• 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!

Obama will not extend Bush tax cuts to wealthy

j-mac said:
Why should we adpot Marx's views for this country, they have failed every other time.....


j-mac
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should read Marx so you would know the difference. Being misinformed leads to wrong conclusions. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Perhaps you should read Marx so you would know the difference. Being misinformed leads to wrong conclusions. ;)
Click to expand...


No, I don't think I am misinformed. You said that the wealthy should bear the burden of punitive taxation simply because they can afford it, right? Lessening the burden of those in lower income brackets. In other words a redistributive method of taxing wealth. If I am wrong please point out why.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
No, I don't think I am misinformed. You said that the wealthy should bear the burden of punitive taxation simply because they can afford it, right? Lessening the burden of those in lower income brackets. In other words a redistributive method of taxing wealth. If I am wrong please point out why.


j-mac
Click to expand...

When you start with in other words, that's where you lose the logic. It's a bad habit when you don't read between the lines well. A progressive tax has never been and never will be equal to Marxism. And it is silly, not to mention uninformed or knowleadgeable to think the two are equal. So, I have to concluded based on your argument that you are in fact ill-informed.

And if you have trouble reading between the lines with the response, noting that a progressive tax is different than Marxism is showing where you are wrong. ;)
 
j-mac said:
No, I don't think I am misinformed. You said that the wealthy should bear the burden of punitive taxation simply because they can afford it, right? Lessening the burden of those in lower income brackets. In other words a redistributive method of taxing wealth. If I am wrong please point out why.
Click to expand...

The concept of forced wealth redistribtion doesn't appear in Marxism, at least not classical Marxism that Marx and Engels developement. Also, not to take a side in this debate, but its a simple fact of reason that a level of tax increases can exist somewhere between the current level, and total wealth redistribution. I mean it seems like a pretty damn wide gap, I'm sure something can fit in there.
 
Objective Voice said:
You know a rich waiter?
Click to expand...

This is a non-response. What I asked is if you tip waiters, because why would you pay someone for work if it didn't produce any wealth?
 
Boo Radley said:
When you start with in other words, that's where you lose the logic. It's a bad habit when you don't read between the lines well. A progressive tax has never been and never will be equal to Marxism. And it is silly, not to mention uninformed or knowleadgeable to think the two are equal. So, I have to concluded based on your argument that you are in fact ill-informed.

And if you have trouble reading between the lines with the response, noting that a progressive tax is different than Marxism is showing where you are wrong. ;)
Click to expand...


Here ya go Joe....Chew on this til I return....

Arguments against implementation
It has been argued that progressive taxation violates the principle of equality under the law.[24]
Progressive taxes lower savings rates. High-earners have a lower average propensity to consume, so shifting the tax-burden away from them will increase the aggregate savings rate, which should increase steady state growth (if the savings rate is initially below the Golden Rule savings rate).
The classical argument against progressive taxation runs as follows:
The diminishing returns argument applies to the fraction of income used for present consumption. As income rises, diminishing returns implies that a smaller and smaller fraction of income will be spent on consumption goods. The remaining income will (of necessity) be used to purchase capital goods. This acts as a form of positive feedback that in turn yields more income for capital spending. Meanwhile (and because) these capital goods induce a decline in the costs of production which has the effect of raising real wages generally and implicitly raising the general standard of living. The income paid back on the capital helps create the disincentive to consume that creates capital spending. Thus, those capitalists who effectively manage their property are rewarded and given control of more (newly created) property, of which they are increasingly less inclined to consume and increasingly more inclined to purchase capital goods and thus further elevate the general standard of living by driving down the costs of production. As they acquire more capital goods, eventually their ownership outstrips their ability to manage and oversee what they own; however, they only control as many capital goods as can be attributed to the income of their prior capital---which previously did not exist. Therefore, their ownership does not negatively contribute to the general standard-of-living relative to counterfactual state of them not purchasing those goods. It would thus be misleading to argue that redistributing their capital may yield further increases in the standard-of-living. Doing so may well cause that effect, but doing so neglects that it was the assumption that redistribution would not happen that induced the accumulation of capital. — Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Karl Marx and the Close of his System, 1896
A belief that progressive taxation shifts the total economic production of society away from capital investments (tools, infrastructure, training, research) and toward present consumption goods. This could happen because high-income earners tend to pay for capital goods (through investment activities) and low-income earners tend to purchase consumables. Smithian and neo-classical growth theory says that spending more on consumption goods and less on capital goods will slow the rise of the standard of living, and possibly even reduce it since capital goods increase future production possibilities.
Brain drain and tax avoidance. High progressive taxes may encourage emigration because taxes are not internationally harmonized, so very high earners are sometimes able to relocate in order to pay less tax, or find tax havens for their income. Unlike the opposing income effect and substitution effect of leisure which may make tax progressivity neutral in terms of working hours, the emigration rate can only increase with the top rates of tax.[citation needed]
The differential in the higher rates of tax between the United States and Europe are cited as a factor in the "brain drain" of high-earners to America in the 1960s, and is considered an important influence on modern "economic migration."[citation needed]
Increase in tax loopholes such as income splitting techniques. This creates an incentive for business owners to split their business into smaller, less efficient ones for a lower tax bracket. It also encourages production from less efficient smaller businesses than larger ones.
The increasing energy expended on tax avoidances which occur with greater progressivity produces an increase in the work of accountants and lawyers. Because tax avoidance creates no net wealth this work is unproductive, and can make taxes on the rich less efficient than on the middle class, who have less motivation to exploit tax loopholes.[citation needed]
Progressive taxes are argued to create work disincentive. Consider again someone who makes twice the minimum required to live on, but pays all income above the minimum living threshold in taxes. Such a person had no monetary incentive at all to try to increase his or her income above the base level.[25]
Justice in representation. Economic equity is sometimes used to argue against progressive taxation, on the grounds of representation being out-of-proportion to taxation: While the top 5% in income in most countries pay over half the taxes[26] they only have 5% of the voting weight. This argument can be reversed into the plutocratic case that if tax is to be progressive it should be accompanied by greater say in elections for those who contribute most.
Policymakers are argued to be under a pressure from lower and middle income voters to limit higher incomes by the means of progressive taxation. A few economists argue against inequity aversion: "If policy makers' primary goal is … economic prosperity for all, they should avoid focusing on the politics of envy." (Gregory Mankiw)[27]
A study from the libertarian Institute for Policy Innovation, which aims to reduce government intervention in the economy, has concluded that progressive taxes fail to decrease real income inequality.[28]
Some[who?] libertarians, especially anarcho-capitalists, argue that only poll taxes can be economically efficient[29] in the fullest sense (the utilitarian view), and/or that equity requires each citizen to pay the full exchange value in trade for governance services such as the guarantee of property rights

Progressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
What was your point?
Click to expand...

really? seriously? the next time wait long enough before you post to at least give the appearance that you actually read the post and put any consideration into it. :lol:
 
OscarB63 said:
really? seriously? the next time wait long enough before you post to at least give the appearance that you actually read the post and put any consideration into it. :lol:
Click to expand...

I have read it. It doesn't answer the question. his own links states that most governmental systems have a progressive tax of some kind. So, is he arguing that this makes most countries are Marxists? Seriously?

You see, reading is more than something timed. It is comprehending and making logical connections. Anyone who things this link proves a progressive tax is equal to marxism is incorrect.
 
Boo Radley said:
I have read it. It doesn't answer the question. his own links states that most governmental systems have a progressive tax of some kind. So, is he arguing that this makes most countries are Marxists? Seriously?

You see, reading is more than something timed. It is comprehending and making logical connections. Anyone who things this link proves a progressive tax is equal to marxism is incorrect.
Click to expand...

bullspit. from the time he posted it until the time you posted your reply was 6 minutes max. giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were watching the screen and noticed his post as soon as it popped up. there is no way that in less than 6 minutes you could have read and comprehended his post and made any kind of logical connections. which is why your only reply was a lame assed "what's your point?" If you had actually read and comprehended the freakin post you would know what his point was or what point he was trying to make.

fail
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
bullspit. from the time he posted it until the time you posted your reply was 6 minutes max. giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were watching the screen and noticed his post as soon as it popped up. there is no way that in less than 6 minutes you could have read and comprehended his post and made any kind of logical connections. which is why your only reply was a lame assed "what's your point?" If you had actually read and comprehended the freakin post you would know what his point was or what point he was trying to make.

fail
Click to expand...

And yet I did. Not sure on your time frame, but don't care. Not only did I comprehend, but I noted for you a point you have not yet addressed. And I got that from his source when I read it.

Do you need more time to find it?
 
Boo Radley said:
And yet I did. Not sure on your time frame, but don't care. Not only did I comprehend, but I noted for you a point you have not yet addressed. And I got that from his source when I read it.
Click to expand...

yeah...after the fact. I have no doubt that, after I called you on it, you did go back a read his post, to come up with a respectable reply.

as for the time frame...look at the top of the post, it will tell you when it was made.

his : 11:13
yours: 11:19

6 minutes

epic fail
 
OscarB63 said:
yeah...after the fact. I have no doubt that, after I called you on it, you did go back a read his post, to come up with a respectable reply.

as for the time frame...look at the top of the post, it will tell you when it was made.

his : 11:13
yours: 11:19

6 minutes

epic fail
Click to expand...

I answered you quicker than him, and without looking back. Again, can you dispute my point or show his point? If you can't, admit I'm right and that I did properly answer him.

Your whinning won't change the facts. :neener

BTW, serioulsy, how long do you think it takes to read a Wiki page? Loard, if you're spending more than a minute, I would love to know why?
 
Last edited:
Vader said:
He doesn't. That;s Republican rhetoric. He hates big business assholes and useless wealthy ****ers who do not pay their fair share.
Click to expand...

more populist psychobabble. The top 1% pay more taxes than the bottom 70%. You like many haters of the successful think everyone who makes over 200K is some sort of Ivan Boesky or Ken Lay or Ted Turner
 
TurtleDude said:
more populist psychobabble. The top 1% pay more taxes than the bottom 70%. You like many haters of the successful think everyone who makes over 200K is some sort of Ivan Boesky or Ken Lay or Ted Turner
Click to expand...

The difference is when you rich people get taxed you lose luxuries.... when we get taxed we lose essentials.
 
Vader said:
The difference is when you rich people get taxed you lose luxuries.... when we get taxed we lose essentials.
Click to expand...

really? maybe you need to work harder and stop expecting me to pay for you
if you are posting on a computer you obviosly have luxuries

I shouldn't have to give up what I have worked for because you are too lazy to pay for what you use

I don't expect you to pay my health insurance or my kid's tuition or food for my dog so WTF gives you the right to claim that I ought to pay for you?
 
TurtleDude said:
really? maybe you need to work harder and stop expecting me to pay for you
if you are posting on a computer you obviosly have luxuries

I shouldn't have to give up what I have worked for because you are too lazy to pay for what you use

I don't expect you to pay my health insurance or my kid's tuition or food for my dog so WTF gives you the right to claim that I ought to pay for you?
Click to expand...

1. I got this PC for school ... so I could do better.

2. If people like you were required to pay a living wage rather than the 3rd world nonse you currently offer, welfare wouldn't be needed. Since you refuse to copromise you are STUCK. You cannot have both. Pick one and stiffle about the other.

3. If my taxes pay to bail our ailing big business buddies, you're all good with it.

4. Wealthy people are hypocrites.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom