recession does our current one seem to fit more?
 
Last edited:
drz-400 said:
...
Why would the government not want to maximize revenue when it has a $12 trillion loan to pay off and happens to be in a war? The senate can say we are going to pay less this year, but it will still have $12 trillion to owe.

As far as coming out of a recession. We have come out of a recession with high tax rates (ie. the great depression) and with low tax rates (ie. the 1970's stagflation). What recession does our current one seem to fit more?
Click to expand...

Paying down the debt and supplying the war are necessities. It is the Federal government's continual drive to provide more that is the problem. The Feds do not need more revenues. But they cannot stop coming up with more reasons for needing more revenues.
 
Last edited:
reefedjib said:
I think they should pay for it with a consumption tax. Make the poor pay.
Click to expand...

We have consumption taxes(sales)
Have you not heard " one cannot secrete blood from a stone".
These rich crybabies should leave their ivory towers and mix with the people, they may learn something!.
What is proposed is nothing more than rolling back Bush's tax cut for the wealthy - which should never have happened.
You rich are damn lucky its not me..in charge.
90% tax on the rich....like the way it used to be, but with tighter loopholes.
Obama is being kind.
 
From 1970-2008 the US government spending as a percentage of GDP has remained and fluctuated within 30-37%. From 2008-present the percentage has increased considerebly to around 45%. On the contrary, the U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP only increased during the periods of 1981-1995 (increase of 35% over this period) and 2001-present (increase of 33%).

It seems only until very recently (like this year) the increase in debt could really be attributed to an increase in spending, the other years the debt increased seems to follow time periods after tax cuts took place. Therefore I would conclude an increase in spending has not been the most considerable cause to an increasing debt, but rather a decrease in tax revenues over at least the past 40 years.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom