• 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!

CBS News Poll: Most Oppose GOP Tax Plan

Last edited:
Z3n said:
MONDRAGON Corporation - International Business Group
Click to expand...

So in your example...where program managers make 9-1 of the salary of the worker...even they, according to the chairman are facing 'traditional' troubles normally associated with these types of well meaning ventures...

"All this has been compounded by a fairly profound crisis of values, with some clearly appearing to be in decline, such as responsibility, work-well done, endeavour, solidarity, collective advancement…, being replaced by more material ones that have taken hold amongst us and become part of the landscape of our everyday paradigms. If we add to this the lack of confidence in the markets and of trust in politicians and institutions, the outlook for the coming years is not all that promising"

Oh...Im sure they will survive in some capacity...just as Im sure Jose María Aldecoa has a net worth that is considerably more than the average copper winder. And as I said...you are MORE than able to start such a venture here. Cant WAIT to see how it turns out. My guess is surprisingly similar to the empowered labor unons that priced themselves out of jobs...but...go for it.
 
RightinNYC said:
If you make minimum wage, you are in the top few percent of the wealthiest people in the world. If you keep any of that money while the world starves, you're a selfish bastard who deserves to be burned at the state.

Make sense?
Click to expand...

I assume you mean stake? And yeah minimum wage is comparatively wealthy to other nations. But when you work and live in America you can barely survive. Prices represent overall wealth ignoring that is foolish.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Is this your personal confession, Mr. unwilling taxpayer with 11,200 posts, mostly complaining about taxes (which, BTW, are the lowest in 60 years
Recession, Stimulus Shrink US Tax Burden to Its Lowest Since 1950 ) ?
Click to expand...
Tax revenue might be "the lowest in 60 years" because the economy sucks worse than it has in 60 years. People without jobs don't pay income taxes. People without money don't spend as much.

The overall effective federal tax rate is still quite high from an historical standpoint -- and will remain so despite changes to federal income taxes mostly because of the costs of social insurance programs.
 
Taylor said:
The overall effective federal tax rate is still quite high from an historical standpoint
Click to expand...

Do you have data to support this?

The idea that effective marginal taxes at the federal level are quite high historical seems quite wrong considering the truly massive amount of deductions and credits allowed coupled with historically low statutory rates. 35% is a low statutory rate compared to the 90+% the US has seen before and the lack of tax expenditures.
 
obvious Child said:
Do you have data to support this?

The idea that effective marginal taxes at the federal level are quite high historical seems quite wrong considering the truly massive amount of deductions and credits allowed coupled with historically low statutory rates. 35% is a low statutory rate compared to the 90+% the US has seen before and the lack of tax expenditures.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I didn't mean to say federal - what I meant was effective average tax rate, to include state and local... how much of your income is consumed by government.

CBO has data on the effective federal tax rate, but it only goes back to 1979. You can't really "eyeball it" using the top rate. As you say deductions and credits varied considerably. So did the brackets. For example, the 90+% rate you speak of affected very, very few people - you'd have have an income of about 3.75 million dollars.
 
Taylor said:
Sorry, I didn't mean to say federal - what I meant was effective average tax rate, to include state and local... how much of your income is consumed by government.
Click to expand...

Well, that is hard to say. State and local taxes vary so much across the country it's hard to make such a broad assertion. No question that parts of the country, like NYC have record high effective rates for their residents. But other states like Wyoming have very low.

But at a federal level we have likely one of the lowest effective averages. Tax expenditures alone cost us over $1 trillion. I got clients who are making exorbitant sums of cash who's effective rates are well below 20%.

CBO has data on the effective federal tax rate, but it only goes back to 1979. You can't really "eyeball it" using the top rate.
Click to expand...

But you can when you account for tax expenditures which have grown and grown and grown.

As you say deductions and credits varied considerably.
Click to expand...

Not so much. Deductions and credits have expanded to likely record proportions. The US government forgoes over a trillion in taxes alone by such reductions to taxable income and taxes. If we got rid of all tax expenditures, we could dramatically close the deficit not to mention take down a large percent of the debt within 5 years.

So did the brackets. For example, the 90+% rate you speak of affected very, very few people - you'd have have an income of about 3.75 million dollars.
Click to expand...

True, but that 90% and the brackets down to 60% did affect a large percent of people over the time they were enacted.
 
haymarket said:
I have looked and looked and cannot find those rights you previously listed in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Did I say they were in the Constitution? And if you were looking for them there....well...nevermind. I'll be nice. :)
Now, are you saying we do not have those inalianable rights?
 
WeAreReborn said:
Isn't the right to life the right to food, shelter and healthcare? All three of those guarantee such a right. Though education is not covered, do you think it should be privatized? If it is done so, the poor class wouldn't be able to afford it, the majority of labor would be unskilled and more jobs would be outsourced.
Click to expand...

It means no one has the right to take your life. It's your job to feed, shelter , and cloth yourself. If you want healthcare, and an education, figure out a way to pay for it. What? You think the government is your Mommy?
 
Barbbtx said:
Now, are you saying we do not have those inalianable rights?
Click to expand...

Oh we have the rights. They just aren't inalienable. Nature shows that all "rights" are based upon the capacity of force to ensure them. The Constitution is just a piece of paper. Without people willing to enforce by violence if necessary the rights written on Constitution, the rights do not exist.
 
Taylor said:
Tax revenue might be "the lowest in 60 years" because the economy sucks worse than it has in 60 years. People without jobs don't pay income taxes. People without money don't spend as much.

The overall effective federal tax rate is still quite high from an historical standpoint -- and will remain so despite changes to federal income taxes mostly because of the costs of social insurance programs.
Click to expand...

No, its not. The effective tax rates are the lowest in 60 years. I am not talking about tax revenues, I am talking about taxes paid as a percentage of income.

Note the table of effective tax rates by income bracket since 1979.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2007/11/03/nytimes-historical-tax-rates-by-income-group/

I will produce one that goes back to 1950.

It is time for conservatives to stop whining and just pay their share of citizenship.
 
Last edited:
Cole said:
You seem to be consumed with you own impression of how valuable you are to the job market. If you can't find a ****ing job in two ****ing years maybe you need to rethink how precious you really are. 90% of the population has managed to find work...



.
Click to expand...

No, 90% of the population has not "managed to find work.
1. The 10% figure is the government figure which does not include "discouraged workers" who are no longer looking (in fact, quite likely most of the unemployed are in this category - that would put the rate at well above 20%.
2. The rate is likely higher than that because 8 million illegal aliens are considered part of the employed sector, and, as foreign nationals, they shouldn't be positively be figured in as US employment.
3. % get even higher when you consider legal aliens in the US on work permits (why are these still being granted ?)
4. The % gets still higher when you consider foreign workers outside the US, but working for US companies - figured in as US employment. (NOT !)
5. The scenario I described wasn't supposed to be me. It fits millions of unemployed Americans.
6. Most of the 90% you mention (which is really about 60%), has not "managed to find work" because they have been on their jobs for longer than 1 year (the time frame used to tabulate unemployment statistics - like your 90%). So that leaves us with what ? 20% who have "managed to find work" ? I'd guess it's more like 10%.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
Well, that is hard to say. State and local taxes vary so much across the country it's hard to make such a broad assertion. No question that parts of the country, like NYC have record high effective rates for their residents. But other states like Wyoming have very low.
Click to expand...
It's not really that hard if you're considering the aggregate value and looking at broad changes over time.

obvious Child said:
But at a federal level we have likely one of the lowest effective averages. Tax expenditures alone cost us over $1 trillion. I got clients who are making exorbitant sums of cash who's effective rates are well below 20%.
Click to expand...
I believe you, although a few case studies of individuals in the higher income brackets isn't a very convincing case for assessing historical averages.

obvious Child said:
But you can when you account for tax expenditures which have grown and grown and grown.
Click to expand...
They grew and grew and grew and then were cut significantly in 1986 with the Reagan tax cuts, which were designed to lower brackets but bring in the same amount of revenue through a reduction of deductions, credits, and exemptions. They're no doubt growing again, but we'd really need to take a look at the actual data to be able to make any credible assumptions.

obvious Child said:
Not so much. Deductions and credits have expanded to likely record proportions. The US government forgoes over a trillion in taxes alone by such reductions to taxable income and taxes. If we got rid of all tax expenditures, we could dramatically close the deficit not to mention take down a large percent of the debt within 5 years.
Click to expand...
I can't even imagine the negative consequences of such a proposal... talk about a housing crisis.

obvious Child said:
True, but that 90% and the brackets down to 60% did affect a large percent of people over the time they were enacted.
Click to expand...
Large percent? Especially given that this is net income, I'd guess less than 1% of the population.
 
upsideguy said:
No, its not. The effective tax rates are the lowest in 60 years. I am not talking about tax revenues, I am talking about taxes paid as a percentage of income.

Note the table of effective tax rates by income bracket since 1979.

Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households

Historical Tax Rates by Income Group [NYTimes]

I will produce one that goes back to 1950.

It is time for conservatives to stop whining and just pay their share of citizenship.
Click to expand...
Be sure to include payroll taxes in the calculations.
 
Protectionist said:
No, 90% of the population has not "managed to find work.
1. The 10% figure is the government figure which does not include "discouraged workers" who are no longer looking (in fact, quite likely most of the unemployed are in this category - that would put the rate at well above 20%.
2. The rate is likely higher than that because 8 million illegal aliens are considered part of the employed sector, and, as foreign nationals, they shouldn't be positively be figured in as US employment.
3. % get even higher when you consider legal aliens in the US on work permits (why are these still being granted ?)
4. The % gets still higher when you consider foreign workers outside the US, but working for US companies - figured in as US employment. (NOT !)
5. The scenario I described wasn't supposed to be me. It fits millions of unemployed Americans.
6. Most of the 90% you mention (which is really about 60%), has not "managed to find work" because they have been on their jobs for longer than 1 year (the time frame used to tabulate unemployment statistics - like your 90%). So that leaves us with what ? 20% who have "managed to find work" ? I'd guess it's more like 10%.
Click to expand...

There are quite literally millions of jobs available. There are MANY millions of jobs being filled by unskilled illegal laborers. The problem is people are unskilled or unqualifed. People dont 'think' when they go to college...what do you REALLY think a liberal arts degree is going do for you? Do you REALLY believe the college of massage therapy is going to prepare you for a future? If ITT tech is graduating (guaranteed to graduate no less) thousands of new computer technicians do you REALLy think those jobs will be readily available? Oh...and following the latest trend...sorry...there simply arent THAT many 'CSI' jobs out there...and when a PD actually HAS a CSI department they dont typically hire sexxxy quirky females fresh out of college. If you get a degree in math, but have no desire to teach, and cant find a job AS a math, getting an ADVANCED degree in the same subject isnt likely to make you more marketable.

Social services, med related (including the med science, equipment fields) are sure hire fields for people that are worth a damn. COmputing skills are a must. You better be skilled using Adobe, databases, spreadsheets, etc if you want a leg up on hiring. And you better know your state/region markets. If you have basic competencies jobs are still easily available. We cant FILL some positions.
 
VanceMack said:
There are quite literally millions of jobs available. There are MANY millions of jobs being filled by unskilled illegal laborers. The problem is people are unskilled or unqualifed. People dont 'think' when they go to college...what do you REALLY think a liberal arts degree is going do for you? Do you REALLY believe the college of massage therapy is going to prepare you for a future? If ITT tech is graduating (guaranteed to graduate no less) thousands of new computer technicians do you REALLy think those jobs will be readily available? Oh...and following the latest trend...sorry...there simply arent THAT many 'CSI' jobs out there...and when a PD actually HAS a CSI department they dont typically hire sexxxy quirky females fresh out of college. If you get a degree in math, but have no desire to teach, and cant find a job AS a math, getting an ADVANCED degree in the same subject isnt likely to make you more marketable.

Social services, med related (including the med science, equipment fields) are sure hire fields for people that are worth a damn. COmputing skills are a must. You better be skilled using Adobe, databases, spreadsheets, etc if you want a leg up on hiring. And you better know your state/region markets. If you have basic competencies jobs are still easily available. We cant FILL some positions.
Click to expand...

This is a good and relevant post. I would add though, that there's a large (and unfortunately growing) segment of the workforce that is unemployable or difficult to get work, no matter what skills they have.

One of these is older people. If blacks and women think they have it tough being discriminated against, just wait until you hit 62, and employers know you can get Social Security without working. It's like the old overqualified thing where they think you'll quit when a more suitable job shows up. For that matter, employers also think about how long you'll live. They want young people in their 20's and 30's who they hope will stay with the company for 30 or 40 years, like my father who worked for the local utility company for 47 years. Only job he ever had.

Then there's all the people who don't have an immaculate work history. In a severe recession, employers weed these out, and then look at all the goody two shoes who have no unemployment gaps, don't have too many former employers, strong references from former employers (many employers don't give quality references), experience within the last 2 years (while disqualifying applicants with earlier experience even if it's extensive), medical problem or criminal history > forget it, etc. Many of these people could/would be good workers, but they don't get s shot to prove themselves. I'm sure others could add more to this list including employers, or former employers, which I am.

It's a lot more complex than "just the get some training" concept.
 
Last edited:
Barbbtx said:
Just 26 percent of Americans say they support extending the cuts for all Americans, even those earning above the $250,000 level, which is the GOP proposal.

And the rest of them want all of them to expire.
Click to expand...

what? really? link?
 
mtm1963 said:
Most people don't know that most of the tax cuts are going to those who make 250,000 or less, not those who make more then 250,000.

mtm1963
Click to expand...

I do I do! Tax cuts for the top 2% cost roughly $135 billion over the next 2 years. Estate Tax cuts another few billion. Other than that, you are absolutely correct.

I have said from the beginning this was a good compromise if one were looking to add economic stimulus and not just entitlements. The middle class and small businesses will enjoy a 2% reduction in payroll taxes. What bothers me is the GOP's refusal to pay for any of this. After all, where the top 2% are concerned, we were only talking a return to 39% from the current 36%. And we both know legitimate business concerns can pay much less and often do. In this case, small business tax cuts and incentives by way of investment write-offs for the next decade, plus hiring and payroll tax breaks which more than make up the difference. All in all, not bad.

Of course, I'm not happy about ethanol subsidies, either (ruse!), but rural, conservative congressmen insisted. Oh well, whatcha gonna do?

Has it ever struck folks as funny that the people on their bully pulpits screaming they are abused by taxes (Palin, Beck, Hannity, Pick A Righty Pundit), are the very same people who would benefit most from permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, yet they produce nothing? Because, honestly, middle class Americans should be cheering from the roof tops over this administration's commitment to the middle class and small business. The record is there if you want to honestly look at it.

I never forget: Conservative strategists have always attacked strengths, never weaknesses. If something or someone is being attacked from the bully pulpit, it is probably a decent policy or person, in my experience.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
No, its not. The effective tax rates are the lowest in 60 years. I am not talking about tax revenues, I am talking about taxes paid as a percentage of income.

Note the table of effective tax rates by income bracket since 1979.

Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households

Historical Tax Rates by Income Group [NYTimes]

I will produce one that goes back to 1950.

It is time for conservatives to stop whining and just pay their share of citizenship.
Click to expand...

you libs always want people who pay most of the taxes to pay MORE for their citizenship while never saying anything about the almost 50% of the population that pay almost no federal income taxes. Seems like your anger is misplaced.
 
Kev316 said:
I do I do! Tax cuts for the top 2% cost roughly $135 billion over the next 2 years. Estate Tax cuts another few billion. Other than that, you are absolutely correct.

I have said from the beginning this was a good compromise if one were looking to add economic stimulus and not just entitlements. The middle class and small businesses will enjoy a 2% reduction in payroll taxes. What bothers me is the GOP's refusal to pay for any of this. After all, where the top 2% are concerned, we were only talking a return to 39% from the current 36%. And we both know legitimate business concerns can pay much less and often do. In this case, small business tax cuts and incentives by way of investment write-offs for the next decade, plus hiring and payroll tax breaks which more than make up the difference. All in all, not bad.

Of course, I'm not happy about ethanol subsidies, either (ruse!), but rural, conservative congressmen insisted. Oh well, whatcha gonna do?

Has it ever struck folks as funny that the people on their bully pulpits screaming they are abused by taxes (Palin, Beck, Hannity, Pick A Righty Pundit), are the very same people who would benefit most from permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, yet they produce nothing? Because, honestly, middle class Americans should be cheering from the roof tops over this administration's commitment to the middle class and small business. The record is there if you want to honestly look at it.

I never forget: Conservative strategists have always attacked strengths, never weaknesses. If something or someone is being attacked from the bully pulpit, it is probably a decent policy or person, in my experience.
Click to expand...

tax cuts cost nothing

but since you want to play that game, what does it cost us to have 47% of the people not paying any income tax? and since you are a fan of the death tax, why not expand it way beyond the 1 percent that are saddled with this abomination now?
 
Barbbtx said:
It means no one has the right to take your life. It's your job to feed, shelter , and cloth yourself. If you want healthcare, and an education, figure out a way to pay for it. What? You think the government is your Mommy?
Click to expand...

No in fact I dislike the government immensely. However, if it is in existence it might as well do something useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom