• 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!

GOP makes $2.2 Trillion Counteroffer to Obama - includes revenue increases

Dickieboy said:
Sorry but I am having trouble connecting the dots. I understood your assertion in post 169 to mean that ‘all the money taken from the SS for general fund must be paid back…all those rich folks…are going to have to pony up’. Meaning that while ALL citizens benefited by the government spending the SS money OVER MANY YEARS, ADMINISTRATIONS AND TAXATION RATES only the ‘rich folks’ must pay it back. Am I misunderstanding your point? If not does that seem fair?



How should we measure ‘who has benefited most from the "temporary tax cuts"? I presented the difference in the rate cut percentage by these "temporary tax cuts". Would you rather quantify that in dollar amounts? As to who holds the most of the wealth in this country, it has ALWAYS been the upper bracket…obviously so as that is what makes them the upper bracket…
Click to expand...


You ignore the obvious, and the reason for Obama's reelection. Most of the country's wealth has been concentrated at the top. Partly due to both trickle down economics and offshoring American jobs. Both of which have been highly profitable for the wealthy........for those left here without jobs, or minimum wage jobs, not so much. There is simply no where else to get it, except the wealthy, and still have a functioning economy and a public not living on welfare.

If you read back through the thread you will see where I posted the simple solution to fixing SS for the long term, beyond its 26 year remaining solvency.
 
specklebang said:
No, it isn't that simple.
Click to expand...

Actually it is very simple. Our trouble is there is a funk that has overtaken Washington over the last 25 years or so. Pandering and posturing by ALL in DC have prevented legislation and governing for fear they may be voted out…and lose their ‘power’.

1) SS has been plundered for decades and even Obama cut th rate as a form of "payroll tax reduction". SS has not relly dealt with the longer lifespan issue and they better do something soon. As for the money that's been take? I don't know what happens when you steal from yourself. Do you pay yourself back?
Click to expand...
All you say is true. My point to Cat was his presumed assertion that only the rich should ‘pay ourselves back’.

2) Taxes aren't just a matter of dollars or percentages. A 30% discount on the taxes of the lower incomes doesn't amount to a lot of dollars. On the highest incomes, the percentage is not a definition of the dollars.

I'd rather pay 40% on a million than 0% on $20,000.00.

It's a mess, isn't it?
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand your point but mine is more broad. The commonly espoused position has been over tax RATES i.e. percentages thus the comparison in my post. I read recently that the BTC’s since inception reduced revenue from the top bracket something like $800b and $3.7t from the lower brackets (from the CBO or JTC or somewhere). While I understand the vitriol for the ‘rich folks’ commonly exhibited these numbers seem the rich got a FAR smaller break that the others…in dollar amounts.
 
Catawba said:
You ignore the obvious, and the reason for Obama's reelection. Most of the country's wealth has been concentrated at the top.
Click to expand...

ME IGNORING THE OBVIOUS? Wealth is ALWAYS concentrated at the 'top'. Where else would it be?

This may help:
Wealth_distribution_over_time.gif

As to 'Obama's re-election', yes that was one of the reasons but IMO only a minimal one. IMO the electorate, much the same as the Wis. recall, resisted 'changing captains' and wanted the President to continue his efforts and see if it works out. Uncertainty of the 'genuiness' of Romney also played a factor.
 
Last edited:
Dickieboy said:
ME IGNORING THE OBVIOUS? Wealth is ALWAYS concentrated at the 'top'. Where else would it be?

As to 'Obama's re-election', yes that was one of the reasons but IMO only a minimal one. IMO the electorate, much the same as the Wis. recall, resisted 'changing captains' and wanted the President to continue his efforts and see if it works out. Uncertainty of the 'genuiness' of Romney also played a factor.
Click to expand...

Interesting you didn't mention the part of my comment I felt was most pertinent to the discussion of SS and why the fix has to come from increasing contributions from the wealthy.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's sort of a silly stereotype. I could have retired at 30 and lived very well, so could have my father and his father before him. But we didn't. I work hard for my family and those who will come after me, just as my ancestors did. when you stop working hard, even 200 year old family fortunes will fail
Click to expand...

I retired at 58....we are living well on a low 6 figure retirement and about $750K in property and savings, no debt. We have more than enough extra to put all 7 grandkids through college if they stay home and go to the local university. Perhaps even enough for graduate school for some of them.
My ancestors contributed nothing to our success. Family fortunes fail most often by new generations not working as hard as generations.
I am here to help, but not to guarantee wealth. Wealth is a handicap to most people. It makes them lazy. I hope your kids and grandkids do as well as I hope mine do, but I am not going to worry about the ones that want to coast on Grandpa's money....THAT ain't gonna happen.
I will pay for education, the rest is on them.
 
Catawba said:
Interesting you didn't mention the part of my comment I felt was most pertinent to the discussion of SS and why the fix has to come from increasing contributions from the wealthy.
Click to expand...

I try to not jump around on issues BUT your idea has some merit. I personally like the Canadian style. From what I understand their 'SS' distributions are based on an individuals income after retirement. The more a persons income is the less 'SS' the recieve up to like $150k where they do not recieve anything. They ALL pay in throughout their working career equally as we do. There are MANY other ideas out there but merely 'tax the rich more' for everything is unsustainable...they don't have/make THAT much.

ps. note my edit above.
 
UtahBill said:
I retired at 58....we are living well on a low 6 figure retirement and about $750K in property and savings, no debt. We have more than enough extra to put all 7 grandkids through college if they stay home and go to the local university. Perhaps even enough for graduate school for some of them.
My ancestors contributed nothing to our success. Family fortunes fail most often by new generations not working as hard as generations.
I am here to help, but not to guarantee wealth. Wealth is a handicap to most people. It makes them lazy. I hope your kids and grandkids do as well as I hope mine do, but I am not going to worry about the ones that want to coast on Grandpa's money....THAT ain't gonna happen.
I will pay for education, the rest is on them.
Click to expand...

lots of what you say is true

but a real handicap to kids is not wealth but parents (one usually is all they have for those who end up failures) who are sucking on the public teat. I know lots of wealthy people. some of their kids end up being trustafarian losers, others feel guilty about wealth and end up being loopy lefties trying to do penance for their good fortune. Others end up using the fact that they don't have to worry about paying for school to do really really well. and some of them take jobs they can afford to do because they are wealthy like the headmaster of my old prep school who never took a dime of salary but rather had the school use his pay to fund kids who couldn't pay the bill or another guy i knew who was from the family that owned one of the largest businesses in SW Ohio who got his MBA from a top school and decided he'd rather be an Episcopal priest and did that instead. After he retired he started teaching business ethics at a local university. He was highly respected as both a priest and a professor
 
Dickieboy said:
I try to not jump around on issues BUT your idea has some merit. I personally like the Canadian style. From what I understand their 'SS' distributions are based on an individuals income after retirement. The more a persons income is the less 'SS' the recieve up to like $150k where they do not recieve anything. They ALL pay in throughout their working career equally as we do. There are MANY other ideas out there but merely 'tax the rich more' for everything is unsustainable...they don't have/make THAT much.

ps. note my edit above.
Click to expand...


No one is suggesting the wealthy pay for every thing, we said that since the most of the wealth is owned by a few, they are going to once again pay a little larger share, because an economy cannot prosper when too much wealth is concentrated at the top. But, that was obvious to you already wasn't it?
 
Catawba said:
No one is suggesting the wealthy pay for every thing, we said that since the most of the wealth is owned by a few, they are going to once again pay a little larger share, because an economy cannot prosper when too much money is concentrated at the top. But, that was obvious to you already wasn't it?
Click to expand...

a little larger share

what horsepoop
I love the solution to several million having "too much money" is to concentrate it in the hands of ONE federal government and about 600 politicians and heads of bureaucracies
 
TurtleDude said:
a little larger share

what horsepoop
I love the solution to several million having "too much money" is to concentrate it in the hands of ONE federal government and about 600 politicians and heads of bureaucracies
Click to expand...

Yes, our tax rates for the wealthy are the lowest in modern history. If, you wish to stand between middle America and the retirement they have paid into all their lives, knock yourself out!
 
Catawba said:
Yes, our tax rates for the wealthy are the lowest in modern history. If, you wish to stand between middle America and the retirement they have paid into all their lives, knock yourself out!
Click to expand...

the tax rates on everyone else are the lowest in modern history. The richest 2% pay a higher share of the income tax burden than any other TIME IN MODERN HISTORY meaning everyone else PAYS A LOWER SHARE OF THE INCOME TAX BURDEN in MODERN HISTORY

appealing to the masses has no relevance to me
 
Catawba said:
No one is suggesting the wealthy pay for every thing, we said that since the most of the wealth is owned by a few, they are going to once again pay a little larger share, because an economy cannot prosper when too much wealth is concentrated at the top. But, that was obvious to you already wasn't it?
Click to expand...

? Is someone currently suggesting someone else should be paying? All I heard of the President's 'debt ceiling plan' was a mere 4% increase in the upper bracket rate...and somehow that is going to make the economy prosper??? 4%...REALLY?

You DID note the graph I provided showing the concentration of wealth has moved little over the last 90 years or so...right?
 
Catawba said:
Yes, our tax rates for the wealthy are the lowest in modern history. If, you wish to stand between middle America and the retirement they have paid into all their lives, knock yourself out!
Click to expand...

The wealthy pay a different FICA tax rate? Please expound on this assertion...thx
 
TurtleDude said:
the tax rates on everyone else are the lowest in modern history. The richest 2% pay a higher share of the income tax burden than any other TIME IN MODERN HISTORY meaning everyone else PAYS A LOWER SHARE OF THE INCOME TAX BURDEN in MODERN HISTORY

appealing to the masses has no relevance to me
Click to expand...


That shell game didn't work in the presidential election with the American people and it won't work here. We are talking percentages. The only reason the rich are paying more in total dollars is because they own more of the wealth. Their effective percentage rate is the lowest in modern history.
 
Catawba said:
That shell game didn't work in the presidential election with the American people and it won't work here. We are talking percentages. The only reason the rich are paying more in total dollars is because they own more of the wealth. Their effective percentage rate is the lowest in modern history.
Click to expand...

more appeals to the masses based on the specious concept that truth is based only a popularity vote.

you also continually ignore the fact that the poor and the middle class are also paying far less than they did in prior years and their share of the burden is lower than at any time in modern history. YET they are the ones who drive the spending because politicians pander to numbers of votes.
 
TurtleDude said:
lots of what you say is true

but a real handicap to kids is not wealth but parents (one usually is all they have for those who end up failures) who are sucking on the public teat. I know lots of wealthy people. some of their kids end up being trustafarian losers, others feel guilty about wealth and end up being loopy lefties trying to do penance for their good fortune. Others end up using the fact that they don't have to worry about paying for school to do really really well. and some of them take jobs they can afford to do because they are wealthy like the headmaster of my old prep school who never took a dime of salary but rather had the school use his pay to fund kids who couldn't pay the bill or another guy i knew who was from the family that owned one of the largest businesses in SW Ohio who got his MBA from a top school and decided he'd rather be an Episcopal priest and did that instead. After he retired he started teaching business ethics at a local university. He was highly respected as both a priest and a professor
Click to expand...
all of what I said is true....
re the parents thing....yes, I had 2 parents, they were the worst kind of democrats/liberals, uneducated, didn't care if their kids got an education, basically wanted all of their kids to fail equally. The 2 of us that stood out, based on work ethic, personal effort, etc. were the 2 that mom resented. She was actually jealous of us for getting more schooling than she got, which was 3rd grade. In her defense, she had a rough life, but that is not much of an excuse for making 5 kids in a loveless marriage, and then taking out her frustrations on her kids.
LSS, one sister and I made it pretty far up the success ladder. And there were NO government handouts to be had for us. Our other sibling were either slow learners, lazy, or both, and just settled. I have little sympathy for those who put forth only minimal effort in their own behalf. But I have zero respect for those born into wealth, giving them a great head start, and then try to tell me how their kind of success can be achieved by anybody....
Seems some of those who were born into wealth want to keep the "riff raff" out of their private club, and do their best to further handicap those with little or no advantage in life.
I don't resent all the wealthy, just those who have had it too easy and then disparage the efforts of the "lesser folk"...
 
TurtleDude said:
more appeals to the masses based on the specious concept that truth is based only a popularity vote.

you also continually ignore the fact that the poor and the middle class are also paying far less than they did in prior years and their share of the burden is lower than at any time in modern history. YET they are the ones who drive the spending because politicians pander to numbers of votes.
Click to expand...



The middle class and the poor are paying less because they have less. AS we found in the election, the majority no longer see any reason to continue to allow the tax cuts for the wealthy to continue.
 
Dickieboy said:
The wealthy pay a different FICA tax rate? Please expound on this assertion...thx
Click to expand...


Deja Vu with Dickieboy, again. Yes, investment earnings are exempt from FiCA taxes, so those like Romney who get all their income from investments, do not have to pay FICA taxes.

And those that do have some income subject to FICA, only have to pay on the portion of their income that is under $105,000, unlike the middle class who must pay FICA on 100% of their income.
 
Dickieboy said:
? Is someone currently suggesting someone else should be paying?
Click to expand...

Yes, that was the choice in the election, who would be paying more, the rich or the middle class.
 
Catawba said:
Yes, that was the choice in the election, who would be paying more, the rich or the middle class.
Click to expand...

I agree. The voters chose Republicans to control taxes. They dont want anyone to pay more.

Section. 7.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives
Click to expand...
 
Catawba said:
Yes, that was the choice in the election, who would be paying more, the rich or the middle class.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you did not notice, but that 2012 election ballot included all of the House and 1/3 of the Senate as well as the president. What the people said was for DC to lead/govern/change, get its act together and stop the constant borrow and spend madness. The rich already pay much more FIT than the middle class, and the "poor" now pay next to nothing or get a gov't check.

What demorats/republicants now fear is returning to the Clinton tax rates, that Obama said that he liked so much, which will raise federal revenue about 1% of GDP but the federal gov't now spends 4% of GDP more than it did under Bush. Bush did not "cut taxes for the rich" as Obama is so want to imply, Bush cut taxes for everyone, in fact, the bottom bracket rate was cut by 50%, from 15% to 10% - that is a fact. Taxation got more progressive under the Bush rates, not less.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Perhaps you did not notice, but that 2012 election ballot included all of the House and 1/3 of the Senate as well as the president. What the people said was for DC to lead/govern/change, get its act together and stop the constant borrow and spend madness. The rich already pay much more FIT than the middle class, and the "poor" now pay next to nothing or get a gov't check.

What demorats/republicants now fear is returning to the Clinton tax rates, that Obama said that he liked so much, which will raise federal revenue about 1% of GDP but the federal gov't now spends 4% of GDP more than it did under Bush. Bush did not "cut taxes for the rich" as Obama is so want to imply, Bush cut taxes for everyone, in fact, the bottom bracket rate was cut by 50%, from 15% to 10% - that is a fact. Taxation got more progressive under the Bush rates, not less.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the morning humor, ttwtt!
 
Catawba said:
Deja Vu with Dickieboy, again. Yes, investment earnings are exempt from FiCA taxes, so those like Romney who get all their income from investments, do not have to pay FICA taxes.

And those that do have some income subject to FICA, only have to pay on the portion of their income that is under $105,000, unlike the middle class who must pay FICA on 100% of their income.
Click to expand...

Deja Vu with Catawba again...Avoiding the specific question...So you are proposing we impose a FICA tax on investment earning? Did Romney not pay FICA AT THE SAME RATE on the +/-$350k he earned making speeches? His tax return indicated that he did...and yes he paid FICA on all that earned up to $105k...just like the middle class folks who earn up to the $200-250k level that is commonly claimed to be the upper limit of the 'middle class'...unlike how?

deja vu indeed....:lamo
 
Dickieboy said:
Deja Vu with Catawba again...Avoiding the specific question...So you are proposing we impose a FICA tax on investment earning? Did Romney not pay FICA AT THE SAME RATE on the +/-$350k he earned making speeches? His tax return indicated that he did...and yes he paid FICA on all that earned up to $105k...just like the middle class folks who earn up to the $200-250k level that is commonly claimed to be the upper limit of the 'middle class'...unlike how?

deja vu indeed....:lamo
Click to expand...


My point was that those wealthy like Romney, who's income is primarily from investments pay a far less percentage of their total income on FICA than do median income workers.

I will repost for your benefit the simple fix for fixing SS long term, beyond the 26 remaining years of solvency:

"Back in 1983, the ceiling was set so the Social Security payroll tax would hit 90 percent of all wages covered by Social Security. That 90 percent figure was built into the Greenspan Commission's fixes. The Commission assumed that, as the ceiling rose with inflation, the Social Security payroll tax would continue to hit 90 percent of total income.

Today, though, the Social Security payroll tax hits only about 84 percent of total income.

It went from 90 percent to 84 percent because a larger and larger portion of total income has gone to the top. In 1983, the richest 1 percent of Americans got 11.6 percent of total income. Today the top 1 percent takes in more than 20 percent.

If we want to go back to 90 percent, the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security tax would need to be raised to $180,000.

Presto. Social Security's long-term (beyond 26 years from now) problem would be solved."

Robert Reich: Budget Baloney: Why Social Security Isn't a Problem for 26 Years, and the Best Way to Fix It Permanently
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom