• 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!

Poll: Debt ceiling deal should include cuts and tax increases

sawyerloggingon said:
Dem's want to raise taxes on people making over 250K a year, then they call this a millionairs tax to cloud the truth.Fuzzy math anyone?
Click to expand...

Yup, you're fuzzy. We are an example. Our highest income for the two of us, including investments, was about 250K. Often about half. Never paid a lot of tax. We are millionaires. What your problem is that you are equating income with wealth. If you have an income of 250K in about ten years you should be a millionaire. 500K should take about 3 years if you have no significant savings to start.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
No, i in 7 are below the poverty line with many more close to the edge. So you are suggesting we push the lower working class over the edge we can continue the $58,000 tax breaks for those at the top whose incomes have been climbing greatly while everyone else suffers? Is that your plan?
Click to expand...

Then you obviously feel that everyone above the poverty line should pay federal income taxes. Is that your plan ???

If so, then we agree.

Your continued droning about 1 in 7 below the poverty line is tiresome. Most of those below the poverty line in this country would be considered very well off in many others. Most below the poverty line here have a house full of electronic gadgets including cable tv, cell phones, and internet service.
 
tessaesque said:
... Also, quite frankly, measuring poverty solely on the basis of claimed income is ridiculous. My boyfriend's sister is below the poverty level but she lives at home (by choice), has no bills, and blows her money on toys and trinkets. She's hardly suffering for anything, yet she's one of those "1 in 7" and I'm willing to be many of those live fairly comfortably.

Shallow statistics serve nobody.
Click to expand...
So your boyfriend’s sister is a 'dependent' living off the income of her parents. That is a personal relationship that you want to do something about? You want to make it more just? Like you, in my view she is not below the poverty level; but, she is like a wife, with a part time job, of a man making 70K. What are you going to do about that? How are you going to count it? Is no one actually living below the poverty level?
 
OhIsee.Then said:
So your boyfriend’s sister is a 'dependent' living off the income of her parents. That is a personal relationship that you want to do something about? You want to make it more just? Like you, in my view she is not below the poverty level; but, she is like a wife, with a part time job, of a man making 70K. What are you going to do about that? How are you going to count it? Is no one actually living below the poverty level?
Click to expand...

She's 23, hardly a "dependent". She actively chooses to live how she does. My point was, using JUST INCOME as a measure of poverty misses the boat. It's inaccurate to classify poverty in such a way because it will include those not actually living in poverty and thereby skew the numbers. There are people living in poverty, and I don't deny that. What I'm proposing is that 1 in 7 is a little high based on a flawed manner of assessment. I would think it is closer to 1 in 5 or maybe 1 in 5.5.
 
Catawba said:
How can you predict what the Democrats and GOP will finally agree on? How do you know they will not provide $3 of spending for every $1 of revenue increase? As far as I have been able to determine, there is no agreed upon plan yet.
Click to expand...

I'm going with what Obama's been proposing, which has been IMMEDIETE tax increases on people for the indefinite future and yet backloads the vast majority of cuts to 10 years from now that are contingent on the various actions he lays down actually occuring multiple years down the line under different congresses and Presidents. That's hardly an "equal" approach regardless of the amount of spending cuts compared to revenue increases.

Would you say its an equal deal if I said you give me $1000 today and I'll pay you back $3000 dollars over the next 12 years pay $50 a year the first 10 years and $2500 over the last 2 years if I still remember that time, still can find you, and have the money? I mean, I'm saying I'll give you $3 for every $1 you give me
 
tessaesque said:
Nobody is proposing raising taxes on those at or near poverty. The only proposed tax increases being considered by the legislature are against the "rich". NOT taxing the rich at a higher rate does not push anybody over the "edge of poverty". Also, quite frankly, measuring poverty solely on the basis of claimed income is ridiculous. My boyfriend's sister is below the poverty level but she lives at home (by choice), has no bills, and blows her money on toys and trinkets. She's hardly suffering for anything, yet she's one of those "1 in 7" and I'm willing to be many of those live fairly comfortably. They may not be able to rock designer duds, but the vast majority of them are hardly suffering.

Shallow statistics serve nobody.
Click to expand...

Your bf's sister is not included in the "1 in 7". The calculations looks at the income of the entire household and how many people that income supports, combined with a number of other factors like rent (which she does not pay)

Mistating the statistics serves nobody
 
apdst said:
If all that were accurate, the Dems would have raised taxes, when they owned Congress.
Click to expand...

Why? The majority supports medical marijuana, and the dems are passing that. And the dems in Congress cut taxes. Maybe you forgot about that
 
Zyphlin said:
I'm going with what Obama's been proposing, which has been IMMEDIETE tax increases on people for the indefinite future and yet backloads the vast majority of cuts to 10 years from now that are contingent on the various actions he lays down actually occuring multiple years down the line under different congresses and Presidents. That's hardly an "equal" approach regardless of the amount of spending cuts compared to revenue increases.

Would you say its an equal deal if I said you give me $1000 today and I'll pay you back $3000 dollars over the next 12 years pay $50 a year the first 10 years and $2500 over the last 2 years if I still remember that time, still can find you, and have the money? I mean, I'm saying I'll give you $3 for every $1 you give me
Click to expand...

I've seen you make this claim before, so now is a good time to ask where you get this from. I have reviewed the president's deficit reduction framework, and cannot find a reference to immediate tax increases.

Here is what it says about tax reform:

"He believes we cannot afford to make our deficit problem worse by extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

He also supports efforts to build on the Fiscal Commission’s goal of reducing tax expenditures so that there is enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit. Reform should be designed to ask more of those who can afford it while protecting the middle class and promoting economic growth.

In addition, as he explained in the State of the Union, the President is continuing his effort to reform our outdated corporate tax code to enhance our economic competitiveness and encourage investment in the United States. By eliminating loopholes, reducing distortions and leveling the playing field in our corporate tax code, we can use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years without adding to the deficit."

FACT SHEET: The President's Framework for Shared Prosperity and Shared Fiscal Responsibility | The White House
 
Catawba said:
No, i in 7 are below the poverty line with many more close to the edge. So you are suggesting we push the lower working class over the edge we can continue the $58,000 tax breaks for those at the top whose incomes have been climbing greatly while everyone else suffers? Is that your plan?
Click to expand...

I have a better idea. We could stop wasting money on such crap as training poor people to perform non-existant green jobs and after all that waste is taken care of, then we can see if there is still a need to raise taxes.
 
sangha said:
Why? The majority supports medical marijuana, and the dems are passing that. And the dems in Congress cut taxes. Maybe you forgot about that
Click to expand...

You totally missed my point.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
And the only reason he agreed to TEMPORARILY extend the Bush tax cuts was to reach a deal with Repubs
Click to expand...

LOL!

he had SIXTY senators for a year, he had a 78 seat cushion downstairs

So, it's a bit disingenuous to say that the president is against raising taxes.
Click to expand...

yup, he's a coward

what's he so scared of
 
apdst said:
I have a better idea. We could stop wasting money on such crap as training poor people to perform non-existant green jobs and after all that waste is taken care of, then we can see if there is still a need to raise taxes.
Click to expand...

I've got an even better idea. We could stop wasting money on faith-based programs, our bloated military, subsidies for big business, tax deductions for private jets, The TSA and HSA, and allow Medicare D negotiate for better drug prices; then we can see about cutting the social safety net
 
The federal government's financial condition deteriorated rapidly last year, far beyond the $1.5 trillion in new debt taken on to finance the budget deficit, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.

This gap between spending commitments and revenue last year equals more than one-third of the nation's gross domestic product.

Medicare alone took on $1.8 trillion in new liabilities, more than the record deficit prompting heated debate between Congress and the White House over lifting the debt ceiling.

Social Security added $1.4 trillion in obligations, partly reflecting longer life expectancies. Federal and military retirement programs added more to the financial hole, too.
Click to expand...

61.6T, growing 5.3 per year

trying to address THAT tsunami with tax revenues is like SPITTING in an OCEAN

if fundamental restucturing of our budgets is not undertaken immediately, then our big three federal programs (and state pensions too) will go pfft for our next generation

spin, anyone?

leadership?
 
sangha said:
I've got an even better idea. We could stop wasting money on faith-based programs, our bloated military, subsidies for big business, tax deductions for private jets, The TSA and HSA, and allow Medicare D negotiate for better drug prices; then we can see about cutting the social safety net
Click to expand...


Sure. I have no problem with that. We could also take away tax exemptions from orgs like CAIR, Media Matters and Planned Parenthood, along with no telling how many other bull**** 501c groups there are in the country.
 
sangha said:
I totally destroyed your point
Click to expand...

My point is: if the will of the people is to raise taxes, then why didn't the Dems do it when they were running the whole show?
 
apdst said:
Sure. I have no problem with that. We could also take away tax exemptions from orgs like CAIR, Media Matters and Planned Parenthood, along with no telling how many other bull**** 501c groups there are in the country.
Click to expand...

So much for the rights support of the first amendment
 
apdst said:
My point is: if the will of the people is to raise taxes, then why didn't the Dems do it when they were running the whole show?
Click to expand...

Because, when the wealthy have so much money and power, the politicians can be paid/bribed to ignore the will of the people. This is just one more reason why we should tax the rich
 
sangha said:
So much for the rights support of the first amendment
Click to expand...

No where in the 1st Amendment does it say that my tax dollars have to be pissed away on abortions, or that religious groups, who have obvious political sways, should be tax exempt.
 
sangha said:
Because, when the wealthy have so much money and power, the politicians can be paid/bribed to ignore the will of the people. This is just one more reason why we should tax the rich
Click to expand...

What about the folks who will be taxed more, who aren't rich?
 
Actually, opperating on the assumption that the will of the public is the same today as it was then is likely a false assumption. It is quite likley that back then, when democrats were in power, the feelign was different, and the need for taxes less clear.
 
apdst said:
No where in the 1st Amendment does it say that my tax dollars have to be pissed away on abortions, or that religious groups, who have obvious political sways, should be tax exempt.
Click to expand...

So now you're changing your whine from non-profits tax exempt status to what those non-profits spend their money on. And the 1st amend most certainly does protect religious orgs from being taxed.
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, opperating on the assumption that the will of the public is the same today as it was then is likely a false assumption. It is quite likley that back then, when democrats were in power, the feelign was different, and the need for taxes less clear.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that the people are willing to raise taxes any more than they were 8 months ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom