• 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 plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

pbrauer said:
How do you figure they are being soaked, when they make so much money that their effective tax rate is around 17%?
Click to expand...

what nonsense is that--are you confusing Bill Gates with those in the 200K to 1 milliion K group. NExt year's tax will be the highest effective tax rate in US History. I don't know what you are smoking but you must think that everyone in the top 1% only has dividend or capital gains income. Actually the vast majority of people in that group are those with high salaries-doctors, lawyers, accountants, "brand managers" or upper echelon but not top executives at big companies.

Speaking of not being soaked-what about thos e 47% who have an effective federal income tax rate of ZERO

I know lots of people in the 200K-1 million a year level. One former colleague is a partner in a major law firm as is his wife in another meaning they have a combined income of about 500K a year. They have two brilliant daughters-one at an Ivy , the other at Duke meaning they are paying close to 100K in tuition a year. people like you assume that they don't need all the money they make because you project your situation on to them. Why should they pay more taxes when they get nothing from the government additional to what you get despite paying at least 100K in taxes already. (and that doesn't include the high state income tax here in ohio, and property taxes)
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

pbrauer said:
Why do you care if 47% of low-wage earners pay no taxes, are you jealous?
Click to expand...

I tire of people having representation without taxation because they have no incentive to reign in government spending since they dont pay for it

you are the one who is jealous and that is apparent to anyone who reads you welfare socialist drivel
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

TurtleDude said:
why do you call yourself a libertarian?
Click to expand...

More ad homs from those intellectually ill equiped to debate me in proper fashion. My ideology pertains to the discussion how exactly?
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

TurtleDude said:
why do the libs always talk about need as it pertains to others

a few more dollars? are you clueless

someone making a million a year is going to easily pay over 100K more in taxes if half their income is in investments.



one thing is sure-those who make the money NEED it more than greedy poltiicians who buy the votes of people such as you with promises that the government will give you what you want paid for by others

you need to pay more taxes in order to disabuse you of thinking that the government should provide you more goodies and others should pay for it
Click to expand...
hey bub, i don't get any 'goodies' from the government, and i am a taxpayer, and while a tax cut sounds great , it is not fiscally responsible.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

TurtleDude said:
I tire of people having representation without taxation because they have no incentive to reign in government spending since they dont pay for it
Click to expand...
Whatever that means. :lamo :lamo

you are the one who is jealous and that is apparent to anyone who reads you welfare socialist drivel
Click to expand...
Do you have a point to make or do you just want to insult?
 
donc said:
Lets here if for the (though belated) fiscal responsible Republican Party.:roll:


<A Republican plan to extend tax cuts for the rich would add more than $36 billion to the federal deficit next year -- and transfer the bulk of that cash into the pockets of the nation's millionaires, according to a congressional analysis released Wednesday. >

washingtonpost.com

Comparing Democratic and Republican tax plans
Click to expand...

pbrauer said:
WOW! Look at that $1,000,000 bracket, There are some people here would have you believe that tax breaks for wealthy causes more money to go to the treasury.
Click to expand...

Ahhh... a couple of well trained class warfare monkey's.

1. It's not the government's money.
2. The government wasn't designed to steal wealth of private individuals and "spread the stolen wealth around".
3. That money is better in the hands of the individual, than the bloated government.
4. It's time to cut and gut government, not the individual.

The class warfare card is an amazing one to watch... and sad too.

Did you ever for a millisecond think that a reduction in taxes, and an even further reduction, say to the 28% level of Reagan and agreed by Democrats, would loosen up money, create jobs, and strengthen the economy over the long term? :doh

JFK spelled it out long ago... but today's Dem is not what Dems used to be.
They're true Marxist styled, class warfare zombies.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset+Tree/Asset+Viewers/Audio+Video+Asset+Viewer.htm?guid={A138FFB8-5B6A-4C6A-A8CC-70C6E4FF39DA}&type=Audio

But the most direct and significant kind of Federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand--to cut the fetters which hold back private spending. In the past, this could be done in part by the increased use of credit and monetary tools, but our balance of payments situation today places limits on our use of those tools for expansion. It could also be done by increasing Federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the Government and our economy. If Government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency. I shall say more on this in a moment.

The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system; and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963.

I am not talking about a "quickie" or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm, to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last 5 years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking.

In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the Federal Government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.
...

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records.

In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.

I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy; or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve--and I believe this can be done--a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Goldenboy219 said:
More ad homs from those intellectually ill equiped to debate me in proper fashion. My ideology pertains to the discussion how exactly?
Click to expand...

1) it was an honest question since your posts appear to be the antithesis of the libertarian philosophy. Since I was Ed Clark's campaign chairman for New Haven in 1980 I have a fairly good understanding of what it means to be a libertarian

2) You haven't demonstrated anything that would suggest that you are in a position to make such a pronouncement

3) others have noted your perspective is one of statist or welfare socialist as well
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

donc said:
Federal poverty level income for 2010 is $22,050;think of a poor widow woman, just scraping by. Medicare payments on this income is $320,per month, Social security is $1367,which is about ten percent of her income, which leaves $22000 to live on, around $425 per week. When the people living at poverty go to a grocery store there is no "sales tax break" for them, they pay at the same price for grocerys of someone making a million a year.


Someone earning $200000 a year would pay $ 12400 into social security and $2900 into Medicare; their tax would be $ 64000 in. Leaving after tax income of about $120,700.About $2321 per week.


Of these two Scenarios which in your opinion can best afford to pay the taxman? The widow women, making do on $425 per week, or someone making almost six times that per week.

So sad that the wingers have taken up kicking poor widow women as part of there agenda.:(
Click to expand...

there are alot more people like your "poor widow" than there are those you target for tax hikes. Its the former who vote for more and more government spending yet they never face any additional reductions in their assets as a result-rather they expect more and more handouts. So they have no incentive to reign in government spending by no longer voting for the welfare socialists who promise them goodies paid for by our tax dollars.

In order to stop this pernicious cycle, people like your unfortunate must have to face doing with less if they vote for more and more government spending. As long as people like you tell her that she can make others pay for her share of the goverment expenditures she will never do anything to stop the malignant expansion of government and more and more tax hikes on the industrious net tax payers.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

TurtleDude said:
there are alot more people like your "poor widow" than there are those you target for tax hikes. Its the former who vote for more and more government spending yet they never face any additional reductions in their assets as a result-rather they expect more and more handouts. So they have no incentive to reign in government spending by no longer voting for the welfare socialists who promise them goodies paid for by our tax dollars.

In order to stop this pernicious cycle, people like your unfortunate must have to face doing with less if they vote for more and more government spending. As long as people like you tell her that she can make others pay for her share of the goverment expenditures she will never do anything to stop the malignant expansion of government and more and more tax hikes on the industrious net tax payers.
Click to expand...

That's a rather piss-poor attitude to have. Under the Social Security Act, the widow's former husband's Social Security benefits are passed on to his surviving spouse upon his death. I'll assume the widow's deceased spouse worked until retirement. As such, those benefits are hers now, and if I understand the system correctly, SS benefits are indexed to inflation. So, it's not her fault that age has caught up with her and the cost of living which includes her medical expenses even w/Medicare have gone through the roof. We're talking about a generation of people who did exactly as their parents before them and their government told them to do - work hard, save, live honorable and in your golden years you'll be okay because your nest-egg - Social Security benefits and Medicare - would take care of them. Should they suffer because the government has mismanaged their funds all these years?
 
zimmer said:
Ahhh... a couple of well trained class warfare monkey's.

1. It's not the government's money.
2. The government wasn't designed to steal wealth of private individuals and "spread the stolen wealth around".
3. That money is better in the hands of the individual, than the bloated government.
4. It's time to cut and gut government, not the individual.
Click to expand...

Why do you guys keep saying that? It is the government's money by virtue of Art 1, Sect. 8 of the Constitution:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises...
Click to expand...

So, even if you earn an income, the Constitution gives Congress the power to tax it and get their cut according to federal tax codes. Therefore, those tax dollars now belong to the government. Now, you have every right to argue that you're being unfairly taxed or that your taxes are too high, and you certainly have the right to give input as to how those tax dollars should be spent since you, as a tax paying citizen are contributing to the Federal Reserve by virtue of having a tax levied against your income, but those tax dollars as determined by the tax code do belong to the federal government (and the state/city/county, if such taxation exist where you live).
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
Why do you guys keep saying that? It is the government's money by virtue of the Art 1, Sect. 8 of the Constitution:



So, even if you earn an income, the Constitution gives Congress the power to tax it and get their cut according to federal tax codes. Therefore, those tax dollars now belong to the government. Now, you have every right to argue that you're being unfairly taxed or that your taxes are too high, but those tax dollars as determined by the tax code do belong to the federal government (and the state/city/county, if such taxation exist where you live).
Click to expand...

there in lies the problems with liberals, the power to lay and collect taxes is what makes it the Government's money but that isn't where it comes from. Why is it that 47% of the people don't pay any taxes and how is increasing the taxes on the top 2% going to generate 36 billion dollars to the Treasury?
 
Conservative said:
there in lies the problems with liberals, the power to lay and collect taxes is what makes it the Government's money but that isn't where it comes from. Why is it that 47% of the people don't pay any taxes and how is increasing the taxes on the top 2% going to generate 36 billion dollars to the Treasury?
Click to expand...

Oh? Where do those tax dollars come from?

And will you stop already with this same lame assed 47% figure already? I'm not even discussing those who don't pay taxes. They weren't even included in my argument above. Nor did I mention whether or not it was fair or unfair to tax the top 2% of wealth earners. I merely argued that according to the Constitution, those tax dollars that come out of your income do belong to the fed.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
Oh? Where do those tax dollars come from?

And will you stop already with this same lame assed 47% figure already? I'm not even discussing those who don't pay taxes. They weren't even included in my argument above. Nor did I mention whether or not it was fair or unfair to tax the top 2% of wealth earners. I merely argued that according to the Constitution, those tax dollars that come out of your income do belong to the fed.
Click to expand...

Well, excuse me for actually addressing the topic of this thread. You are right, I am one of the 53% that pays taxes but am not part of the 2% that will have their taxes raised if the Democrats have their way. I really don't care what someone else pays in taxes but I do challenge the claim that the GOP plan to extend tax cuts to the top income earners will added 36 billion to the debt. Like with everything else when you reduce incentive less is achieved. Raising taxes changes human behavior. I do not support raising taxes on anyone that pays taxes and if the liberals truly wanted more revenue they would actually get something from those who pay no income taxes.
 
Conservative said:
Well, excuse me for actually addressing the topic of this thread. You are right, I am one of the 53% that pays taxes but am not part of the 2% that will have their taxes raised if the Democrats have their way. I really don't care what someone else pays in taxes but I do challenge the claim that the GOP plan to extend tax cuts to the top income earners will added 36 billion to the debt. Like with everything else when you reduce incentive less is achieved. Raising taxes changes human behavior. I do not support raising taxes on anyone that pays taxes and if the liberals truly wanted more revenue they would actually get something from those who pay no income taxes.
Click to expand...
so you support taking from those who have the least to give, so those that have the most can keep it .......
 
Conservative said:
Well, excuse me for actually addressing the topic of this thread. You are right, I am one of the 53% that pays taxes but am not part of the 2% that will have their taxes raised if the Democrats have their way. I really don't care what someone else pays in taxes but I do challenge the claim that the GOP plan to extend tax cuts to the top income earners will added 36 billion to the debt. Like with everything else when you reduce incentive less is achieved. Raising taxes changes human behavior. I do not support raising taxes on anyone that pays taxes and if the liberals truly wanted more revenue they would actually get something from those who pay no income taxes.
Click to expand...

But again, I wasn't addressing anything you're ranting about here. I was merely making the argument - successfully I might add - that those tax dollars do belong to the fed in accordance with the Constitution.
 
randel said:
so you support taking from those who have the least to give, so those that have the most can keep it .......
Click to expand...

Just like you know that the rich can pay more in taxes you seem to know that those that don't pay taxes can't pay anything? Interesting, where do you get your information and how did you develop the ability to know the financial condition of all Americans?
 
Objective Voice said:
But again, I wasn't addressing anything you're ranting about here. I was merely making the argument - successfully I might add - that those tax dollars do belong to the fed in accordance with the Constitution.
Click to expand...


I was addressing the thread topic, care to address that? Income tax dollars come from personal income earned by individuals and companies. Think that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the top income earners will generate 36 billion in revenue to the govt?
 
Conservative said:
Just like you know that the rich can pay more in taxes you seem to know that those that don't pay taxes can't pay anything? Interesting, where do you get your information and how did you develop the ability to know the financial condition of all Americans?
Click to expand...
i went to 'conservative's know all and see all school of economics and economic theory'...:2wave: seems to work for you figured i'd give it a try:mrgreen:
 
randel said:
i went to 'conservative's know all and see all school of economics and economic theory'...:2wave: seems to work for you figured i'd give it a try:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

You were warned once about baiting and trolling so let's not go there again. Address the thread topic or don't respond at all.
 
Conservative said:
You were warned once about baiting and trolling so let's not go there again. Address the thread topic or don't respond at all.
Click to expand...
don't you worry about me son, i've got this all under control:cool: and please don't think your going to be the one telling when i can or can not post....mmmmmmkay? have a nice day:2wave:
 
randel said:
don't you worry about me son, i've got this all under control:cool: and please don't think your going to be the one telling when i can or can not post....mmmmmmkay? have a nice day:2wave:
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you or anyone else to prove that the GOP plan to extend the tax cuts for the rich will add 36 billion to the deficit? You continue to believe what the Democrats tell you yet for some reason ignore the fact that all their economic predictions have been wrong.
 
zimmer said:
Ahhh... a couple of well trained class warfare monkey's.

1. It's not the government's money.
2. The government wasn't designed to steal wealth of private individuals and "spread the stolen wealth around".
3. That money is better in the hands of the individual, than the bloated government.
4. It's time to cut and gut government, not the individual.

The class warfare card is an amazing one to watch... and sad too.

Did you ever for a millisecond think that a reduction in taxes, and an even further reduction, say to the 28% level of Reagan and agreed by Democrats, would loosen up money, create jobs, and strengthen the economy over the long term? :doh

JFK spelled it out long ago... but today's Dem is not what Dems used to be.
They're true Marxist styled, class warfare zombies.
Click to expand...
JFK was a deficit hawk, so when LBJ passed his tax cuts they were offset by closing tax loopholes. Do you really want to claim Reagan and Bush Jr. were not big spenders? Were they Marxist? :rofl
 
Conservative said:
Still waiting for you or anyone else to prove that the GOP plan to extend the tax cuts for the rich will add 36 billion to the deficit? You continue to believe what the Democrats tell you yet for some reason ignore the fact that all their economic predictions have been wrong.
Click to expand...
and you continue to believe everything that the republicans tell you, and for some reason ignore that their economic predictions have been wrong....(see how that works? remove democrat and replace it with republican) . several people have explained this to you, you choose to ignore them, so, what is the point of going over this with you again?? there isnt one, and i'm not going to waste my time...your grasp of economics isnt as strong as you think it is, again, something that has been pointed out to you before. have a nice day
 
Conservative said:
Still waiting for you or anyone else to prove that the GOP plan to extend the tax cuts for the rich will add 36 billion to the deficit? You continue to believe what the Democrats tell you yet for some reason ignore the fact that all their economic predictions have been wrong.
Click to expand...

Why does ANYONE need to prove anything to YOU, you would just personally attack them if they did.
 
pbrauer said:
JFK was a deficit hawk, so when LBJ passed his tax cuts they were offset by closing tax loopholes. Do you really want to claim Reagan and Bush Jr. were not big spenders? Were they Marxist? :rofl
Click to expand...

I was around during JFK and at that time was being raised a Democrat. JFK understood the value of tax cuts and that is exactly what he did in his short tenure. JFK understand that you don't grow tax revenue by raising taxes and thus wouldn't buy this thread topic IMO. His actions spoke louder than the liberal of today's rhetoric.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom