• 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!

Obama to call for middle class tax cut extension

TurtleDude said:
You don't really understand the source of all my income so you'd be better off not speculating.
Click to expand...
You think you would actually get paid more somehow if your taxes were lower?!? Then so much for this crap from the right about the market controlling wages. Obviously if the tax burden was lower, then lower wages would provide the employee with the same spending power. You wouldn't make more, your employer would pay less.

TurtleDude said:
We need the government to take far far less from everyone and since the top 10% pay 70% of what is taken, that is where the diet needs to start
Click to expand...
More and more lies ...

Karl said:
TaxPaidByQuintile.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Arbo said:
It is illogical that you would support high taxes on the rich, since if you believe they 'pass on' the cost, that means whatever service or product they offer would cost more for the poor. Pretty much government just raising prices artificially.
Click to expand...
In the end consumers/customers pay for all of it. DUH! What planet have you been living on - or have you just been lying to yourself all these years???
((Ed: It's that "Reaganomics is Holy" mindset that makes people blind to this, isn't it?))


The only thing consumers don't "pay for" is dividends and increases in stock value - in other words, capital gains. Companies decide how much of their profit is used to compensate their investors.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
In the end consumers/customers pay for all of it. DUH! What planet have you been living on - or have you just been lying to yourself all these years???
((Ed: It's that "Reaganomics is Holy" mindset that makes people blind to this, isn't it?))


The only thing consumers don't "pay for" is dividends and increases in stock value - in other words, capital gains. Companies decide how much of their profit is used to compensate their investors.
Click to expand...

Wow, can't stick to a topic?
 
MoSurveyor said:
All I did was reply to your post. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Then why not explain how you support raising taxes in a manner that would actually effect the poor in the long run.
 
Arbo said:
Then why not explain how you support raising taxes in a manner that would actually effect the poor in the long run.
Click to expand...

The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy provided no benefits to the poor, in fact the tax breaks for off-shoring jobs just made things worse for the poor.
 
Catawba said:
The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy provided no benefits to the poor, in fact the tax breaks for off-shoring jobs just made things worse for the poor.
Click to expand...

the continued feeding of the poor does nothing for the country as a whole and merely creates more dependents by making failure comfortable. such funding should cease to include anyone other than those truly disabled or unable to help themselves and the rich who fund most of the government should stop funding parasites and their advocates who use our tax dollars to take more and more from us
 
Catawba said:
The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy provided no benefits to the poor, in fact the tax breaks for off-shoring jobs just made things worse for the poor.
Click to expand...

Ah, nevermind, you are not the same person I was responding to...
 
TurtleDude said:
the continued feeding of the poor does nothing for the country as a whole and merely creates more dependents by making failure comfortable. such funding should cease to include anyone other than those truly disabled or unable to help themselves and the rich who fund most of the government should stop funding parasites and their advocates who use our tax dollars to take more and more from us
Click to expand...


Well at least you are forthright in your belief that millions should die simply so some can live more comfortably - well they would other than the anarchy that would result if your beliefs actually became policy. A highly unlikely possibility I would venture to say.
 
Somerville said:
Well at least you are forthright in your belief that millions should die simply so some can live more comfortably
Click to expand...

Ah, the old 'if you are not for what I believe you are against xxxxxx people' left wing silliness.
 
Somerville said:
Well at least you are forthright in your belief that millions should die simply so some can live more comfortably - well they would other than the anarchy that would result if your beliefs actually became policy. A highly unlikely possibility I would venture to say.
Click to expand...

why do you make claims about stuff I didn't say? I said to cease to provide for those other than THOSE TRULY DISABLED OR UNABLE TO HELP THEMSELVES

and people like me give tons to charity

if the safety net was confined to those who need it, that would not generate enough votes for the dems
 
Arbo said:
Caught? Looks more like made up. But I realize that is hard for someone so far buried to notice in themselves.
Click to expand...
Trying to win an argument by engaging in emotional personal attacks is unlikely to lead to success.
 
TurtleDude said:
Somerville said:
Which would you rather have as income - 60% of $1,000,000 or 97% of $20,000?
Click to expand...
that is not relevant

one someone has succeeded telling them they should be penalized and that is justified because they are still more successful than millions does not justify such parasitic behavior.
Click to expand...
:lamo . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 
Karl said:
:lamo . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Click to expand...

its not relevant

I'd rather have 97% of what I made when others are paying negative taxes and have the same citizenship benefits
 
Arbo said:
Then why not explain how you support raising taxes in a manner that would actually effect the poor in the long run.
Click to expand...
Taxes need to be returned to pre-Bush-tax-cut levels for everyone since we have been going in the hole ever since Bush signed those tax cuts. While it will affect everyone in the short run, except the poor who pay little in federal income tax[sup][1][/sup], in the long run it will benefit the economy (as can be witnessed by the $3 trillion or so that the Bush tax cuts have pushed us further into debt).

____________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. What the Tax Cuts Cost | Cost of Tax Cuts
$19,855 - The average tax cut for a family in the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans, under the tax cut extension signed into law in December 2010.
$107 - The average tax cut for a family in the poorest 20 percent.
 
Last edited:
Karl said:
Taxes need to be returned to pre-Bush-tax-cut levels for everyone since we have been going in the hole ever since Bush signed those tax cuts. While it will effect everyone in the short run, except the poor who pay little in federal income tax[sup][1][/sup], in the long run it will benefit the economy (as can be witnessed by the $3 trillion or so that the Bush tax cuts have pushed us further into debt).

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. What the Tax Cuts Cost | Cost of Tax Cuts
$19,855 - The average tax cut for a family in the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans, under the tax cut extension signed into law in December 2010.
$107 - The average tax cut for a family in the poorest 20 percent.
Click to expand...


people in the bottom 20% pay -300% in FIT meaning the government gives them 3 dollars for every dollar they earn
 
TurtleDude said:
people in the bottom 20% pay -300% in FIT meaning the government gives them 3 dollars for every dollar they earn
Click to expand...
Only right wing talk media fans are interested in your selective rendition of the truth... assuming even that much is true, since you never bother us with links or sources, only pronouncements from on high which I suppose are to be accepted as engraved in stone (tablets). Everyone else has wised up... so all you are doing is preaching to the choir; since they already believe, you are merely wasting your time while alienating those that may be undecided but see thru the tawdry charade.
 
Karl said:
Taxes need to be returned to pre-Bush-tax-cut levels for everyone since we have been going in the hole ever since Bush signed those tax cuts. While it will affect everyone in the short run, except the poor who pay little in federal income tax[sup][1][/sup], in the long run it will benefit the economy (as can be witnessed by the $3 trillion or so that the Bush tax cuts have pushed us further into debt).

____________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. What the Tax Cuts Cost | Cost of Tax Cuts
$19,855 - The average tax cut for a family in the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans, under the tax cut extension signed into law in December 2010.
$107 - The average tax cut for a family in the poorest 20 percent.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's always 'tax the rich', never cut or control spending. :roll:
 
Karl said:
Only right wing talk media fans are interested in your selective rendition of the truth... assuming even that much is true, since you never bother us with links or sources, only pronouncements from on high which I suppose are to be accepted as engraved in stone (tablets). Everyone else has wised up... so all you are doing is preaching to the choir; since they already believe, you are merely wasting your time while alienating those that may be undecided but see thru the tawdry charade.
Click to expand...

Uh I posted this and the source a few days ago-I figure if you didn't figure it out then its a waste of time repeating it to those unable to understand or those who reject it because it bitch -slaps the socialist nonsense
 
TurtleDude said:
[...] I'd rather have 97% of what I made when others are paying negative taxes and have the same citizenship benefits
Click to expand...
Are you saying that you are more interested in what someone else has than in what you have yourself?
 
Arbo said:
Yeah, it's always 'tax the rich', never cut or control spending. :roll:
Click to expand...

aheeem:

CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have estimated the direct spending and revenue effects of H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act, as passed by the House of Representatives on July 11, 2012. H.R. 6079 would repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), with the exception of one subsection that has no budgetary effect. This estimate reflects the spending and revenue projections in CBO’s March 2012 baseline as adjusted to take into account the effects of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the ACA.

For various reasons discussed in the report, the estimated budgetary effects of repealing the ACA by enacting H.R. 6079 are close to, but not equivalent to, an estimate of the budgetary effects of the ACA with the signs reversed.

What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?
Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.

CBO | Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act
 
TurtleDude said:
Uh I posted this and the source a few days ago-I figure if you didn't figure it out then its a waste of time repeating it to those unable to understand or those who reject it because it bitch -slaps the socialist nonsense
Click to expand...

what was the source?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom