• 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 blocks funding for health care law

Money had to be spent to clean up the mess from the previous 12 years to prevent economic collapse. Please tell me how much per year did Republican congress in control for 12 years cut in spending per year?

Lets see wasn't there a surplus in 1999?

All I did was show you where your statement was at best laughable, bragging on the 1.1 trillion dollar cuts in 10 years. After raising spending by 700 billion per year. Something you either conveniently left out of your argument, or didn't take the time to think of.

So your real statement is show me where republicans proposed a deficit of 589 billion a year for 10 years, that answer to that is the Bush years.

Personally, I don't think that kinda of deficit spending was good under the Bush years, but guess what, I don't find it to be any better for the next ten years either.
 
Last edited:
Okay I can agree with that, you are aware tho that right now, the top 20% pay 80% of all taxes paid?

I am not aware of that, do you have a credible source of documentation for that?

So you are saying that a nominal rate increase of 2 to 3 % for the top 20% of wage earners, would do?

No, I am saying it is a step in the right direction.

you also realize that is going to be an increase to those making between 80 and 85 thousand dollars a year right ?

Not if we return to the Progressive tax rates before amended by Reagan.
 
The people have only themselves to blame for allowing politiiicans to bribe them with the money of their fellow citizens, pitting one against the other..

A flat tax would help alleviate this and would encourage those who make a lot of money to work longer. Right now they stop producing when they reach the high end tax bracket, and that does no one any good, either the country or their employees.

I'm all in favor of a new tax system, be it a graduated flat tax, or a consumption tax, anything that takes the IRS out of the picture.

I probably favor the consumption tax more then a flat tax, because it brings into the taxable money things like illegal drug money, and other ill gotten gains. Plus a consumption tax, eliminates the loopholes in our tax system.

While I'm conservative in my views, I'm also a realist, and while I'm certainly not one for punishing the wealthy because they worked hard and are successful, I'm also aware as you get into that upper 3 or 4 percent, that you have the ability to hire tax lawyers, that others can't afford, and reduce your tax liability drastically.

Either way, I just think our tax system is broken, and needs reworking, and if done properly, all tax rates could be reduced, and we could see a rise in revenues.
 
Why do you feel everyone should be financially equal?

I have never said that, nor do I believe that. I am talking about equality in taxation. The same reason our forefathers set up the progressive tax system. You can't continue to expect the middle class to support the wealthy.
 
Personally, I don't think that kinda of deficit spending was good under the Bush years, but guess what, I don't find it to be any better for the next ten years either.

Well, if if you are expecting the middle class to get you out of debt, I don't see it happening. They are already being squeezed under the poverty line now. The cuts being proposed by either side are not going to be enough to reduce our National debt. So, unless the progressive taxes are restored, we will just see the debt continue to grow.
 
=Catawba;1059298358]I am not aware of that, do you have a credible source of documentation for that?
Here is a link showing how each percentile paid
CARPE DIEM: How Much Does Top 1% Pay of All Income Taxes?
http://www.house.gov/jec/news/2008/July/pr110-45.pdf

No, I am saying it is a step in the right direction.

Here is a link that really blows holes in what you are saying about upper income rates ...

How Much Americans Actually Pay in Taxes - NYTimes.com

Because higher-income groups earn a disproportionate share of pretax income and because tax rates rise with income, higher-income groups also pay a disproportionate share of federal taxes. In 2006, the top quintile of households earned 55.7 percent of pretax income and paid 69.3 percent of federal taxes, while the
top 1 percent of households earned 18.8 percent of income and paid 28.3 percent of taxes.

by those numbers, then should the top quintile pay less in taxes?





Not if we return to the Progressive tax rates before amended by Reagan.

According to what you feel it proper for those in the upper quintile to pay as relative to their overall income, we have absolutely no need to return to anything close to the tax rates before Reagan, do we ?
 
Last edited:
Here is a link showing how each percentile paid
CARPE DIEM: How Much Does Top 1% Pay of All Income Taxes?
http://www.house.gov/jec/news/2008/July/pr110-45.pdf
Here is a link that really blows holes in what you are saying about upper income rates ... How Much Americans Actually Pay in Taxes - NYTimes.com
Because higher-income groups earn a disproportionate share of pretax income and because tax rates rise with income, higher-income groups also pay a disproportionate share of federal taxes. In 2006, the top quintile of households earned 55.7 percent of pretax income and paid 69.3 percent of federal taxes, while the
by those numbers, then should the top quintile pay less in taxes?
According to what you feel it proper for those in the upper quintile to pay as relative to their overall income, we have absolutely no need to return to anything close to the tax rates before Reagan, do we ?

I would go along with that if we eliminate all the loopholes that allow the wealthy to not include all their income as taxable. Sure! Here is the problem with our system as it currently stands:

"A remarkable study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) reveals that Americans have no idea that the wealth distribution (defined for them in terms of "net worth") is as concentrated as it is. When shown three pie charts representing possible wealth distributions, 90% or more of the 5,522 respondents -- whatever their gender, age, income level, or party affiliation -- thought that the American wealth distribution most resembled one in which the top 20% has about 60% of the wealth. In fact, of course, the top 20% control about 85% of the wealth"

"The ratio of CEO pay to factory worker pay rose from 42:1 in 1960 to as high as 531:1 in 2000"

"Most amazing of all, the top 0.1% -- that's one-tenth of one percent -- had more combined pre-tax income than the poorest 120 million people (Johnston, 2006)."

"Furthermore, if the top 20% have 84% of the wealth (and recall that 10% have 85% to 90% of the stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity), that means that the United States is a power pyramid. It's tough for the bottom 80% -- maybe even the bottom 90% -- to get organized and exercise much power."

"only 39 of the 134 countries have worse income inequality."

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
 
I would go along with that if we eliminate all the loopholes that allow the wealthy to not include all their income as taxable. Sure! Here is the problem with our system as it currently stands:

"A remarkable study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) reveals that Americans have no idea that the wealth distribution (defined for them in terms of "net worth") is as concentrated as it is. When shown three pie charts representing possible wealth distributions, 90% or more of the 5,522 respondents -- whatever their gender, age, income level, or party affiliation -- thought that the American wealth distribution most resembled one in which the top 20% has about 60% of the wealth. In fact, of course, the top 20% control about 85% of the wealth"

"The ratio of CEO pay to factory worker pay rose from 42:1 in 1960 to as high as 531:1 in 2000"

"Most amazing of all, the top 0.1% -- that's one-tenth of one percent -- had more combined pre-tax income than the poorest 120 million people (Johnston, 2006)."

"Furthermore, if the top 20% have 84% of the wealth (and recall that 10% have 85% to 90% of the stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity), that means that the United States is a power pyramid. It's tough for the bottom 80% -- maybe even the bottom 90% -- to get organized and exercise much power."

"only 39 of the 134 countries have worse income inequality."

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Just shakes head … . there is not sense in debating anything with you, what you want is a 90% top tax rate and nothing else will do .. I don't see why you don't just admit that and be done with it, facts and figures don't back up what you want them to and you will try to skirt that single issue, by showing what people think ??

you stated you want them to pay an equal portion of taxes as they have income, I've shown you where they do that and more. Deductions be damned, has nothing to do with what they “paid” in taxes.

It's the same with wages, the first line on any income tax form is wages from your w2, that is your income.

Taxes paid for the year, are what you paid in in taxes minus your return. Pretty simple .

I've just shown you where they pay more by percentage of over all taxes, then they earn in percentage of income.

Now simply put, is that fair or not ??

Back a few posts ago, that is what you wanted, should I get that post for you ?

You can sit there an spin it any way you want, but you can't change the facts.
 
Please explain how you arrived at that?

Ok, I'm wrong. But it's still out of whack. Those with higher incomes, pay a larger percentage of total tax than those with lower incomes:

The data shows the progressive tax structure of the U.S. federal income tax system on individuals that reduces the tax incidence of people with smaller incomes, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with higher incomes - the top 0.1% of taxpayers by income pay 17.4% of federal income taxes (earning 9.1% of the income), the top 1% with gross income of $328,049 or more pay 36.9% (earning 19%), the top 5% with gross income of $137,056 or more pay 57.1% (earning 33.4%), and the bottom 50% with gross income of $30,122 or less pay 3.3% (earning 13.4%).
 
Just shakes head … . there is not sense in debating anything with you, what you want is a 90% top tax rate and nothing else will do .. I don't see why you don't just admit that and be done with it, facts and figures don't back up what you want them to and you will try to skirt that single issue, by showing what people think ??

It was actually closer to 80% for the top tax bracket most of the period, but yes! I've been saying all along that I think we should return to the progressive tax system that served us so well for 50 years by giving us the strongest middle class in history, while keeping the debt at manageable levels.
 
Ok, I'm wrong. But it's still out of whack. Those with higher incomes, pay a larger percentage of total tax than those with lower incomes:

Yes, exactly. The progressive tax was designed that way to compensate for the greater wealth owned by the top income brackets, and because it was recognized as truth back then that it is not possible to get blood from a turnip.

If we ever get serious about paying down our National debt, we will have to both cut spending and increase revenue. How much more blood do you think they will be able to squeeze out of the middle class? We will have to return to a more progressive tax system if we are to pay down our national debt.
 
Last edited:
It was actually closer to 80% for the top tax bracket most of the period, but yes! I've been saying all along that I think we should return to the progressive tax system that served us so well for 50 years by giving us the strongest middle class in history, while keeping the debt at manageable levels.

Thank you .. now that we have determined that you lied when you said .... "I am talking about equality in taxation. " (your words) we can end this discussion, because you believe in no such thing. You also have no grasp of why we lost and are still losing, the strongest middle class in our history, you must believe that lower taxes equals fewer good paying jobs, and higher taxes create those same good paying jobs, thats your opinion, and there is no sense in trying to change your opinon. Your believe is government takeover of our industry, and government created jobs, My belief is private sector jobs.
 
Last edited:
Thank you .. now that we have determined that you lied when you said .... "I am talking about equality in taxation. " (your words) we can end this discussion, because you believe in no such thing.

I most certainly do believe in tax equality, and I do not appreciate being called liar.


You also have no grasp of why we lost and are still losing, the strongest middle class in our history, you must believe that lower taxes equals fewer good paying jobs, and higher taxes create those same good paying jobs, thats your opinion, and there is no sense in trying to change your opinon. Your believe is government takeover of our industry, and government created jobs, My belief is private sector jobs.

Maybe if I had not witnessed the failure of the trickle down theory and deregulation, and if myself and future generations were not saddled with the resulting debt, I might have more faith in the regressive taxes for highest tax brackets.

We gave the top tax brackets a 50% tax cut (and special business tax deductions) and the economy is weaker and our debt is larger. Its not really a very good sales pitch for regressive taxes.

Of course a strong economy is about more than just taxes, but if you have most of the wealth concentrated in just a very small percentage of people, you don't have enough wealth left for people to buy the things they need to but to grow the economy and pay down the national debt as has been painfully demonstrated since Reagan slashed the progressive tax system in this country.
 
Last edited:
Yes, exactly. The progressive tax was designed that way to compensate for the greater wealth owned by the top income brackets, and because it was recognized as truth back then that it is not possible to get blood from a turnip.

If we ever get serious about paying down our National debt, we will have to both cut spending and increase revenue. How much more blood do you think they will be able to squeeze out of the middle class? We will have to return to a more progressive tax system if we are to pay down our national debt.

Current taxation matches wealth distribution.

As I have shown, the Federal government has grown from less than 4% GDP in 1900 to 25% GDP in 2011. **** raising taxes. We need to AGGRESSIVELY cut government spending.
 
Current taxation matches wealth distribution.

I disagree, because of the 50% cut in the top tax rates together with the loopholes that allow income not to be taxed for the wealthy. Our country and most of its people prospered better under the progressive tax system.

As I have shown, the Federal government has grown from less than 4% GDP in 1900 to 25% GDP in 2011. **** raising taxes. We need to AGGRESSIVELY cut government spending.

I agree with you on spending. We need to make big cuts and then set an equitable tax so that we will have enough revenue to pay all our bills and start paying down our debt.
 
Catawba;1059298592]I most certainly do believe in tax equality, and I do not appreciate being called liar.

you were the one that said you believed in tax equality, and I showed that is what we have, with the upper incomes actually paying a bit more then their income says they should. Now you are saying that is not tax equality, and this should be kicked back up to the 70 to 80% bracket, that would in no way shape or form be tax equality. So to say you want tax equality, certainly isn't the truth.

Maybe if I had not witnessed the failure of the trickle down theory and deregulation, and if myself and future generations were not saddled with the resulting debt, I might have more faith in the regressive taxes for highest tax brackets.

I guess you will have to explain to me how a progressive tax that we still have is regressive.


Of course a strong economy is about more than just taxes, but if you have most of the wealth concentrated in just a very small percentage of people, you don't have enough wealth left for people to buy the things they need to but to grow the economy and pay down the national debt as has been painfully demonstrated since Reagan slashed the progressive tax system in this country.

you know you really should read down the page further rather then cherry pick from your own sites...

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

in 1982, that would be the very start of the downfall right ?? when the Reagan tax cuts took over.

In 1983 the top 1 percent owned a total net worth of the wealth, of 33.8%.... in 2007 they owned 34.6 an increase of .8 percent over 24 years,

in 1983 the top 1 percent owned 42.9% of the financial wealth, in 2007 they owned 42.7% of the financial wealth or a “drop” of .2% over 24 years.

now from the site you provided, just scroll down to the charts, one could only say that the top 1 percent, with a 50% cut in their tax rate, really haven't added a damn thing to their wealth. kind of blows another hole in your theory doesn't it ? -chuckles- and waits for the next yeah but
 
What's laughable is your suggestion that Obama won't veto a bill that kills his signature legislation.

the continuing resolution doesn't kill obamacare, silly

read the links, catch up

now, any bicameral repeal of THE MANDATE---guaranteed smooth movement thru boehner's house and increasingly likely to pass upstairs---THAT obstinate obama will be challenged to veto

but he will only further isolate this most insular of white houses if he does

ahab obama will have to go against a significant slice of his own party in both houses to do so

Dems up for reelection under pressure to nix healthcare mandate - TheHill.com

how ya gonna see a move ahead when you don't know the rules of the game, parliamentary pete?
 
you were the one that said you believed in tax equality

Correct.

and I showed that is what we have, with the upper incomes actually paying a bit more then their income says they should
.

Incorrect. You did not address the decreased tax rate for the top income earners, the payroll tax, the tax loopholes or the business deductions for corporations that have been provided.

Now you are saying that is not tax equality, and this should be kicked back up to the 70 to 80% bracket, that would in no way shape or form be tax equality. So to say you want tax equality, certainly isn't the truth. I guess you will have to explain to me how a progressive tax that we still have is regressive.

"Over the last 60 years, the U.S. tax code has dramatically shifted away from corporate taxes and toward taxes on individuals, especially through the payroll tax, the financing backbone of Social Security and Medicare. In the 1950s, the corporate income tax brought in, on average, one of every four dollars in federal tax revenues. By the 2000s, however, it raised just one of every 10 tax dollars.

The shrinking share of corporate taxes was made up by an increase in payroll taxes to fund social insurance and retirement programs. Excise and other taxes—such as fuel taxes, phone taxes, etc.—shrank as well over the last 60 years, while the individual federal income tax rose slightly, from an average of 43% of total federal revenue in the 1950s to 46% in the 2000s.

This shift is important because of who pays these different taxes. The corporate income tax is significantly more progressive than other taxes. Those with incomes in the top 20% of the income distribution (those making more than about $86,000 a year in 2007) pay four times the average tax rate on corporate income than the middle 20% (those making between $27,000 and $48,000); while, for the payroll tax, those in the top 20% actually pay less than those in the middle as a share of their income.1

This shift has been one of the factors leading to the drop in average federal tax rates for the very highest earners. Between 1960 and 2004, the average tax rate has fallen by about 14 percentage points (from 44.4% to 30.4%) for the top 1% of earners (those making more than $435,000 in 2007), while it has increased slightly (from 15.9% to 16.1%) for those in the middle 20%. 2

Without offsets, further erosion of corporate tax revenues—either through lower statutory tax rates or through special preferences—would expand the already wide and growing income inequality in the United States.
http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20080409/"


you know you really should read down the page further rather then cherry pick from your own sites...

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

in 1982, that would be the very start of the downfall right ?? when the Reagan tax cuts took over.

In 1983 the top 1 percent owned a total net worth of the wealth, of 33.8%.... in 2007 they owned 34.6 an increase of .8 percent over 24 years,

in 1983 the top 1 percent owned 42.9% of the financial wealth, in 2007 they owned 42.7% of the financial wealth or a “drop” of .2% over 24 years.

now from the site you provided, just scroll down to the charts, one could only say that the top 1 percent, with a 50% cut in their tax rate, really haven't added a damn thing to their wealth. kind of blows another hole in your theory doesn't it ? -chuckles- and waits for the next yeah but

What I posted before was their conclusions from the study as a whole. What you are doing above is cherry picking. Again, from their conclusions:

Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007)."

"And now we have arrived at the point I want to make. If the top 1% of households have 30-35% of the wealth, that's 30 to 35 times what we would expect by chance, and so we infer they must be powerful. And then we set out to see if the same set of households scores high on other power indicators (it does). Next we study how that power operates, which is what most articles on this site are about. Furthermore, if the top 20% have 84% of the wealth (and recall that 10% have 85% to 90% of the stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity), that means that the United States is a power pyramid. It's tough for the bottom 80% -- maybe even the bottom 90% -- to get organized and exercise much power."

"And the rate of increase is even higher for the very richest of the rich: the top 400 income earners in the United States. According to another analysis by Johnston (2010a), the average income of the top 400 tripled during the Clinton Administration and doubled during the first seven years of the Bush Administration. So by 2007, the top 400 averaged $344.8 million per person, up 31% from an average of $263.3 million just one year earlier. (For another recent revealing study by Johnston, read "Is Our Tax System Helping Us Create Wealth?").

How are these huge gains possible for the top 400? It's due to cuts in the tax rates on capital gains and dividends, which were down to a mere 15% in 2007 thanks to the tax cuts proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress in 2003. Since almost 75% of the income for the top 400 comes from capital gains and dividends, it's not hard to see why tax cuts on income sources available to only a tiny percent of Americans mattered greatly for the high-earning few. Overall, the effective tax rate on high incomes fell by 7% during the Clinton presidency and 6% in the Bush era, so the top 400 had a tax rate of 20% or less in 2007, far lower than the marginal tax rate of 35% that the highest income earners (over $372,650) supposedly pay. It's also worth noting that only the first $106,800 of a person's income is taxed for Social Security purposes (as of 2010), so it would clearly be a boon to the Social Security Fund if everyone -- not just those making less than $106,800 -- paid the Social Security tax on their full incomes."
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
 
Last edited:
income equality is a very small minded goal, at its hungry heart it's envious and divisive
 
the continuing resolution doesn't kill obamacare, silly

read the links, catch up

Fine, the continuing res doesn't defund health care. But that is the Repub plan. ANd any bill that defunds and essentially kills Obama's signature legislation will be vetoed. Bet on it.

now, any bicameral repeal of THE MANDATE---guaranteed smooth movement thru boehner's house and increasingly likely to pass upstairs---THAT obstinate obama will be challenged to veto

If it makes it through the Senate, Obama will veto it.

ahab obama will have to go against a significant slice of his own party in both houses to do so

He'll have to go against Repubs, and few (not a significant amount like you said) Dems. Get your own facts straight. And so what? Repubs won't work with him anyway.

how ya gonna see a move ahead when you don't know the rules of the game, parliamentary pete?

How you gonna see anything when your head is planted firmly in your ass, conservative cretin?
 
income equality is a very small minded goal, at its hungry heart it's envious and divisive

What is being discussed is taxation equality and raising sufficient revenues that together with cuts in spending will enable us to finally start paying down our national debt.

That is one of the reasons I support the health care bill. "CBO says health care repeal would deepen deficit"
 
What is being discussed is taxation equality and raising sufficient revenues that together with cuts in spending will enable us to finally start paying down our national debt.

you're backpedaling, not like you

That is one of the reasons I support the health care bill. "CBO says health care repeal would deepen deficit"

yes, at the expense of more than THREE QUARTERS OF A TRIL in new revenues

Director's Blog » Blog Archive » Additional Information on CBO’s Preliminary Analysis of H.R. 2
 

What excellent data! I had not seen this. Too bad you didn't comprehend what you were reading. H.R. 2 is the GOP bill to repeal health care, but were you correct when you stated it would reduce revenues by 770 billion over the next ten years.

Excellent point for keeping the health care bill! Thanks!!!!! :sun
 
yup, hr2---repeal---would eliminate more than three quarters of a T in new taxes, fines, fees and mandates

ie, revenue

you got it

LOL!
 
Back
Top Bottom