• 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

I understand you want a society where government creates 'stay busy' work and pays far too much for people to do it. Sorry, that's not the job of government. However national defense is one of the jobs of government.
What we do is so far beyond "defense" I won't even bother. Again, you're just lying to yourself.

All irrelevant to the constitutionality of governments role in providing for national defense.
Again, it's not "defense" anymore, and hasn't been for decades.
 
Last edited:
there should be-its called an opinion-look it up

the from each according to their ability to each group according to the amount of votes they can bestow on a politician is the current scheme
The current scheme from the other side is to buy the votes that REALLY count - those of Congressmen - directly, by-passing the election process altogether.
 
I want taxes to be more based on what a person uses. that is a common paradigm in history but it runs counter to the interests of people like those who see the purposes of the tax code as to give congress more power
The first "taxes", paying tribute to the King, were imposed only on royalty, not on the peasants. For many centuries in England, from which most of our laws and customs come, only royalty - that would be the rich people that make all the decisions - paid taxes. As it currently stands, Fed taxes are slightly out of whack with the "common paradigm in history". Historically, the rich should be paying even more than they do now.
 
Last edited:
The current scheme from the other side is to buy the votes that REALLY count - those of Congressmen - directly, by-passing the election process altogether.

you mean like unions and rich liberals do

the rich and corporations tend to split

the unions are about 95% dem

and union money that goes to dems is often taken from those of us who oppose their politics
 
Which position would that be?

What I have repeatedly and frequented advocated is a five point across the board tax INCREASE for anyone earning dollar one - and that would include myself.
But your words dont square with your desires. IF everyone was forced to pay income taxes to the federal government, people would be much less inclined to see government grow. The only way the left can increase the power of the state is to use the tax dollars confiscated from one group as a means of purchasing the eternal gratitude, and votes, of another. Your supposed desire for sharing the tax burden does not square with your overarching desire for bigger government. You support a raise in your own taxes for two reasons: 1. you know it wont happen 2. it provides you with a degree of cover for when you go after the real target for tax increases--the rich. But nice try, though.
 
you pay a lower rate-everyone pays a lower rate so your rant on that has no relevance

I pay a higher total Federal tax rate than the super rich who earn most of their income from investments like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett.

what is relevant is the the rich are the only group that pay more of the income tax than our share of the income and people like you do not.
if there is to be FAIRNESS a group that makes 22% of the income should only pay 22% of the taxes levied on that income and a group that makes 10% of the income should pay 10% of the income tax.

That is only relevant to the far right minority in this country that thinks progressive taxation for the the last 80 years in this country has been socialistic, which I have already acknowledged in your ideology graph:

tdgraph.jpg
 
Is that why Adam Smith seemed to agree with them??

do you agree with everything (let alone understand or know) Adam Smith stated?
 
everyone else is paying an even lower rate to the point that the bottom 60% are paying NEGATIVE income tax rates
That's crap and you should know it's crap. Your propaganda page even said the middle quintile most likely paid taxes because there was an error in their calculations - an error they didn't correct in the pretty little chart you copied -and you were made aware of that error so quit lying.
 
I pay a higher total Federal tax rate than the super rich who earn most of their income from investments like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett.



That is only relevant to the far right minority in this country that thinks progressive taxation for the the last 80 years in this country has been socialistic, which I have already acknowledged in your ideology graph:

tdgraph.jpg

the super rich pay a higher rate on like income than you do

you dishonestly compare one form of income with another
 
But your words dont square with your desires. IF everyone was forced to pay income taxes to the federal government, people would be much less inclined to see government grow. The only way the left can increase the power of the state is to use the tax dollars confiscated from one group as a means of purchasing the eternal gratitude, and votes, of another. Your supposed desire for sharing the tax burden does not square with your overarching desire for bigger government. You support a raise in your own taxes for two reasons: 1. you know it wont happen 2. it provides you with a degree of cover for when you go after the real target for tax increases--the rich. But nice try, though.


its so transparent-buying the votes of the many so the dem masters can rule and their minions can have more power as well
 
do you agree with everything (let alone understand or know) Adam Smith stated?
No, but that has nothing to do with progressive taxes NOT being socialistic.
 
its so transparent-buying the votes of the many so the dem masters can rule and their minions can have more power as well
Instead of buying the votes that really count - those of Congress - with PAC money.
 
its so transparent-buying the votes of the many so the dem masters can rule and their minions can have more power as well
Right. State and local government provide most services that people use and the tax rates (in most states) are relatively low. The federal government is engaged primarily in wealth transfers and the recipients of those transfers are beholden to those who dole them out.
 
and union money that goes to dems is often taken from those of us who oppose their politics
:lamo If it's union money it's "taken" but if it's a rich man's money it's "given"! :lamo
 
the super rich pay a higher rate on like income than you do


you dishonestly compare one form of income with another

Despite your feigned ignorance, you know very well that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate only because the voters allowed it based on the false advertising of the trickle down theory by the conservatives. Since the trickle down didn't result from the tax cuts, there is no reason for voters to continue to allow them.
 
Last edited:
The only way the left can increase the power of the state is to use the tax dollars confiscated from one group as a means of purchasing the eternal gratitude, and votes, of another.
Unlike the Rich Boys and corporations that just buy Congressional votes directly. Why bother with the common voter when it's the Congressional votes that count?
 
:lamo If it's union money it's "taken" but if it's a rich man's money it's "given"! :lamo
If you were in a union who dues went to support republicans, would you consider yourself to have voluntarily contributed?
 
:lamo If it's union money it's "taken" but if it's a rich man's money it's "given"! :lamo

rich people have complete choice

union members do not

Look up the BECK vs Communications Workers of America case in front of the supreme court

487 US 735 (1988)
 
If you were in a union who dues went to support republicans, would you consider yourself to have voluntarily contributed?
Being in a union is voluntary, so, yes I would.
 
rich people have complete choice

union members do not

Look up the BECK vs Communications Workers of America case in front of the supreme court

487 US 735 (1988)
You misunderstood completely, which just shows how out of touch you are with the "common man".
 
Last edited:
Unlike the Rich Boys and corporations that just buy Congressional votes directly. Why bother with the common voter when it's the Congressional votes that count?
That is true as well, but you have to ask yourself why. If the government wasnt so involved and wielded so much power there would be no incentive to buy their votes. So long as congressmen have virtually unlimited power to control and regulate business, there will be business leaders who attempt to influence their votes with cash. It is power that corrupts, money is drawn to that power.
 
LOL that is funny.
Hey, you guys make the rules and say the work place is all voluntary! No one is forcing people to take jobs at union shops.
 
Last edited:
You misunderstand completely, which just shows how out of touch you are with the "common man".

LOL, I am a labor attorney-ever heard of a closed shop?

and did you read Beck-it went up to the USSC
 
Back
Top Bottom