• 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 huge GOP budget cuts

A special break implies they are getting something FROM THE GOVERNMENT everyone else is not. They are getting a little more of what they earned. They are not getting government handouts and are still paying both a higher % and a higher # of taxes than everyone under them.

If the wealthy have a tax break now, everyone else has even MORE of a tax break because they are paying even less than they are.

No the super wealthy pay less a percentage of their income that their receptionists.

"The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992."
 
I think you are naïve if you think draconian cuts in government spending aren’t absolutely essential right now.

Look at the pretty chart.

National-Debt-GDP-L.gif


The fear mongering may work on you but it doesn't work on me. Are things great? No. But they are by no means bad or even close to as bad as they have been in the past. People are not starving and dying in the streets. The tax rate right now is as low as it has ever been. Maybe some people need to take their heads out of their asses and actually research how bad the economic conditions actually are instead of listening to pundits screaming on radio and television shows how bad things are.
 
Last edited:
No the super wealthy pay less a percentage of their income that their receptionists.

"The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992."

Argue for a higher capital gains tax then.
Most of the people in the top tax bracket are not the people with the 400 highest incomes and do NOT make the majority of their income through capital gains.
You referenced the super wealthy. I didn't.
 
Those tax breaks still make them pay more than everybody else.

If you want to claim the tax breaks were unjustified, first show that the outrageous and disparate initial tax rates were justified.

Of course, I was talking about percentage. The rich have always paid more because it was discovered that you cannot get blood from a turnip.

The fact that our middle class and our GDP to debt ration was strongest during our 80 years of progressive taxes is how they were justified.
 
Of course, I was talking about percentage. The rich have always paid more because it was discovered that you cannot get blood from a turnip.

The fact that our middle class and our GDP to debt ration was strongest during our 80 years of progressive taxes is how they were justified.

Sticking a gun to someone's head is never justified. Pointing to someone else and saying, see, they're doing well with your money! while still sticking a gun to their heads doesn't justify it, either.
 
So if a flat tax is fair, call it their realistic share, not their fair share.

If a wealthy man's fair share is 50% of his income, so is a poor man's.

I said wealth, not income.
 
Frankly, I don't see the downside.

That should be your tipoff that you don't have all the facts. No matter how good a plan may be, there is always a downside. If you can't figure it out, then that simply means you either refuse to see it or your information sources are so biased that you are unable to see it.
 
Libertarinan?…yeah right

Libertarian means favoring individaul rights. It doesn't mean sabotaging the governement to the point that corporations possess more rights than the individual.
 
Argue for a higher capital gains tax then.

I do but that is just one tax cut for the wealthy that needs to be addressed.


Most of the people in the top tax bracket are not the people with the 400 highest incomes and do NOT make the majority of their income through capital gains.
You referenced the super wealthy. I didn't.

I would agree we need to restablish the tax brackets for the super wealthy. But I also think those that make more than $250,000 can afford to pay more in percentage than the middle class.
 
Sticking a gun to someone's head is never justified. Pointing to someone else and saying, see, they're doing well with your money! while still sticking a gun to their heads doesn't justify it, either.

If you are not interested in maintaining a middle class and wish to return to the days of a two class system that would make sense. I choose a strong middle class. Our wise forefathers instituted a progressive tax system for 80 years to provide a stong middle class, which it did, until it was slashed by Reagan and Bush.
 
CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

yup, at a cost of more than three quarters of a trillion in new taxes

YouTube - President Obama's Pledge Never to Raise Taxes on Anyone Making Less Than $250,000 a Year

CBO and JCT estimate that by 2019, the two pieces of legislation combined will reduce the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured by about 32 million, leaving about 23 million nonelderly residents

yup, while simultaneously cutting medicare by a full half tril

remember the bbc report this week

BBC News - Surgeons raise alarm over waiting

"months waiting in pain"

"delayed operations"

"new restrictions on who qualifies"

you need to be "more disabled or in greater pain"

20 billion pounds beneath

routine operations "delayed until the end of the fiscal year"

"although a patient might be waiting longer this isn't recorded in the official waiting statistics, another way of adding invisible waiting time into the system"

"cruel and devastating"

why did the slasher pick berwick as HEALTH CZAR, an open proponent of RATIONING

YouTube - Donald Berwick on Redistributing Wealth

why does weiner wanna waiver
 
What would be fair and what would be realistic are two different things. To be fair everyone should pay the the same percentage of their total wealth in taxes. That was the progressive tax system that for 80 years created the strongest middle class in our history. What is realistic are the tax rates under Clinton, and closing the loopholes that allow some to avoid their taxes.

Each year, paying a percent of your wealth? I'm flabbergasted. That's got to be one of the most socialist things I've ever heard.
It'd be fair for each year to someone walk away with what you own. No, that's got to be one of the least fair things I've ever heard.
 
I do but that is just one tax cut for the wealthy that needs to be addressed.




I would agree we need to restablish the tax brackets for the super wealthy. But I also think those that make more than $250,000 can afford to pay more in percentage than the middle class.

They can probably afford to, but why should they? They already pay more.
 
But I also think those that make more than $250,000 can afford to pay more in percentage than the middle class.

when do you expect hurryup harry to move
 
Last edited:
We DO see....which is why we didn't want to extend tax cuts over $250K. However, the Republicans fought to keep those tax cuts for their wealthy base and now...because of those tax extensions, want to take the money from seniors and the working class and those making well under 100K.


The writing on the wall is clear....The GOP is the party for those making over 250K. Everyone else should vote their pocketbook and support the Democrats.
You DON'T see... a 4% tax increase "on the rich" is a talking point, not a solution. No amount of "tax the rich" can so much as balance the budget, much less touch the snowballing costs of social programs and interest on the debt.

The stone cold truth is that if "seniors and the working class and those making well under 100K" want their programs, they're going to have to pony up a lot more than they are now to pay for 'em.
 
House passes huge GOP budget cuts, opposing Obama - Yahoo! News

Republicans controlling the House pushed to passage on Friday a bold but politically dangerous budget blueprint to slash social safety net programs like food stamps and Medicaid and fundamentally restructure Medicare health care for the elderly.

The choice in the next election is becoming more and more clear. There is no question which party represents the interests of the wealthy and which party represents the interests of the rest of the country.

The GOP fought hard earlier to preserve tax cuts for those making over 250K. Today they showed how they want to pay for those cuts...by slashing money from food stamps, medicaid and medicare.

The GOP war on the elderly, the poor and the working class continues....

Yeah, they want to kill little puppy dogs so they can feed the elderly dog food. :roll:
 
Last edited:
We should cut both as they represent the lion's share of federal spending.
They will all eventually have to be cut, there is no argument about it with those in the know.

which is why i'm glad the Republican House Budget cuts the $178 Bn a year that Secretary Gates identified as unneeded. sends that charge straight to the john.
 
haymarket, what is your opinion of the SCOTUS case that struck down mccain-feingold?

I would be more interested in what he thought of a Supreme Court that ruled on Plessy v. Fergusson, and upheld segregation.
 
That should be your tipoff that you don't have all the facts. No matter how good a plan may be, there is always a downside. If you can't figure it out, then that simply means you either refuse to see it or your information sources are so biased that you are unable to see it.

Enlighten me. What are the downsides to getting a $10 return on each $1 dollar invested?
 

He hasn't increased my taxes, as a matter of fact I got a tax break.



yup, while simultaneously cutting medicare by a full half tril

You are opposed to cutting waste in medicare?



remember the bbc report this week BBC News - Surgeons raise alarm over waiting

"months waiting in pain"

Months of waiting for knee and hip replacements are damn sight better than not being able to afford knee and hip replacements at all!
 
Each year, paying a percent of your wealth? I'm flabbergasted. That's got to be one of the most socialist things I've ever heard.
It'd be fair for each year to someone walk away with what you own. No, that's got to be one of the least fair things I've ever heard.

If you prefer to put it as 80% of your income which was the rate for the top tax bracket for the 80 years we had a progressive tax system, think of it that way instead. It works out about the same to make up for the 80 % of the wealth owned by them.
 
They can probably afford to, but why should they? They already pay more.

Oh, I thought we were intereted in lowering the debt and rebuilding the middle class. If that is not the goal then keep on as we are.
 
when do you expect hurryup harry to move

If you are referring to the President, he has said he will not renew the tax cuts this year. We will see if he sticks to this or remains the political centrist he has demonstrated himself to be on most issues so far.
 
Look at the pretty chart.

National-Debt-GDP-L.gif


The fear mongering may work on you but it doesn't work on me. Are things great? No. But they are by no means bad or even close to as bad as they have been in the past. People are not starving and dying in the streets. The tax rate right now is as low as it has ever been. Maybe some people need to take their heads out of their asses and actually research how bad the economic conditions actually are instead of listening to pundits screaming on radio and television shows how bad things are.

You might be hypnotized by “pretty chart” but I am educated enough and informed enough to know that they are meaningless without an explanation of the methods used to create it.

Maybe you are among the people who need to take their heads out of their asses and do some research of your own. If you can answer this simple question, I will bow down before you and worship your “non-head in ass highness” but if you can’t, you are just another guy with analcraniumosis.

How does your “pretty chart” incorporate public debt and intragovernmental holdings? If you don’t know the answer to this, you need to stop staring at pretty little charts and educate yourself a little.
 
Back
Top Bottom