• 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

This is the Iraq War vote all over again. Political expediency.

They've backed the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Weapons of Economic Destruction, and now think the people are stupid enough to buy this?

And what destruction with they vote for when elected? No, no, no...

You can't fool all the people all of the time, though they try.

.

Should be under the title: Obama goes fishing.
“I don’t have any problem with wealthy people getting a tax cut. I mean, for real,’’ he said. “I mean, these are good guys.”
Biden: Let’s Make a Deal - Washington Wire - WSJ

.
 
What gives anyone else the right to tell you how to spend your money as long as you do it legally? That seems to be one of the biggest problems today as more and more believe the govt. rhetoric about people not spending their own money the way the govt. wants them to. It is the people's money first and regardless of how they spend it that creates jobs and benefits the economy.


I don't think there is a truer statement than this above. Obama gets out there today and preaches that the people just need to trust that his plan will bring back prosperity to the American people, touting bogus tax cuts, jobs created that in the entire picture are a net loss per month, demonizing corporations that millions of people like you and I work for everyday. Some in here have laid out in other places that they have no problem with taxing those making over $250K upwards of 60% or higher, and are impervious to the fact that there will be no jobs when these people either pull their money out of this country all together, or corporations leave for less restrictive environments. Then what in these dreamers eyes?

Upwards of half the American public today pays NO taxes at all net, and drains the government coffers of the money needed to actually provide essential services that we all agree are needed. Since when does person A have a right to what person B earns?


j-mac
 
I don't think there is a truer statement than this above. Obama gets out there today and preaches that the people just need to trust that his plan will bring back prosperity to the American people, touting bogus tax cuts, jobs created that in the entire picture are a net loss per month, demonizing corporations that millions of people like you and I work for everyday. Some in here have laid out in other places that they have no problem with taxing those making over $250K upwards of 60% or higher, and are impervious to the fact that there will be no jobs when these people either pull their money out of this country all together, or corporations leave for less restrictive environments. Then what in these dreamers eyes?

Upwards of half the American public today pays NO taxes at all net, and drains the government coffers of the money needed to actually provide essential services that we all agree are needed. Since when does person A have a right to what person B earns?


j-mac

J, you're spreading false information. I linked the truth earlier. The 47% number is not accurate in the way you are presenting it. Swallowing **** just gives you a bad taste in your mouth. Won't help you with a debate. ;)
 
J, you're spreading false information. I linked the truth earlier. The 47% number is not accurate in the way you are presenting it. Swallowing **** just gives you a bad taste in your mouth. Won't help you with a debate. ;)

those aren't my numbers, they are the CBO I believe. And Let's focus on the question I asked at the end if we could? I'll retype it.

Since when does person A have a right to what person B earns?

j-mac
 
J, you're spreading false information. I linked the truth earlier. The 47% number is not accurate in the way you are presenting it. Swallowing **** just gives you a bad taste in your mouth. Won't help you with a debate. ;)

The 47% is indeed accurate with regard to Federal Income taxes and comes right from the IRS. The 95% number is totally inaccurate and just another Obama lie. Stop carrying water for this empty suit. Neither 95% of the American people or 95% of the working pass pay Federal Income taxes got a tax cut. You cannot cut Federal Income Taxes for people who don't pay any Federal Income Taxes
 
those aren't my numbers, they are the CBO I believe. And Let's focus on the question I asked at the end if we could? I'll retype it.

Since when does person A have a right to what person B earns?

j-mac

No, it's a misrepresentation of CBO numbers. I addressed that earlier. The pay taxes. Other taxes.

And we've always have a progressive tax in this country, so the answer would be always. ;)
 
A repeat just for you j:

. . . 47 percent has become shorthand for the notion that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole.

Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 47 percent number.

(snip)

The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years — the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama — have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.

But the modifiers here — federal and income — are important. Income taxes aren’t the only kind of federal taxes that people pay. There are also payroll taxes and investment taxes, among others. And, of course, people pay state and local taxes, too.

Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html
 
No, it's a misrepresentation of CBO numbers. I addressed that earlier. The pay taxes. Other taxes.

And we've always have a progressive tax in this country, so the answer would be always. ;)

The issue is Federal Income taxes not use taxes. FICA is a use tax that goes back to the taxpayer. Are you proposing that lower income workers shouldn't be paying into the SS and Medicare Account?
 
A repeat just for you j:

. . . 47 percent has become shorthand for the notion that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole.

Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 47 percent number.

(snip)

The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years — the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama — have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.

But the modifiers here — federal and income — are important. Income taxes aren’t the only kind of federal taxes that people pay. There are also payroll taxes and investment taxes, among others. And, of course, people pay state and local taxes, too.

Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html

But the modifiers here — federal and income — are important. Income taxes aren’t the only kind of federal taxes that people pay. There are also payroll taxes and investment taxes, among others. And, of course, people pay state and local taxes, too.

What investment taxes do the poor pay? In addition did Obama cut State taxes?
 
The issue is Federal Income taxes not use taxes. FICA is a use tax that goes back to the taxpayer. Are you proposing that lower income workers shouldn't be paying into the SS and Medicare Account?

The claim is they pay no taxes. That's false. Keep up. ;)
 
The claim is they pay no taxes. That's false. Keep up. ;)

The claim is that 95% of the people got a tax cut and you cannot cut taxes on people who don't pay any taxes. Did Obama cut those use taxes? I cannot believe you continue to drink the Kool-aid and the question is why?
 
The claim is that 95% of the people got a tax cut and you cannot cut taxes on people who don't pay any taxes. Did Obama cut those use taxes? I cannot believe you continue to drink the Kool-aid and the question is why?

Once agian you are wrong. This is the claim I responded to:

J-mac said:
Upwards of half the American public today pays NO taxes at all . . . .
 
Once agian you are wrong. This is the claim I responded to:

Ok, is that really relevant? Are you telling me that Obama cut Medicare and SS taxes that all people pay? Where is the tax cut for the 47% of the people that don't pay any Federal Income taxes?
 
Ok, is that really relevant? Are you telling me that Obama cut Medicare and SS taxes that all people pay? Where is the tax cut for the 47% of the people that don't pay any Federal Income taxes?

Has nothing to do with what I'm addressing. Do you want to make a new claim?
 
Has nothing to do with what I'm addressing. Do you want to make a new claim?

You keep moving the goalposts to try and make a point. the point is Obama claimed that 95% of the people got a tax cut under his program and that is a blatant lie. There were strings attached and you cannot cut taxes for people that don't pay Federal Income Taxes. Here are the facts about the Obama tax cuts. How does any of this apply to people who don't pay any Federal Income taxes? Instead of a tax cut it is a welfare payment.

I hardly see how most of these tax cuts help the individual taxpayer and creates jobs. All have strings attached and are targeted. The results speak for themselves, 16 million Americans unemployed today

Total: $237 billion
• $116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.[29]
• $70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.[29]
• $15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes).
• $14 billion: Expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.
• $6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.[41]
• $4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
• $4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit — which provides money to low income workers — for families with at least three children.
• $4.3 billion: Home energy credit to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.
• $1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.
 
Has nothing to do with what I'm addressing. Do you want to make a new claim?

Here is how you cut taxes and benefit the economy

Bush Tax cuts

Between 2001 and 2003, the Bush administration instituted a federal tax cut for all taxpayers. Among other changes, the lowest income tax rate was lowered from 15% to 10%, the 27% rate went to 25%, the 30% rate went to 28%, the 35% rate went to 33%, and the top marginal tax rate went from 39.6% to 35%.[3] In addition, the child tax credit went from $500 to $1000, and the "marriage penalty" was reduced. Since the cuts were implemented as part of the annual congressional budget resolution, which protected the bill from filibusters, numerous amendments, and more than 20 hours of debate, it had to include a sunset clause. Unless congress passes legislation making the tax cuts permanent, they will expire in 2011.
 
How about saying 47% pay no federal Income tax. That should do it.

That would help, but remember:

Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47.
 
Once agian you are wrong. This is the claim I responded to:


And that is correct, let me break it down for you. Person A makes $20k per year, and pays all in Fed, State, and local taxes of a combined $3k per year. Now they take EIC's and take advantage of other breaks in the absurd tax code in this country and end up with a federal rebate of $1400. and a state refund of $1200. In addition they get a $600 child care credit making their total liability in total taxation of a net -$200. for that year. Not only did they not pay any tax, but got a subsidy from you, from me, from America.

Now you tell me Why should person A get what I make as person B?

j-mac
 
That would help, but remember:

Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47.

Ok found it....

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it's simply somebody else's problem.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax - Yahoo! Finance

I was wrong when I said CBO, and should have known better. The CBO is only allowed to look at the information given them by a particular congress critter in order to issue its report. IOW, it can, and often times leave out much.

j-mac
 
And that is correct, let me break it down for you. Person A makes $20k per year, and pays all in Fed, State, and local taxes of a combined $3k per year. Now they take EIC's and take advantage of other breaks in the absurd tax code in this country and end up with a federal rebate of $1400. and a state refund of $1200. In addition they get a $600 child care credit making their total liability in total taxation of a net -$200. for that year. Not only did they not pay any tax, but got a subsidy from you, from me, from America.

Now you tell me Why should person A get what I make as person B?

j-mac

Just Because
 
And that is correct, let me break it down for you. Person A makes $20k per year, and pays all in Fed, State, and local taxes of a combined $3k per year. Now they take EIC's and take advantage of other breaks in the absurd tax code in this country and end up with a federal rebate of $1400. and a state refund of $1200. In addition they get a $600 child care credit making their total liability in total taxation of a net -$200. for that year. Not only did they not pay any tax, but got a subsidy from you, from me, from America.

Now you tell me Why should person A get what I make as person B?

j-mac

Again, the 47% number is inaccurate. Most do pay taxes. Only 10% pay no federal tax. If you want to whine that we have a progressive tax, as we have had and as nearly all countries have, go ahead. But be factually correct in your whining. ;)
 
Again, the 47% number is inaccurate. Most do pay taxes. Only 10% pay no federal tax. If you want to whine that we have a progressive tax, as we have had and as nearly all countries have, go ahead. But be factually correct in your whining. ;)

so you are basing your claim of the 47% number being wrong as established by these people:

The Tax Policy Center is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. The Center is made up of nationally recognized experts in tax, budget, and social policy who have served at the highest levels of government.

TPC About Us | About the Tax Policy Center

Hmmmm...The Urban Institute, and Brookings....Certainly no "Beckish" types there....So why are they wrong?


j-mac
 
so you are basing your claim of the 47% number being wrong as established by these people:



Hmmmm...The Urban Institute, and Brookings....Certainly no "Beckish" types there....So why are they wrong?


j-mac

No, Based on the facts. It's that the number is wrong, it is how you are using it that is wrong. Do you read what is posted?
 
Again, the 47% number is inaccurate. Most do pay taxes. Only 10% pay no federal tax. If you want to whine that we have a progressive tax, as we have had and as nearly all countries have, go ahead. But be factually correct in your whining. ;)

It's one reason those countries suck, and we're following suit.

Where does it say in our founding docs that the government is to play chief redistributor? Nowhere.

.
 
Back
Top Bottom