• 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 budget resurrects rejected tax increases

TurtleDude said:
raising taxes on the rich won't eliminate the cause of the massive deficit. the cause of that is politicians pandering to the majority of voters by giving them what they want without (costing themselves votes) by telling those who want the goodies have to pay for it with tax increases
you tax hikers never want to deal with the long term issues You want to jack up taxes on the rich which only encourages more and more pandering and spending.
Click to expand...

I would be willing to make cuts. Let's be serious about it though. Let's talk about cutting some of the untouchables. Let's break into military funding a bit - there are a lot of rumors of $50 staplers.

TurtleDude said:
that was a jacking up

for more than half of this country's history there was not any income tax-the massive top marginal rates (which created an effective tax rate not really higher than it was under Clinton) were two huge world wars less than a generation apart.

most of those targeted for the clinton obama tax hikes are paying more than 17% marginal rate

but everyone ought to pay the same rate mainly so we don't have the problems that come from majority not having to pay for the stuff they want-which is why we have such massive spending
Click to expand...

Not according to the IRS which studied the top 100 earners in the US and found that they averaged a 17% income tax rate. Now that's on taxable income and anyone with that kind of money is likely to be very good at making income not taxable. It's really easy.

When you figure in the income that's hidden in derivatives, off-shore accounts, and other reinvestment strategies, their income tax rate is much lower than that!
 
Catawba said:
It would not be jacking up taxes on the top income earners, it would be eliminating the tax cuts the wealthiest enjoyed for years. And your claim doesn't hold up to the light of our own history. Our major debt didn't occur until after we cut US revenue by slashing the top tax rates. While no one is arguing that wasteful govenment spending doesn't need to be eliminated, if we are serious about addressing our huge National debt, we will have to address both spending and revenue.
Click to expand...

the wealthiest pay far more than they use and that causes the others to demand more stuff since they dont have to pay for it

the rich do not have a moral duty to pay for all the crap people like you want

if you are serious about stopping a massive deficit the only way to do that is to make all America responsible for paying that debt and the mass majority of people DO NOTand thus HAVE NO INCENTIVE to stop the spending
 
TurtleDude said:
how is someone making 300-500K a year "super wealthy"
Click to expand...

Where did I say they were?

yet these are the people who are targeted to suffer the brunt of the dem tax hikes
Click to expand...

If you prefer, I would go along with return to a progressive tax system where the top tax rate was approx. 80%. This would be equitable as the the top 20% of income earners own 85% of the wealth in the country.
 
whysoserious said:
I would be willing to make cuts. Let's be serious about it though. Let's talk about cutting some of the untouchables. Let's break into military funding a bit - there are a lot of rumors of $50 staplers.



Not according to the IRS which studied the top 100 earners in the US and found that they averaged a 17% income tax rate. Now that's on taxable income and anyone with that kind of money is likely to be very good at making income not taxable. It's really easy.

When you figure in the income that's hidden in derivatives, off-shore accounts, and other reinvestment strategies, their income tax rate is much lower than that!
Click to expand...

when you and the rest like you limit your tax hike schemes to the top 100 earners you might have a point

those of us in the 250K to a couple million cohort don't have these accounts etc

we are the ones most massively hit but the hikes
 
whysoserious said:
I would be willing to make cuts. Let's be serious about it though. Let's talk about cutting some of the untouchables. Let's break into military funding a bit - there are a lot of rumors of $50 staplers.



Not according to the IRS which studied the top 100 earners in the US and found that they averaged a 17% income tax rate. Now that's on taxable income and anyone with that kind of money is likely to be very good at making income not taxable. It's really easy.

When you figure in the income that's hidden in derivatives, off-shore accounts, and other reinvestment strategies, their income tax rate is much lower than that!
Click to expand...

So you think rich democrats are not going to leave tax loopholes so they don't have to pay taxes. This is why we need to scrap the present system
 
Catawba said:
Where did I say they were?



If you prefer, I would go along with return to a progressive tax system where the top tax rate was approx. 80%. This would be equitable as the the top 20% of income earners own 85% of the wealth in the country.
Click to expand...

So you want wealth redistribution
 
Catawba said:
Where did I say they were?



If you prefer, I would go along with return to a progressive tax system where the top tax rate was approx. 80%. This would be equitable as the the top 20% of income earners own 85% of the wealth in the country.
Click to expand...



they dont use 85% of the government services

why do people like you always base it on ability to pay versus what people use

its not my fault someone else wants 50,000 a year in government services but only wants to pay 1000 dollars in the taxes that fund the services

if you cannot pay for what you want you really have no right to demand others be taxed more to pay for it especially if those others have no fault for your inability to pay
 
ptif219 said:
So you think rich democrats are not going to leave tax loopholes so they don't have to pay taxes. This is why we need to scrap the present system
Click to expand...

of course he does

in their world I'd pay 50 bucks for a Quarter Pounder
 
ptif219 said:
So you think rich democrats are not going to leave tax loopholes so they don't have to pay taxes. This is why we need to scrap the present system
Click to expand...

the biggest loophole in the world is getting full citizenship benefits without paying your share for them and that means more than half the country

and the libs act as if its our fault that they cannot foot the bill--its like blaming an A student for some screw off's D grade or blaming Rafa Nadal that other guys cannot win Major Clay Court titles
 
ptif219 said:
So you think rich democrats are not going to leave tax loopholes so they don't have to pay taxes. This is why we need to scrap the present system
Click to expand...

Or reform it... whatever. Either way, we need more income and less expendatures. If you think you have a grand plan, that sounds good, let's hear it.

I am just tired of hearing "cut taxes and cut spending". It's rhetoric and not realistic.
 
TurtleDude said:
the wealthiest pay far more than they use and that causes the others to demand more stuff since they dont have to pay for it

the rich do not have a moral duty to pay for all the crap people like you want

if you are serious about stopping a massive deficit the only way to do that is to make all America responsible for paying that debt and the mass majority of people DO NOTand thus HAVE NO INCENTIVE to stop the spending
Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion. Now let's review the facts:


"A remarkable study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) reveals that Americans have no idea that the wealth distribution (defined for them in terms of "net worth") is as concentrated as it is. When shown three pie charts representing possible wealth distributions, 90% or more of the 5,522 respondents -- whatever their gender, age, income level, or party affiliation -- thought that the American wealth distribution most resembled one in which the top 20% has about 60% of the wealth. In fact, of course, the top 20% control about 85% of the wealth"

"The ratio of CEO pay to factory worker pay rose from 42:1 in 1960 to as high as 531:1 in 2000"

"Most amazing of all, the top 0.1% -- that's one-tenth of one percent -- had more combined pre-tax income than the poorest 120 million people (Johnston, 2006)."

"Furthermore, if the top 20% have 84% of the wealth (and recall that 10% have 85% to 90% of the stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity), that means that the United States is a power pyramid. It's tough for the bottom 80% -- maybe even the bottom 90% -- to get organized and exercise much power."

"only 39 of the 134 countries have worse income inequality."

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

It is clear to see how this disparity came about by observing how the top tax rates were slashed:

6a00d83454b17a69e20115711eec3b970b-800wi


Top Marginal Tax rates since 1913 & Great Depression (Designing better futures)
 
ptif219 said:
So you want wealth redistribution
Click to expand...

No, you do. You want the tax system changed which would more than likely distribute even more wealth up top. So, therefore, you want to redistribute wealth.

Wow, talking points are easy!
 
whysoserious said:
Or reform it... whatever. Either way, we need more income and less expendatures. If you think you have a grand plan, that sounds good, let's hear it.

I am just tired of hearing "cut taxes and cut spending". It's rhetoric and not realistic.
Click to expand...

Cut spending and subsidies and go to fair tax act
 
whysoserious said:
No, you do. You want the tax system changed which would more than likely distribute even more wealth up top. So, therefore, you want to redistribute wealth.

Wow, talking points are easy!
Click to expand...

You are wrong
 
Catawba said:
Thanks for your opinion. Now let's review the facts:


"A remarkable study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) reveals that Americans have no idea that the wealth distribution (defined for them in terms of "net worth") is as concentrated as it is. When shown three pie charts representing possible wealth distributions, 90% or more of the 5,522 respondents -- whatever their gender, age, income level, or party affiliation -- thought that the American wealth distribution most resembled one in which the top 20% has about 60% of the wealth. In fact, of course, the top 20% control about 85% of the wealth"

"The ratio of CEO pay to factory worker pay rose from 42:1 in 1960 to as high as 531:1 in 2000"

"Most amazing of all, the top 0.1% -- that's one-tenth of one percent -- had more combined pre-tax income than the poorest 120 million people (Johnston, 2006)."

"Furthermore, if the top 20% have 84% of the wealth (and recall that 10% have 85% to 90% of the stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity), that means that the United States is a power pyramid. It's tough for the bottom 80% -- maybe even the bottom 90% -- to get organized and exercise much power."

"only 39 of the 134 countries have worse income inequality."

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

It is clear to see how this disparity came about by observing how the top tax rates were slashed:

6a00d83454b17a69e20115711eec3b970b-800wi


Top Marginal Tax rates since 1913 & Great Depression (Designing better futures)
Click to expand...

that is a complete fail when it comes to addressing either

1) cutting down on more government growth

2) and making those who demand more government pay for it rather than forcing such duty on those who already pay for most of the federal government
 
ptif219 said:
You are wrong
Click to expand...

socialists think those who win in a capitalist system are"Given" money just like those who get handouts from welfare socialism

they think that the government is responsible for the rich being rich and thus the government has the right to take away what it has given
 
ptif219 said:
Cut spending and subsidies and go to fair tax act
Click to expand...

I do not have any fundamental problems with the fair tax. I think it has promise and, in theory, could work. The only real issues I see with it is that it taxes consumption, so it could cause the rich to spend less, especially on American goods, which would cause even more cash hoarding.

If there is a big fair tax on that new jet they want, they may just go somewhere else and buy it or avoid it all together. It does not address the issue of people who have entirely too much money.

ptif219 said:
You are wrong
Click to expand...

Great debating with you. Well, I wouldn't call it debating. :)
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
that is a complete fail when it comes to addressing either
Click to expand...

More of the usual from you, heavy on opionion and shy of facts to back them up. If you have facts to counter what I've presented, post them, as I have little regard for your opinion as it has been proven wrong so many times.
 
Catawba said:
More of the usual from you, heavy on opionion and shy of facts to back them up. If you have facts to counter what I've presented, post them, as I have little regard for your opinion as it has been proven wrong so many times.
Click to expand...

my opinion-people ought to pay for what they want and if they cannot afford to pay for that they have no moral authority demanding others pay for it

so how are my opinions "wrong"

and neither you nor the other welfare socialists ever proven anything I have stated is "Wrong"
 
one does not disprove a life philosophy based on an appeal to numbers. I couldn't care less how much wealth is owned by who or what. It has no relevance in my believe that you should pay for what you demand and if you dont have the means to afford what you want, you arent entitled to demand others pay for it unless and only if you can establish that either your legitimate need or your inability to pay for what you want was directly caused by those you seek payment from
 
TurtleDude said:
my opinion-people ought to pay for what they want and if they cannot afford to pay for that they have no moral authority demanding others pay for it

so how are my opinions "wrong"

and neither you nor the other welfare socialists ever proven anything I have stated is "Wrong"
Click to expand...

Right, but you have to understand the idea of someone's worth is also subjective. They are paid a subjective salary, taxed a subjective amount, etc. So the amount of money an individual has does not necessarily define that individual or make them any less hardworking.

Pay them more and they can afford it and then all of the sudden they aren't bums anymore. Have you seen teacher's salaries recently?

They can't afford much if anything at all... do you think they don't deserve a good life as much as anyone else? What determines someone's worth?
 
Catawba said:
Thanks! If you ever find some facts to back it up, please let us know.
Click to expand...

i guess you really cannot understand the issue

and what facts have you ever posted that support your belief that income redistribution is more "good" than my belief

maybe you will post facts proving that Red is a better color than green while you are at it

you really aren't very knowledgeable about this concept are you?
 
whysoserious said:
I do not have any fundamental problems with the fair tax. I think it has promise and, in theory, could work. The only real issues I see with it is that it taxes consumption, so it could cause the rich to spend less, especially on American goods, which would cause even more cash hoarding.

If there is a big fair tax on that new jet they want, they may just go somewhere else and buy it or avoid it all together. It does not address the issue of people who have entirely too much money.



Great debating with you. Well, I wouldn't call it debating. :)
Click to expand...

So people work hard and make money and you decide how much they should have?
 
whysoserious said:
Right, but you have to understand the idea of someone's worth is also subjective. They are paid a subjective salary, taxed a subjective amount, etc. So the amount of money an individual has does not necessarily define that individual or make them any less hardworking.

Pay them more and they can afford it and then all of the sudden they aren't bums anymore. Have you seen teacher's salaries recently?

They can't afford much if anything at all... do you think they don't deserve a good life as much as anyone else? What determines someone's worth?
Click to expand...

when we cut away all the crap,all the nonsense, all the artificial parameters, all that is left is nature. and in nature, those who don't produce don't survive/ is that "fair"? who knows but its the undeniable reality of earth for as long as there has been life on this planet.

so when someone whines that its not fair that they aren't rich or they aren't smart or they arent lucky or they dont make a million or they aren't Tiger Woods or Brad Pitt or Paris Hilton it really is irrelevant.

if you -for whatever reason-bad luck, lack of talent poor parents, drug addictions, criminal records, etc-cannot pay for what you need you really have no moral claim upon someone else to pay for what you need unless they directly prevented you improperly from being able to get what you need
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom