• 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!

More Democrats break with Obama on tax cuts

I can't find anything supporting your claim:

Under current law, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts nearly all expire in 2011, returning the individual income tax to its pre-2001 level (except for a few permanent changes). In defining the baseline for his budget, the president assumes that, rather than ending in 2011, the tax cuts will become permanent. From that baseline, he would increase taxes in 2011 for high-income taxpayers—couples with income over $250,000 and single people with income above $200,000.

Specifically, he would raise the top two tax rates back to their pre-2001 levels, change the income threshold for the next-to-highest rate, reinstate the personal exemption phaseout and the limitation on itemized deductions, and impose a 20 percent tax rate on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends.

Those tax increases would essentially leave income tax rates for high-income taxpayers at the levels scheduled after 2010 under current law although the incomes defining the next to highest tax rate would change. People with qualified dividend income would pay less tax because the proposed 20 percent rate would be lower than their regular tax rate, the rate that would apply to dividend income if Congress let the 2001-2003 tax cuts expire. Others would pay more tax because the 20 percent rate on capital gains exceeds the 18 percent rate that would apply to gains on assets held more than five years and because the phaseout of personal exemptions would begin at a lower income than under current law.

TPC Tax Topics | 2010 Budget -  Tax Increases on High-Income Taxpayers
 
Boo Radley said:
I can't find anything supporting your claim:

Under current law, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts nearly all expire in 2011, returning the individual income tax to its pre-2001 level (except for a few permanent changes). In defining the baseline for his budget, the president assumes that, rather than ending in 2011, the tax cuts will become permanent. From that baseline, he would increase taxes in 2011 for high-income taxpayers—couples with income over $250,000 and single people with income above $200,000.

Specifically, he would raise the top two tax rates back to their pre-2001 levels, change the income threshold for the next-to-highest rate, reinstate the personal exemption phaseout and the limitation on itemized deductions, and impose a 20 percent tax rate on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends.

Those tax increases would essentially leave income tax rates for high-income taxpayers at the levels scheduled after 2010 under current law although the incomes defining the next to highest tax rate would change. People with qualified dividend income would pay less tax because the proposed 20 percent rate would be lower than their regular tax rate, the rate that would apply to dividend income if Congress let the 2001-2003 tax cuts expire. Others would pay more tax because the 20 percent rate on capital gains exceeds the 18 percent rate that would apply to gains on assets held more than five years and because the phaseout of personal exemptions would begin at a lower income than under current law.

TPC Tax Topics | 2010 Budget -* Tax Increases on High-Income Taxpayers
Click to expand...

its a tax hike

why are you unwlling to pay the same rate as I do?

if you are unwilling to do that you are a hypocrite for demanding that of others

BBL
 
TurtleDude said:
its a tax hike

why are you unwlling to pay the same rate as I do?

if you are unwilling to do that you are a hypocrite for demanding that of others

BBL
Click to expand...

That wasn't what I responded to. You said we'd return to Esienhower's 90 something percent. We're not. That's a factual point.

I don't oppose a progressive tax which means I pay more than some, and assuming your honest about your income you pay more than me. I don't begruge those below me as I do better overall than they do and can afford more. I see no reason to feel sorry for you. When asked who should do the heavy lifting, I always answer those who can. I can lift more some and do so freely. And some can liift more than I can.

This is not new here or arond the world. most countries have soem form of a progressive tax. it is part of the burden of being aomng the elite. Enjoy. Its still far better than being among the very poor.
 
TurtleDude said:
well I pay three times more in federal income taxes alone than what you make. I sure don't use ten times as many federal services as you do. My family, even with sophisticated estate planning has paid millions in estate taxes--what did we get for that?
Click to expand...
Sure you do. You earn enough bread that you pay $300K in taxes, and you spend a good deal of time here at DP? That's just too funny, I need to put my boots on. :lamo
 
Boo Radley said:
you fail to understand, or deliberaly ignore, that those stats do not prove your point. This has been explained to you in detail before.
Click to expand...

He still fails to understand the concept of how linear regression could actually prove his arguments.

How sad. American's public education is a failure. Evidence? Conservative who thinks that posting raw data proves his very specific arguments and refuses to actually run statistical models to prove that the influence of those specific policies resulted in the outcome.

The notion that "I want the data to say this, therefore it does" is a sign of just how far critical thinking in America has fallen.
 
j-mac said:
If raising taxes is a necessary evil, which I am not so sure that as a result of Obama's foot loose spending spree of the last 18 months it isn't, then how is it not part of the equation to cut spending at the same time?

j-mac
Click to expand...

I did not say that cutting expenses wasn't part of the solution. I only said it isn't the only solution. You can't solve the budget problem without elements of each of 1) an improved economy; 2) expense constriction and 3) increased taxes. Anyone that isn't willing to see some budget cuts AND some tax increases isn't really serious about a balanced budget or is very naive about economics and politics.
 
Boo Radley said:
Why would you sak that as I make no such claim. And no, there is really no evidence that cutting taxes will help jobs. Historically we can see jobs created with a high tax base and with a low tax base, and us losing jobs with a low tax base and with a low tax base. In fact, someone would be hard pressed to prove taxes play a major role of any kind in creating jobs.
Click to expand...

Purpose of Business = Profit
Increase Profit => Expand Business
Expand Business => Hire more workers

The only reason you would be looking for evidence that tax cuts help create jobs is if you believe the purpose of business to be something other than profit. I don't know, maybe that's uncommon sense.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not much according to actual data. We were functioning quite well back at the old tax rate, and doing quite poorly at the moment with the currant tax cuts. Again, you would be hard pressed to factually support your claim. I can't help that the facts are what they are.
Click to expand...

Were we functioning quite well at the old tax rate? I don't think you can factually support your claim...Bush says he inherited recession - Aug. 7, 2002

The Clintons saw this coming and started blaming it on Bush while he was still governor of Texas. He was causing it by talking about it...

I'm not one who believes a tax rate change one way or the other is a magic pill to save the economy, but justice is. If properly framed, this debate would be about the items in the budget rather than tax rates. Increasing taxes on workers in order to pay others not to work is the opposite of justice regardless of the tax rates. It's a poison pill for society.
 
FederalRepublic said:
Were we functioning quite well at the old tax rate? I don't think you can factually support your claim...Bush says he inherited recession - Aug. 7, 2002

The Clintons saw this coming and started blaming it on Bush while he was still governor of Texas. He was causing it by talking about it...

I'm not one who believes a tax rate change one way or the other is a magic pill to save the economy, but justice is. If properly framed, this debate would be about the items in the budget rather than tax rates. Increasing taxes on workers in order to pay others not to work is the opposite of justice regardless of the tax rates. It's a poison pill for society.
Click to expand...

That rate was there before the recession, long before, and during the good years with Clinton. So, supporting it is not that difficult. You also seem to misunderstand causal relationships. ;)

Can you show that the previous tax rate cause the recession Bush saw? And can you explain how the recession got worse with the Bush tax cuts in place, if tax rates are the major factor in these things?
 
FederalRepublic said:
Purpose of Business = Profit
Increase Profit => Expand Business
Expand Business => Hire more workers

The only reason you would be looking for evidence that tax cuts help create jobs is if you believe the purpose of business to be something other than profit. I don't know, maybe that's uncommon sense.
Click to expand...

That's nonsense, as it relates to the question before us. I don't dispute the purpose of business. I dispute your three bullets have anything to do with what we're discussing. I dispute tax cuts crate jobs because there is no evidence they do. Business creates jobs when more people spend, suply and deamnd. Tax cuts have nothing to do with it.

I'm always bothered when a argument that is so illogcal as you present is thrown up. It show a complete lack of thought or logic. That's distrubing.
 
Joe, would you agree that a tax hike on those who are the job creators at this time would be counter productive to a better economy?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Joe, would you agree that a tax hike on those who are the job creators at this time would be counter productive to a better economy?


j-mac
Click to expand...

No. I don't believe it would have any effect at all. There is no evidence they they consider taxes when deciding whether to hire at all. We've seen job creation historical with tax hikes and with tax cuts, and job loss with tax cuts (like right now) and without them. There is no evidence I can find that it matters at all.
 
Boo Radley said:
No. I don't believe it would have any effect at all. There is no evidence they they consider taxes when deciding whether to hire at all. We've seen job creation historical with tax hikes and with tax cuts, and job loss with tax cuts (like right now) and without them. There is no evidence I can find that it matters at all.
Click to expand...

There is evidence of this....

Raising taxes is more than just a matter of fiscal policy and deficits. It is not just a bookkeeping exer cise. Raising taxes deprives citizens of their prop erty. Raising taxes has important results as higher taxes discourage the forces of economic growth, thus spreading their consequences far and wide in terms of lost jobs, wages, and opportunities.
If Congress enacts the President’s tax plan, it will hurt Americans at every income level, not only the so-called rich, because it will:
Slow down economic growth as the economy continues to struggle;
Keep people unemployed that otherwise would have found work;
Put even more Americans out of work; and
Slow down economic growth permanently and lower Americans’ standard of living as a result.
With unemployment lingering around 10 per cent and economic recovery softening, now is the worst possible time to discourage families, small businesses, and investors from engaging in the behaviors that will help lift the economy out of its long and persistent slump. Unfortunately, that is exactly what President Obama’s tax hike plan will do. In fact, if Congress passes the President’s tax hike plan, businesses will create 7 million fewer jobs over the next decade than they would if tax rates remain where there are now.[2] That is, 7 million additional Americans will not have a job because of a misguided tax increase—roughly equivalent to the total loss of jobs during the recent recession. In terms of job loss, the Obama tax hike is effectively equivalent to a deep recession, except this one would be intentional.

Obama Tax Hikes: Bad for All Americans | The Heritage Foundation
Click to expand...

You might want to read this fully.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
There is evidence of this....



You might want to read this fully.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Actually, no it isn't. It's their OPINION. other's have a different OPINION. I've linked them earlier. What I'm speaking of is OBJECTIVE evidence. Like, with tax cuts in place right now, where are the jobs?
 
j-mac said:
There is evidence of this....



You might want to read this fully.


j-mac
Click to expand...

You're wasting your time. Boo will argue for days that white is black and black is white. The only REAL proof is his, all others are just opinions.
 
Gill said:
You're wasting your time. Boo will argue for days that white is black and black is white. The only REAL proof is his, all others are just opinions.
Click to expand...

No, proof is showing that it isactually true with, you know, facts. We have the tax cuts in place right now. Where are the jobs? We had jobs with higher tax rates, expalin why? See, I'm asking for factual information to support your claim.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, proof is showing that it isactually true with, you know, facts. We have the tax cuts in place right now. Where are the jobs? We had jobs with higher tax rates, expalin why? See, I'm asking for factual information to support your claim.
Click to expand...

I already showed you proof, but you blew it off as you always do.

No one is hiring because the Dems have everyone scared to death. Health care reform, a tax increase after the first of the year, cap and tax... no one knows what the crazy Dems will try and do in the lame duck session after they have their asses handed to them in November.

Of course no one is hiring, but it has nothing to do with the existing tax cuts.
 
Boo Radley said:
No. I don't believe it would have any effect at all. There is no evidence they they consider taxes when deciding whether to hire at all. We've seen job creation historical with tax hikes and with tax cuts, and job loss with tax cuts (like right now) and without them. There is no evidence I can find that it matters at all.
Click to expand...

Actually, we do. If the cost of doing business goes up because of taxes, when revenue generation continues to remain depressed, or drops lower, then yes, taxes are a big consideration. I've down sized one of my businesses, because of Obamacare and higher taxes around the corner.
 
Gill said:
I already showed you proof, but you blew it off as you always do.

No one is hiring because the Dems have everyone scared to death. Health care reform, a tax increase after the first of the year, cap and tax... no one knows what the crazy Dems will try and do in the lame duck session after they have their asses handed to them in November.

Of course no one is hiring, but it has nothing to do with the existing tax cuts.
Click to expand...

This shouldn't be this hard. I know you think it is proof, though I can't remember what you showed me, but as I know we've had a good economy during times with a high tax rate, and a poor economy with a low tax rate, and everything inbetween, I know there is no factual evidence supporting the claim. I need look no further then right now, as those tax cuts are in place, and yet other factors mean far more than taxes. We can see that right now. So while I am certain you think and believe you showed proof, I'm just as certain I explained why it failed to meet that burden. Just as j's opinion doesn't equal objective evidence.

And no, there is no objective evidence suggesting business is too scared. that too is little more than hyperbolic fear mongering opinion run amuck. Business hires when people buy. It really is that simple. It has seldom if ever trickled down; it more often trickles up.
 
apdst said:
Actually, we do. If the cost of doing business goes up because of taxes, when revenue generation continues to remain depressed, or drops lower, then yes, taxes are a big consideration. I've down sized one of my businesses, because of Obamacare and higher taxes around the corner.
Click to expand...

Well, I hope you understand your personal experiences, as unverifable as it is, can't be used as evidence. We need something more verifiable and objective. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, I hope you understand your personal experiences, as unverifable as it is, can't be used as evidence. We need something more verifiable and objective. ;)
Click to expand...

Ok. Take a look at the hundreds of thousands of businesses in America, that are having the same problem.

A large majority of corporations in the nation are singing the same tune that I am. But, we're all lieing. Right?
 
apdst said:
Ok. Take a look at the hundreds of thousands of businesses in America, that are having the same problem.

A large majority of corporations in the nation are singing the same tune that I am. But, we're all lieing. Right?
Click to expand...

You have to provide something that shows this. Not someone saying it is so, but something that verifies it. I doubt any such thing exists.
 
Boo Radley said:
You have to provide something that shows this. Not someone saying it is so, but something that verifies it. I doubt any such thing exists.
Click to expand...

Yeah, all those business operators who say they're not spending money, because of the uncertainty brought about new, unknown changes in the tax code and Obamacare are just a buncha liars.

Obama is really the most brilliant president we've ever had, but most Americans are too dumb to realize it. Is that it?
 
apdst said:
Yeah, all those business operators who say they're not spending money, because of the uncertainty brought about new, unknown changes in the tax code and Obamacare are just a buncha liars.

Obama is really the most brilliant president we've ever had, but most Americans are too dumb to realize it. Is that it?
Click to expand...

I don't know that that many are actually saying this. Seems more a political effort than a real one. And it is people pushing this who believe the American people are dumb enough to accept any unproven claim. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't know that that many are actually saying this. Seems more a political effort than a real one. And it is people pushing this who believe the American people are dumb enough to accept any unproven claim. ;)
Click to expand...

How would you explain the unemployment rate? Obviously, businesses aren't hiring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom