• 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!

House Passes Middle-Class Tax Cut as Dems, GOP Try to Reach Compromise

Barbbtx said:
You don't speak Dem?

It goes something like this,
Dem speak RED

[B]The Republicans want to give tax cuts to the rich, but refuse to say how they will pay for them.[/B] Mind you, the tax remains the same. It's not a cut.
But when you say the Dems want to raise taxes on the rich, they say ]NO, we just want to do away with the tax cuts, Bush put in place[/B].Even though taxes would go up.
Click to expand...


You might want to note that when Bush put the Tax Cuts into effect, the ubber wealthy got bigger breaks than the middle class.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html
Click to expand...



It stands to reason that in this economy, the middle-class, who didn't get as many benefits as the wealthy need to keep their taxes the same, while the wealthy, who have already benefited much more, should be glad to help the country by allowing the tax cuts to expire. In fact, many wealthy people are not even asking for them to continue.

What is amazing, is all the Republicans/Tea Partiers etc., that are bent on giving the rich people more money. I can see the Republican Congressmen going for it, they receive huge contributions from these wealthy people, but what are schmucks in the middle class getting from these tax cuts for the rich, remaining in place?

If your mantra is going to be no more deficit spending, and the tax cuts to the wealthy by remaining will increase the deficit by $700B, aren't you Reps talking out of both sides of your mouth?

Got it?
BTW if these taxes are allowed to expire, we will have the highest corporate taxes in the world. People will be flocking here to set up businesses.
Click to expand...

What are you worried about, your leader, Bush already outsourced most of the work to China and other countries, they weren't coming here when the taxes were cut, so what is the difference?
 
The left tried a luxury tax, and what happened? It was repealed in 1996, after much damage was done. They ended up sinking the boating industry and other luxury businesses suffered. Link below.

NY tried to generate revenue from the wealthy and what happened? They got less. Link below.

You try to screw the wealth creators and they'll move, not participate in punitive activity, pay 2 bucks to avoid giving one to the pigs in DC, and others simply won't invest here. There is China and Eastern Europe you know.

That's just the way it is.

here is a taste... more below:
WALTER SCHULZ, Boat Builder: (1992) When that tax came down, I mean, it was just as if, I know the metaphor sounds exaggerated, as if someone turned the faucet off.

KWAME HOLMAN: At that time we talked with Walter Schulz, founder and president of Shannon Yachts. After 17 years of building boats, his company did collapse. Schulz was forced to declare bankruptcy.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/budget/budget_1-1.html
Click to expand...

Isn't trying to screw the rich great? Who pays? The Average Hardworking Joe.

Kwame Holman looks at how a 1990 budget concession has failed to produce revenue, because a luxury tax it instituted, back fired


JOE DOCKERY, Boat Owner: It's nice to finally be able to see it completed, boy, and it has been two and a half years.

KWAME HOLMAN: Joe Dockery is, in a word, rich, on this particular day, rich enough to take delivery on this 72-foot sailing yacht, custom-designed and built by Alden Yachts of Portsmouth, Rhode Island. Cost: $2 1/2 million.

JOE DOCKERY: I'm very content. It looks just super.

KWAME HOLMAN: These are the carpenters, fiberglass, and metal workers, electricians who actually did the work. Most are first and second generation Portuguese, skilled craftsmen with a specialty in boat-building. They are not rich, but their glad Joe Dockery is. His one order alone kept 20 workers employed full-time at Alden for two and a half years. And that's not counting the subcontractors who built the 100-foot carbon-fiber mast, molded the lightweight high-tech hull, and sewed the sails. Tony Abreau made all the customized stainless steel pieces.

TONY ABREAU, Metal Worker: This big piece over there cost between five and six thousand dollars.

KWAME HOLMAN: Joe Dockery, who owns a string of successful car dealerships in New Jersey, didn't hesitate to choose Alden to build his boat. In fact, this is his second Alden. That's his first, a 54-footer now for sale. But Dockery wouldn't even consider having his new boat built here or anywhere else in the United States until Congress repealed the federal luxury tax on boats. That tax would have cost him about $240,000, a bill he could afford but refused to pay.
Click to expand...


New York State Tax Revenue Trails Six-Month Forecast - BusinessWeek



Millionaires cashing out of Bay Area
The Bay Area's wealth boom is producing an explosion of millionaires -- in Nevada, Wyoming and perhaps Canada.

Wealth managers and other advisers to the well-heeled say "wealth migration" -- taking the money and running -- is behind a surprising drop in the number of Bay Area millionaires.

"I'm hearing from more California baby boomers, 'I need to get out,'" said Diane Kennedy, a Phoenix accountant and financial adviser to the wealthy.

"You can still make a lot of money in California. The problem is, then you have to pay taxes on that money," said Kennedy, who recently helped a California client with annual income of about $1 million save $96,000 annually by making their home in Jackson Hole, Wyo., their primary residence.

"Effectively, you have the state of California subsidizing their relocation through the tax savings,"

Millionaires cashing out of Bay Area | San Francisco Business Times
Click to expand...

State
Updated: August 21, 2010, 02:06 AM

State’s wealthiest flee hike in taxes
ALBANY — This year, the deep pockets of New York’s rich were tapped like never before. The state’s wealthiest pay new higher income tax rates, higher taxes for limousines and yachts, more to enter a horse in a race and more to dabble in real estate.

Golisano, who created 5,000 jobs from his Rochester payroll processing company, bristled when politicians said he was bailing out on New York this spring.

...Buffalo Sabres owner B. Thomas Golisano, the Paychex founder and billionaire who was paying $13,000 a day in New York income taxes...

“It’s not just who leaves,” said the institute’s E. J. McMahon. “It’s who doesn’t come here?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
mertex;1059140375]You might want to note that when Bush put the Tax Cuts into effect, the ubber wealthy got bigger breaks than the middle class.
Click to expand...

So what? The rich pay more in taxes and have higher base thus get back a higher number but the same percentage. Seems like a hard concept for you to grasp.

It stands to reason that in this economy, the middle-class, who didn't get as many benefits as the wealthy need to keep their taxes the same, while the wealthy, who have already benefited much more, should be glad to help the country by allowing the tax cuts to expire. In fact, many wealthy people are not even asking for them to continue.
Click to expand...

Do you see those not asking for the money back sending more to the Federal Govt? Why not? Why do you care if the rich get to keep more of what they earn? Here we go again, someone who doesn't understand the concept of earning money and keeping more of what one earns.

What is amazing, is all the Republicans/Tea Partiers etc., that are bent on giving the rich people more money. I can see the Republican Congressmen going for it, they receive huge contributions from these wealthy people, but what are schmucks in the middle class getting from these tax cuts for the rich, remaining in place?
Click to expand...

Giving the rich more money? Who is giving the rich more money? You don't seem to understand it is their money? You work for the govt?

If your mantra is going to be no more deficit spending, and the tax cuts to the wealthy by remaining will increase the deficit by $700B, aren't you Reps talking out of both sides of your mouth?
Click to expand...

Yep, buying what this Administration tells you since they have been so accurate on all their predictions. What makes you so sure that any tax increase will generate more revenue to the Federal Govt. and that the govt. will use it to lower the deficit and/or debt? 700billion over 10 years with my math means 70 billion a year. The 700billion sounds better doesn't it vs. 70 billion. If all that money got to the govt, and it was used to lower the deficit we would have had a 1.23 trillion deficit instead of 1.3 trillion deficit, Now doesn't that make you feel better?


What are you worried about, your leader, Bush already outsourced most of the work to China and other countries, they weren't coming here when the taxes were cut, so what is the difference?
Click to expand...

Right, it was Bush's fault that Obama lost 4 million jobs the last two years. Didn't he "bring us back from the brink" or was that just another lie? If this is the education you are getting from the schools we are indeed doomed.
 
zimmer said:
The left tried a luxury tax, and what happened? It was repealed in 1996, after much damage was done. They ended up sinking the boating industry and other luxury businesses suffered. Link below.

NY tried to generate revenue from the wealthy and what happened? They got less. Link below.

You try to screw the wealth creators and they'll move, not participate in punitive activity, pay 2 bucks to avoid giving one to the pigs in DC, and others simply won't invest here. There is China and Eastern Europe you know.

That's just the way it is.




New York State Tax Revenue Trails Six-Month Forecast - BusinessWeek
Click to expand...

Yet now we have another group of arrogant liberals who believe that increasing the taxes will create more revenue to the govt. Most mature individuals learn from their mistakes but not liberals, they compound them.
 
Conservative said:
Noticed you ran from my response to you earlier, not surprising. Still waiting for you to tell us all how the govt. taxing a certain class benefits you or the country in general?
Click to expand...
Really, I thought you were far more informed than that.
Try, not adding $700B to the deficit, to give more money to the wealthy they don't need, and which you/your party claim you do not want to add to the deficit. And the government has been taxing this certain class all along, it is not new, their taxes are just reverting back to what they were before Bush decided to gift his base with tax cuts that helped put us in the predicament we find ourselves in.

You seem to have no problem with the govt. taking more personal income from the rich and spending that how they see fit vs. allowing the individual to spend it the way they want.
Click to expand...
You seem to have no problem with putting the country further in hole to help the wealthy, who don't need it and didn't ask for it, but don't seem to be bothered at all by your leaders refusing to extend benefits to the unemployed, which will create a bigger problem for the country when they go bankrupt, lose their homes and cars, while the rich just stash it away into savings where it doesn't do them or the country any good.

Guess you wouldn't have a problem with the govt. doing that to you then?
Click to expand...
Actually, I, myself would prefer that they let all the tax cuts expire, before giving in to Republicans and allowing the wealthy to continue to suck the life out of the country. Republicans claim to be such great "patriots" but they sure hem and haw when it comes to paying taxes. They want the benefits the taxes provide, protection from terrorists, safe food and water to drink, lower crime rates, etc., but they don't want to pay for them. That isn't patriotism if you ask me, that is selfishness and greed.

When you get your first full time job how about having your check sent to the govt. and letting them send back to you what THEY think you need? Is that what you are learning in school?
Click to expand...
And along with your other conservative co-horts, you seem to have no trouble spewing your snarky and unnecessary remarks. How do you know whether Upsideguy has a job or not? Or, do you accuse all Dems of being out of work? For your information, Libs are now the wealthiest, however, Dems are the ones extending a hand to the needy. If you keep allowing your leaders to coddle the rich at your expense, you may find yourself being one visiting the Goodwill store and standing at the bread line at the County Bread Basket. Is that what they teach you at Faux News?
 
randel said:
cyber slurp...thats funny:lamo i asked because i was curious to see what your response would be, as you appear to be an ardent supporter of the rich...
Click to expand...

I am an ardent supporter of preventing the many from voting up the taxes of the most productive tax payers.

and yes, under the dems' definition I am "Rich"

you do know that one of the main reasons why a progressive income tax was enacted was a power grab by congress. If there was a flat tax or a consumption tax, congress couldn't gain power by telling people like you that they will make people like me pay more taxes to pay for what you want. and on the other hand, the GOP couldn't cater to me by telling me they will prevent the people you vote for from raising my taxes to buy your vote
 
haymarket said:
so from that comment can we conclude you would support raining taxes on that particular group of rich folks?
Click to expand...

nope, I want everyone paying the same tax rate

but since the dems are the ones who push treating people differently its stupid to treat someone making 200K to a couple million a year the same as someone with billions
 
I am shocked by your answer.
Shocked I tell you!!!!!!
 
Conservative said:
Yet now we have another group of arrogant liberals who believe that increasing the taxes will create more revenue to the govt. Most mature individuals learn from their mistakes but not liberals, they compound them.
Click to expand...

There are mountains of evidence, but they simply prefer to look the other way. I loved hearing Krauthammer explain his transition from being a left of center Dem. It was empirical evidence; that what he believed was helping actually hurt. Once that was established, he had no choice but to change his mind.

The examples are everywhere. The Ghettos, Welfare Reform, The Luxury Tax, Punitive State Taxation, and that they stopped calling it Reaganomics. If what they propose really works, then Carter should have been the hero of the left instead of the owner of The Misery Index.

It's that old saying, "Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."

.
 
Last edited:
mertex said:
Really, I thought you were far more informed than that.
Try, not adding $700B to the deficit, to give more money to the wealthy they don't need, and which you/your party claim you do not want to add to the deficit.
Click to expand...

And yet the vast majority of Dems don't have a problem with "adding $3.4T to the deficit" in order to extend the rest of the tax cuts.
 
Last edited:
mertex;1059140396]Really, I thought you were far more informed than that.
Try, not adding $700B to the deficit, to give more money to the wealthy they don't need, and which you/your party claim you do not want to add to the deficit. And the government has been taxing this certain class all along, it is not new, their taxes are just reverting back to what they were before Bush decided to gift his base with tax cuts that helped put us in the predicament we find ourselves in.
Click to expand...

How do you handle this superior intelligence that you have knowing what someone else needs? Where do you get your expertise and why do you believe that the govt. can spend the money better and smarter than the individual? I am sure that when you get less income that you always keep your spending the same or more, right? If you really have a problem with the tax cut then feel free to send it back. I will let the govt. know to expect it.

You seem to have no problem with putting the country further in hole to help the wealthy, who don't need it and didn't ask for it, but don't seem to be bothered at all by your leaders refusing to extend benefits to the unemployed, which will create a bigger problem for the country when they go bankrupt, lose their homes and cars, while the rich just stash it away into savings where it doesn't do them or the country any good.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of one, whose money it is in the first place and two, that spending, not revenue that is the problem. There is nothing to prevent anyone from sending their tax cuts back to the treasury.

As for extending the benefits to the unemployed, how long do you think we should fund people to stay at home? Right now it is two years so that isn't enough? What are you doing to help the unemployed?

Actually, I, myself would prefer that they let all the tax cuts expire, before giving in to Republicans and allowing the wealthy to continue to suck the life out of the country. Republicans claim to be such great "patriots" but they sure hem and haw when it comes to paying taxes. They want the benefits the taxes provide, protection from terrorists, safe food and water to drink, lower crime rates, etc., but they don't want to pay for them. That isn't patriotism if you ask me, that is selfishness and greed.
Click to expand...

Just like a typical big govt. liberal, let's send more to the govt so they can spend it on the things they need vs. the individual keeping the money and spending on the charities of their choice. I love how liberals tell us how the rich "suck the life out of the country" but when asked how allowing the rich to keep more of what they earn I get silence.

Here are the line items for the budget, so for these we need higher taxes

Expenses

Defense
International Affairs
Gen. Science, Space
Energy
Natural resources/env
Agriculture
Commerce
Transportation
Community Dev
Education/Train/Social
Health
Veterans Benefits
Justice
General Govt.
Net Interest

My bet is you didn't have a clue as to what income taxes funded.


And along with your other conservative co-horts, you seem to have no trouble spewing your snarky and unnecessary remarks. How do you know whether Upsideguy has a job or not? Or, do you accuse all Dems of being out of work? For your information, Libs are now the wealthiest, however, Dems are the ones extending a hand to the needy. If you keep allowing your leaders to coddle the rich at your expense, you may find yourself being one visiting the Goodwill store and standing at the bread line at the County Bread Basket. Is that what they teach you at Faux News?
Click to expand...

Keep showing us that liberal intelligence as it provides great entertainment on a Sunday. "Dems are the ones extending a hand to the needy?" Really, can you site for me the source of that statement? Stereotyping is what you and other liberals do best. There is absolutely nothing moderate in anything you have posted.
 
UtahBill said:
You didn't ask me, but you told me yours, why? Were you bragging or complaining? I also did 10 years reserves, and I get a military retirement that is taxed.

Look up tax rates in 1964, explain how our economy was doing so well then.

As poor as I was for so many years, I have never escaped paying income taxes. Not only should we repeal the Bush Tax cuts for the rich, we should raise the current rates at every level. That, along with budget cuts in social and military industry entitlements (including foreign aid), should help with deficits and debt.
Read the following link, see what General Westmoreland has to say...

Teachable Moment -
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how lame it is to see liberals fall back on the "marginal rate" arguments, claiming that we had uber-high marginal rates in teh past, and everyone survived. What we also had were mega deductions and exemptions, such that the net rate paid was below half the usual marginal rate back then. Do you think folks were really paying 80-90% of their income in tax ?

It is also lame to have folks make all these claims over and over, as you have in many of your posts, and provide zero credible sources for it. When asked, they post more nonsense. Its getting pretty stupid.
 
zimmer said:
It's that old saying, "Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."
Click to expand...

The irony of this statement is stunning . Apparently you don't realize that Reaganomics is what delivered us into the economic depression we are in right now, and is the reason why the USA is in decline as a world power.
 
zimmer said:
There are mountains of evidence, but they simply prefer to look the other way. I loved hearing Krauthammer explain his transition from being a left of center Dem. It was empirical evidence; that what he believed was helping actually hurt. Once that was established, he had no choice but to change his mind.

The examples are everywhere. The Ghettos, Welfare Reform, The Luxury Tax, Punitive State Taxation, and that they stopped calling it Reaganomics. If what they propose really works, then Carter should have been the hero of the left instead of the owner of The Misery Index.

It's that old saying, "Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."

.
Click to expand...

Never in my life have I see so much passion for taking someone else's money and for what someone else pays in taxes while they ignore how that money is being spent. Of course the entire 3 trillion Obama has added to the debt is due to the 100 billion a year cost of the wars in their world. Liberals love spending someone else's money yet look at the charitable giving of those liberal bureaucrats. Maybe we can get Clinton to donate a few more pairs of underwear.
 
TurtleDude said:
nope, I want everyone paying the same tax rate

but since the dems are the ones who push treating people differently its stupid to treat someone making 200K to a couple million a year the same as someone with billions
Click to expand...

Unless of course that tax rate was the same for everyone above a certain level; as you state in the first line.

.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Do you have any idea how lame it is to see liberals fall back on the "marginal rate" arguments, claiming that we had uber-high marginal rates in teh past, and everyone survived. What we also had were mega deductions and exemptions, such that the net rate paid was below half the usual marginal rate back then. Do you think folks were really paying 80-90% of their income in tax ?

It is also lame to have folks make all these claims over and over, as you have in many of your posts, and provide zero credible sources for it. When asked, they post more nonsense. Its getting pretty stupid.
Click to expand...

And you know Deuce what is even more lame? for right wingers like you to assert all this without any evidence.

Yeah I know, True Believers do not need evidence when they have faith.
 
Guy Incognito said:
The irony of this statement is stunning . Apparently you don't realize that Reaganomics is what delivered us into the economic depression we are in right now, and is the reason why the USA is in decline as a world power.
Click to expand...

Oh, well if some guy on the internet says so, I guess that's that.
 
Conservative said:
How do you handle this superior intelligence that you have knowing what someone else needs? Where do you get your expertise and why do you believe that the govt. can spend the money better and smarter than the individual? I am sure that when you get less income that you always keep your spending the same or more, right? If you really have a problem with the tax cut then feel free to send it back. I will let the govt. know to expect it.



You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of one, whose money it is in the first place and two, that spending, not revenue that is the problem. There is nothing to prevent anyone from sending their tax cuts back to the treasury.

As for extending the benefits to the unemployed, how long do you think we should fund people to stay at home? Right now it is two years so that isn't enough? What are you doing to help the unemployed?



Just like a typical big govt. liberal, let's send more to the govt so they can spend it on the things they need vs. the individual keeping the money and spending on the charities of their choice. I love how liberals tell us how the rich "suck the life out of the country" but when asked how allowing the rich to keep more of what they earn I get silence.

Here are the line items for the budget, so for these we need higher taxes

Expenses

Defense
International Affairs
Gen. Science, Space
Energy
Natural resources/env
Agriculture
Commerce
Transportation
Community Dev
Education/Train/Social
Health
Veterans Benefits
Justice
General Govt.
Net Interest

My bet is you didn't have a clue as to what income taxes funded.




Keep showing us that liberal intelligence as it provides great entertainment on a Sunday. "Dems are the ones extending a hand to the needy?" Really, can you site for me the source of that statement? Stereotyping is what you and other liberals do best. There is absolutely nothing moderate in anything you have posted.
Click to expand...
again, all these unemployed that are supposedly 'staying home' , exactly where are the jobs for all them? where conservative where?
 
Guy Incognito said:
The irony of this statement is stunning . Apparently you don't realize that Reaganomics is what delivered us into the economic depression we are in right now, and is the reason why the USA is in decline as a world power.
Click to expand...

Ever pay 17% for a home mortage? Guess you didn't get your newest IPad or IPhone which makes it a depression for you. Now it is Reagan's fault that Obama has lost 4 million jobs in 2 years and added 3 trillion to the debt? Thanks for the good laugh today. I love having liberals calling themselves libertarian.
 
randel said:
again, all these unemployed that are supposedly 'staying home' , exactly where are the jobs for all them? where conservative where?
Click to expand...

Plenty of jobs in TX, sorry your state is so screwed up. In the meantime since you have a problem with the Bush tax cut, when can I tell the govt. to expect a check from you to pay back the tax cuts you are getting?
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Do you have any idea how lame it is to see liberals fall back on the "marginal rate" arguments, claiming that we had uber-high marginal rates in teh past, and everyone survived. What we also had were mega deductions and exemptions, such that the net rate paid was below half the usual marginal rate back then. Do you think folks were really paying 80-90% of their income in tax ?

It is also lame to have folks make all these claims over and over, as you have in many of your posts, and provide zero credible sources for it. When asked, they post more nonsense. Its getting pretty stupid.
Click to expand...

good point-back in those days there were Jim Crow Laws, Jews were excluded from many professional firms and Japanese Americans were treated with contempt. Blacks Jews and Japanese Americans managed to survive that nasty treatment as well. Libs operate under the delusion that high taxes on the rich are the natural order of things and less than punitive tax rates are some sort of aberation
 
haymarket said:
And you know Deuce what is even more lame? for right wingers like you to assert all this without any evidence.

Yeah I know, True Believers do not need evidence when they have faith.
Click to expand...

When the top tax rate was 91%, it kicked in on incomes over $400k.

$400k in 1960 dollars is $2.8 million in 2009 dollars.

Despite that, people continuously make foolish statements like "Oh well we had a tax rate of 91% in the past so raising taxes on people earning more than $200k is obviously okay!"
 
haymarket said:
And you know Deuce what is even more lame? for right wingers like you to assert all this without any evidence.

Yeah I know, True Believers do not need evidence when they have faith.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like you are a true believer in the massive Federal Govt. we have and that these bureaucrats need the money more than the individuals who earned it in the first place. Are you sending your Bush tax cut back after you receive a paycheck? Let me know when the govt. can expect it?
 
Conservative said:
Plenty of jobs in TX, sorry your state is so screwed up. In the meantime since you have a problem with the Bush tax cut, when can I tell the govt. to expect a check from you to pay back the tax cuts you are getting?
Click to expand...
hmmm...texas have enough jobs for everyone who is currently unemployed?? no, no they do not. not by a long shot. so again conservative, where are the jobs you promised that would be created?? where?
 
RightinNYC said:
When the top tax rate was 91%, it kicked in on incomes over $400k.

$400k in 1960 dollars is $2.8 million in 2009 dollars.

Despite that, people continuously make foolish statements like "Oh well we had a tax rate of 91% in the past so raising taxes on people earning more than $200k is obviously okay!"
Click to expand...

What they also ignore is what the effective actual rate was after deductions which were a lot more generous then including charitable giving deductions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom