• 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!

538: The GOP Tax Cuts Are Even More Unpopular Than Past Tax Hikes

JasperL said:
Or you can address this comment which was after the first time you resorted to ad hominem attacks:



If all you got is to make up positions and call me a liar, that's pathetic, but it's what I expect from some people on here. But I'm LMMFAO at someone who ignores multiple comments and can't do better than repeating brain dead talking points whining about someone else being intellectually dishonest. If you want to have a discussion above the level of 10 year olds, I'm good with that. If not, whatever, but don't make up **** and call me a liar. It's just SAD!
Click to expand...

I haven't launched any ad hom attacks, I simply don't believe you. People on the left oppose ANY reduction in tax rates for the 'rich' because it is part of leftist orthodoxy to demand that the rich pay ever more in taxes to compensate for the 'unfairness' of the free market. You guys dress it up and pretend you have rational, non-envy based reasons for opposing it, but you aren't fooling anyone.
 
Fletch said:
I haven't launched any ad hom attacks, I simply don't believe you. People on the left oppose ANY reduction in tax rates for the 'rich' because it is part of leftist orthodoxy to demand that the rich pay ever more in taxes to compensate for the 'unfairness' of the free market. You guys dress it up and pretend you have rational, non-envy based reasons for opposing it, but you aren't fooling anyone.
Click to expand...

Well, you're ignoring my comment and are whining about "the left" and calling me a liar, which is about as "ad hominem" as it gets. That's fine I just wanted to make sure the level of debate is 12 year olds - 6th grade or so - and you confirmed that so thanks I guess!

FWIW, I addressed your comment about tax cuts in general, the whole 'honesty' thing, and outlined some reasons why even in the context of tax cuts this bill is a POS. I know when we're on a 6th grade level of discussion that it's not possible for someone to grasp that I can accept tax cuts that I think are misguided and oppose them politically, but still fulfilling a campaign promise and the price of losing elections, AND have substantive complaints about how they went about it and the IMO POS final product, so I apologize for expecting more than that.
 
JasperL said:
If you want to substitute "For all purposes that matter to making decisions in the reality based world, it" for "it sometimes" and I'll agree with that.

Bottom line is there is a functionally 0% chance the tax cuts we are discussing will INCREASE government revenues. If the proposition is "there are cases in theory, in a reality not our own, in which a tax cut might increase revenue" that's true, but it's a red herring because we are in this reality nowhere NEAR the theoretical conditions in which a tax cut even MIGHT pay for itself with higher revenue.

So why bring it up? The only reason I know is to confuse what are very simple decisions. Tax cuts reduce revenues. If you want tax cuts, then where can we cut spending? Simple. On the other side, it's "spending requires higher taxes. If you want a new spending program, whose taxes will go up to pay for it."

Just as an aside, can you imagine the reaction if a theoretical Pres. Bernie Sanders proposed UHC then said on the campaign trail that the GOP has convinced him the Laffer Curve really IS real and he'll just keep cutting taxes to pay for his health care plan. And if we want free college, cut taxes some more!

A big chunk of the country believes some version of that - or says they do - including our current sitting Sec. of Treas!
Click to expand...

bravo, genius analogy.

If we want to introduce an infrastructure spending program and we need a trillion to do it.. why not cut taxes?

a simple, straight forward, explanation that unravels the claims of the charlatans who say cutting taxes increases revenue.
 
JasperL said:
Well, you're ignoring my comment and are whining about "the left" and calling me a liar, which is about as "ad hominem" as it gets. That's fine I just wanted to make sure the level of debate is 12 year olds - 6th grade or so - and you confirmed that so thanks I guess!

FWIW, I addressed your comment about tax cuts in general, the whole 'honesty' thing, and outlined some reasons why even in the context of tax cuts this bill is a POS. I know when we're on a 6th grade level of discussion that it's not possible for someone to grasp that I can accept tax cuts that I think are misguided and oppose them politically, but still fulfilling a campaign promise and the price of losing elections, AND have substantive complaints about how they went about it and the IMO POS final product, so I apologize for expecting more than that.
Click to expand...

You don't care about debt and you don't care about revenue. You care about using the tax code as a means of transferring wealth from those who have it to those you feel should have it. Pointing out this facet of liberal orthodoxy is not ad hom, nor is it 6th grade level debate. It is fact. If pointing that out upsets you, that is your problem. Perhaps you might adopt an ideology you don't have to hide from
 
Fletch said:
I haven't launched any ad hom attacks, I simply don't believe you. People on the left oppose ANY reduction in tax rates for the 'rich' because it is part of leftist orthodoxy to demand that the rich pay ever more in taxes to compensate for the 'unfairness' of the free market. You guys dress it up and pretend you have rational, non-envy based reasons for opposing it, but you aren't fooling anyone.
Click to expand...

Well said.............and so true!
 
Fletch said:
You don't care about debt and you don't care about revenue. You care about using the tax code as a means of transferring wealth from those who have it to those you feel should have it. Pointing out this facet of liberal orthodoxy is not ad hom, nor is it 6th grade level debate. It is fact. If pointing that out upsets you, that is your problem. Perhaps you might adopt an ideology you don't have to hide from
Click to expand...

what's wrong with income redistribution?
 
Winston said:
what's wrong with income redistribution?
Click to expand...

Apparently nothing, as long as it is distributed upwards, according to some people. What’s amazing is that under this tax law tens if not hundreds of thousands will die premature deaths, all for the sake of tax cuts for a handful of wealthy people. What’s even more amazing is that Republicans are making almost no effort to justify this massive upward redistribution of income. They’re doing it because they can, because they believe that the tribalism of their voters is strong enough that they will continue to support politicians who are ruining their lives.
 
Winston said:
what's wrong with income redistribution?
Click to expand...

You tell me. It is you guys who seem to be having all the trouble admitting that that is your real goal here and your real objection to the tax plan.
 
MTAtech said:
Apparently nothing, as long as it is distributed upwards, according to some people. What’s amazing is that under this tax law tens if not hundreds of thousands will die premature deaths, all for the sake of tax cuts for a handful of wealthy people. What’s even more amazing is that Republicans are making almost no effort to justify this massive upward redistribution of income. They’re doing it because they can, because they believe that the tribalism of their voters is strong enough that they will continue to support politicians who are ruining their lives.
Click to expand...

Total stupidity. From your first sentence to your last. You are the perfect example of Paul squealing because your ability to rob Peter has been curtailed. Go out and earn a living and stop stealing from others to cover your inadequacies.
 
Fletch said:
Total stupidity. From your first sentence to your last. You are the perfect example of Paul squealing because your ability to rob Peter has been curtailed. Go out and earn a living and stop stealing from others to cover your inadequacies.
Click to expand...
You have it backwards. The new tax law favors people who sit around the pool sipping mimosas compared to the people’s working to serve them the mamosas. A surgeon earning $500,000 working in a hospital will pay a higher tax than someone earning $500,000 in a real estate LLC. The new law also allows people, who didn’t work a day in their lives, to inherent millions and billions tax free. The new law, apart from your rant, discourages work, not encourages it.

My question to you is, why do you feel a need to shill for the idol rich? They pay lawyers and lobbyists to do that for them.

Moreover, redistribution of wealth from the rich, so as not to form dynasties like old Europe, is as American as Apple pie. It was the natural way to allow the working class to live better, own homes and educate their children, in the post New Deal era — in sharp contrast to the robber baron days of the 1920s.
 
OldFatGuy said:
It is thievery by another name.
Click to expand...

Yes, Republican donors, using their political influence, to get the GOP who control the national government to lower taxes on them, when there is no serious economic argument to do so, is thievery. Changing the bill to give Bob Corker a way of personal earning millions, in order to buy his vote, is bribery.

Like it or not, we have a Republican Party who is out to fleece the American people.
 
MTAtech said:
You have it backwards. The new tax law favors people who sit around the pool sipping mimosas compared to the people’s working to serve them the mamosas. A surgeon earning $500,000 working in a hospital will pay a higher tax than someone earning $500,000 in a real estate LLC. The new law also allows people, who didn’t work a day in their lives, to inherent millions and billions tax free. The new law, apart from your rant, discourages work, not encourages it.

My question to you is, why do you feel a need to shill for the idol rich? They pay lawyers and lobbyists to do that for them.

Moreover, redistribution of wealth from the rich, so as not to form dynasties like old Europe, is as American as Apple pie. It was the natural way to allow the working class to live better, own homes and educate their children, in the post New Deal era — in sharp contrast to the robber baron days of the 1920s.
Click to expand...

One good thing about you is you don't attempt to hide your hatred and envy for those who have more than you. The new law does not 'discourage work in any way. Are you somehow 'discouraged' from working? I'm not. Nor is anyone else. Face it, you would oppose ANY reduction in taxes for those who you identify as the rich. The essence of being a liberal is to feel entitled to things you didn't earn and to use the power of the state to rob your betters on your behalf. And no, I don't consider myself a 'shill for the rich.' I am defending the rights of people to keep what is rightfully their own. The difference between you and I is that I recognize the money in your pocket as rightfully your own and I have no claim upon it. And that principle doesn't change simply because you have a dollar more than I do.
 
MTAtech said:
Yes, Republican donors, using their political influence, to get the GOP who control the national government to lower taxes on them, when there is no serious economic argument to do so, is thievery. Changing the bill to give Bob Corker a way of personal earning millions, in order to buy his vote, is bribery.

Like it or not, we have a Republican Party who is out to fleece the American people.
Click to expand...

Allowing people to keep what is rightly their own is 'fleecing' them??? Perhaps you might look up the word. Plus, if I rob you at an ATM and the cops catch me and return to you your money, are they engaged in upward wealth redistribution and the 'fleecing' of my family?
 
MTAtech said:
Yes, Republican donors, using their political influence, to get the GOP who control the national government to lower taxes on them, when there is no serious economic argument to do so, is thievery. Changing the bill to give Bob Corker a way of personal earning millions, in order to buy his vote, is bribery.

Like it or not, we have a Republican Party who is out to fleece the American people.
Click to expand...

They are not feeling fleeced

https://www.cbsnews.com/videos/how-the-tax-bill-will-affect-the-returns-of-three-american-families/
 
MTAtech said:
You have it backwards. The new tax law favors people who sit around the pool sipping mimosas compared to the people’s working to serve them the mamosas. A surgeon earning $500,000 working in a hospital will pay a higher tax than someone earning $500,000 in a real estate LLC. The new law also allows people, who didn’t work a day in their lives, to inherent millions and billions tax free. The new law, apart from your rant, discourages work, not encourages it.

My question to you is, why do you feel a need to shill for the idol rich? They pay lawyers and lobbyists to do that for them.

Moreover, redistribution of wealth from the rich, so as not to form dynasties like old Europe, is as American as Apple pie. It was the natural way to allow the working class to live better, own homes and educate their children, in the post New Deal era — in sharp contrast to the robber baron days of the 1920s.
Click to expand...

I agree fully with that (bolded above) concept. The federal income tax (FIT) code should treat a given amount of annual income equally. Neither the source of that income nor how or upon who that income was later spent should be considered. There is no logical reason that two workers earning exactly the same annual income should pay a different amount of FIT based on how or upon who that identical income was later spent just as there is no reason how the income of two persons was derived (salary, wages, commission, piece rate or investment) should treat two identical amounts of annual income differently.

When it comes to long term capital gains, I would allow an adjustment for inflation. If someone buys property at "fair market value", holds it for X years, and then sells that property at "fair market value" then the gain should take into account the CPI inflation rate over those X years. Real estate is a bit more complex because buying a lot, then building (or repairing) a house or store on it, and later selling it must also allow deduction of the costs of the improvements made.
 
Last edited:
Fletch said:
One good thing about you is you don't attempt to hide your hatred and envy for those who have more than you. The new law does not 'discourage work in any way. Are you somehow 'discouraged' from working? I'm not. Nor is anyone else. Face it, you would oppose ANY reduction in taxes for those who you identify as the rich. The essence of being a liberal is to feel entitled to things you didn't earn and to use the power of the state to rob your betters on your behalf. And no, I don't consider myself a 'shill for the rich.' I am defending the rights of people to keep what is rightfully their own. The difference between you and I is that I recognize the money in your pocket as rightfully your own and I have no claim upon it. And that principle doesn't change simply because you have a dollar more than I do.
Click to expand...
You believe that “people keeping what is rightfully their own” — based upon privileges originally established in laws that the privileged wrote, is fair. I think that we live in a better country when the rich are taxed to help those who labor for the nation but don’t share in much of its benefits. I think that with all the moral fights to be waged, fighting for the rich to keep more of their money is misdirected effort.

In the end, my way works better and we have the past 100 years of history to prove it. A hundred years ago, the wealthy owners of production lived like royalty, while their workers lived in squalor. The poor and elderly died from malnutrition, homelessness and lack of medical care. FDR and the New Deal changed all of that. Through higher taxes on wealth, laws favoring union membership and progressive policies, the middle class grew and their income and standard of living surged — all making the U.S. the envy of the world.

Then came movement conservativism, that eroded much of what they New Deal accomplished. Now, Trump is trying to have us return to the Robber Baron days of the 1920s, when claw in tooth capitalists ruled. There is no doubt, they are trying to strip away everything gained in the last 100 years, including labor protections, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, environmental protection, etc.
 
Last edited:
It shows how ignorant the population is listening to the DNC, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, and major liberal news networks selling this as a "cut for the rich by screwing everyone else" which is wholly inaccurate. Maybe when the economy is in full swing, people keep more of their money, and they see the benefits of lower taxation they'll change their minds instead of joining the sheep in the groupthink.
 
digsbe said:
It shows how ignorant the population is listening to the DNC, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, and major liberal news networks selling this as a "cut for the rich by screwing everyone else" which is wholly inaccurate. Maybe when the economy is in full swing, people keep more of their money, and they see the benefits of lower taxation they'll change their minds instead of joining the sheep in the groupthink.
Click to expand...
Every independent analysis concluded that the economic benefit of this law is negligible. Perhaps you should evaluate your sources of information, instead of believing in the tax cut fairy. Moreover, there is no disputed that the middle class tax cuts expire, making taxes rise for the middle class beyond where they started.
 
Fletch said:
You don't care about debt and you don't care about revenue. You care about using the tax code as a means of transferring wealth from those who have it to those you feel should have it. Pointing out this facet of liberal orthodoxy is not ad hom, nor is it 6th grade level debate. It is fact. If pointing that out upsets you, that is your problem. Perhaps you might adopt an ideology you don't have to hide from
Click to expand...

Do NOT!!! :roll:

Whatever. Enjoy the toys you got from Santa....
 
MTAtech said:
Yes, Republican donors, using their political influence, to get the GOP who control the national government to lower taxes on them, when there is no serious economic argument to do so, is thievery. Changing the bill to give Bob Corker a way of personal earning millions, in order to buy his vote, is bribery.

Like it or not, we have a Republican Party who is out to fleece the American people.
Click to expand...

Who said either side is clean?

Thievery is thievery, no matter the idealism and ideology within which it is couched. Gives mirrors a whole new purpose.
 
Fletch said:
You don't care about debt and you don't care about revenue. You care about using the tax code as a means of transferring wealth from those who have it to those you feel should have it. Pointing out this facet of liberal orthodoxy is not ad hom, nor is it 6th grade level debate. It is fact. If pointing that out upsets you, that is your problem. Perhaps you might adopt an ideology you don't have to hide from
Click to expand...

LOL, double down on ad hominem attack, denies the obvious character of the attack. Good stuff.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]
Click to expand...

If you analyze your comments to me, they are such perfect examples of what an ad hominem attack looks like that I'm not sure how you can formulate an argument that better fits the definition.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Well said.............and so true!
Click to expand...

I agree, actually. If that person set out to create an example of an ad hominem attack, he could hardly have come up with a better example. Either that, or it's a parody of right wing "debate" that's pretty damn ingenious.
 
digsbe said:
It shows how ignorant the population is listening to the DNC, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, and major liberal news networks selling this as a "cut for the rich by screwing everyone else" which is wholly inaccurate. Maybe when the economy is in full swing, people keep more of their money, and they see the benefits of lower taxation they'll change their minds instead of joining the sheep in the groupthink.
Click to expand...

The short answer is we don't know what the final effects will be. It's pretty easy to pass laws that funnel money to the population if there is no concern about how to pay for it, and we just add to cost to the deficit and debt. That's basically what's happened now, but if a Pres. Sanders passed free college, or UHC or whatever with a cost of $250B per year, and liberals pretended he could do all that for free, would those objecting be ignorant? The "benefits" would be obvious! But the "sheep" might figure that eventually the "free" college or UHC might require tax increases somewhere down the road, I guess.... Stupid sheep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom