• 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!

Deficits are exploding – and neither party seems to care

Kushinator said:
Quote where i stated anything above. You can't and you won't.



I have explained this... they don't earn enough to pay something. It's called math.
Click to expand...

So you know what 44% of income earners can or cannot pay for? You are truly a legend in your own mind as usual. I call it personal responsibility to pay for the line items funded by FIT, something you don't understand
 
Conservative said:
So you know what 44% of income earners can or cannot pay for? You are truly a legend in your own mind as usual. I call it personal responsibility to pay for the line items funded by FIT, something you don't understand
Click to expand...

Using your logic, any and all taxpayers or entities that are allowed tax credits or deductions resulting in a zero tax bill or a refund should also be subjected to your scorn. Yet we hear nothing from you about this type of tax payer, not a peep. Progressive tax rates allow for those who do not make enough money to survive to pay less then those that have the ability to pay. To each his own according to his abilities...The strange thing about reading your posts and those who attempt to educate you is that you are beyond reason. I feel for your family buddy since you are an older man. It must be very rough on them to have to deal with such a curmudgeon.
 
Vadinho said:
Using your logic, any and all taxpayers or entities that are allowed tax credits or deductions resulting in a zero tax bill or a refund should also be subjected to your scorn. Yet we hear nothing from you about this type of tax payer, not a peep. Progressive tax rates allow for those who do not make enough money to survive to pay less then those that have the ability to pay. To each his own according to his abilities...The strange thing about reading your posts and those who attempt to educate you is that you are beyond reason. I feel for your family buddy since you are an older man. It must be very rough on them to have to deal with such a curmudgeon.
Click to expand...

Scorn?? Really? Again learn the taxes you pay and their purpose, you might just learn something. Those 44% of INCOME EARNERS get benefits from the Federal Gov't thus should be paying something rather than forcing the top 1% to bear the burden and have their taxes raised everytime the gov't runs low on revenue. It is time to cut spending and collect something from every income earner.
 
Conservative said:
Scorn?? Really? Again learn the taxes you pay and their purpose, you might just learn something. Those 44% of INCOME EARNERS get benefits from the Federal Gov't thus should be paying something rather than forcing the top 1% to bear the burden and have their taxes raised everytime the gov't runs low on revenue. It is time to cut spending and collect something from every income earner.
Click to expand...

So a poor person who pays no taxes because our progressive tax rates were designed to give the poor a break are bad, in fact, horrible. But a man like Trump who carries losses over, makes millions a year and pays nothing is good. In both cases, a tax payer pays nothing and both get benefits from the greater tax paying public in various forms. One is poor, the other rich. Yet in your world, the poor person should pay more and the rich person is off the hook. In my world and that of most if not all politicians going back 100 years, the sympathy for the poor outweighed the sympathy for the rich which is why we have progressive tax rates. But the rich still wanted to pay less so they lobbied and got all kinds of tax breaks. They got lawyers and bankers and accountants to make sure they took full advantage of any tax break, most of them created by rich people themselves. You want to know who one of these is? My daughter who is working her tail off and barely making it. My sister who has cerebral palsy and living off SSI. My old friend who is destitute and living off a grand a month in a home built for people like her by Rona Barrett. But you want them to pay FIT on their pittances. You are one sick SOB.
 
Vadinho said:
So a poor person who pays no taxes because our progressive tax rates were designed to give the poor a break are bad, in fact, horrible. But a man like Trump who carries losses over, makes millions a year and pays nothing is good. In both cases, a tax payer pays nothing and both get benefits from the greater tax paying public in various forms. One is poor, the other rich. Yet in your world, the poor person should pay more and the rich person is off the hook. In my world and that of most if not all politicians going back 100 years, the sympathy for the poor outweighed the sympathy for the rich which is why we have progressive tax rates. But the rich still wanted to pay less so they lobbied and got all kinds of tax breaks. They got lawyers and bankers and accountants to make sure they took full advantage of any tax break, most of them created by rich people themselves. You want to know who one of these is? My daughter who is working her tail off and barely making it. My sister who has cerebral palsy and living off SSI. My old friend who is destitute and living off a grand a month in a home built for people like her by Rona Barrett. But you want them to pay FIT on their pittances. You are one sick SOB.
Click to expand...

You assume that all of those 44% cannot pay one red cent in Federal income taxes showing again this is nothing more than personal opinions. There is no justification for any income earning American to not pay one cent in FIT and therein lies your problem. You want the top 1% who pay 40% now to have theirs raised without identifying those 44% and asking them to pay something, even $100.

Your opinion is nothing more than class envy and jealousy. You for some reason believe that I support Trump not paying any taxes which hasn't even been proven but trump is one person, 44% of the income earning Americans means millions. Let me make this clear, EVERY INCOME EARNING AMERICAN SHOULD PAY SOMETHING IN FEDERAL INCOME TAXES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Address that issue before demanding those how pay 40% of the FIT pay more
 
chuckiechan said:
Deficits are exploding – and neither party seems to care | Fox News



It has been obvious to me that it’s going to be a mess trying to bring down the debt. The best place to start is to shut down some government agencies. The only other way is to inflate our way out if it. Other than that, gutting entitlements is the last resort to save the USA.

FYI:
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

There is one teeny, tiny, bright spot. The trade deficit with China is falling. That is about all.
Click to expand...

The best place to start is raise the taxes on people earning more than 50 million a year.
 
HumblePi said:
The best place to start is raise the taxes on people earning more than 50 million a year.
Click to expand...

And that is going to generate how much revenue? We have a 22 trillion dollar debt, take all 50 million/person(205 people) from these people and you do what to that debt?
 
Conservative said:
And that is going to generate how much revenue? We have a 22 trillion dollar debt, take all 50 million/person(205 people) from these people and you do what to that debt?
Click to expand...

An annual 2 percent tax on wealth over $50 million, with the rate rising to 3 percent on wealth over $1 billion. Jeff Bezos, the wealthiest man in the country, would pay $4.1 billion under the new tax.
 
HumblePi said:
An annual 2 percent tax on wealth over $50 million, with the rate rising to 3 percent on wealth over $1 billion. Jeff Bezos, the wealthiest man in the country, would pay $4.1 billion under the new tax.
Click to expand...

awesome, and of course there are no consequences for raising his taxes by 4.1 billion dollars as I am sure he would keep the same people employed and operate exactly the same way. Then just image how much of an impact that 4 billion dollars would have on a 22 trillion dollar debt. thank you for an incredible post and total understanding of the debt in this country
 
Conservative said:
awesome, and of course there are no consequences for raising his taxes by 4.1 billion dollars as I am sure he would keep the same people employed and operate exactly the same way. Then just image how much of an impact that 4 billion dollars would have on a 22 trillion dollar debt. thank you for an incredible post and total understanding of the debt in this country
Click to expand...

A wealth tax would raise trillions of dollars. This country absolutely cannot grow economically when we're taxing low income families more than those at the top .01% of the top 10%. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed into law in late 2017, brought down the tax bracket on the highest earners. Billionaire Warren Buffett has repeatedly pointed out the disparity, advocating that rich Americans should pay higher taxes. To make that argument, he famously noted that he pays fewer taxes, on a percentage basis, than his secretary and other employees, since a bulk of his wealth is in stock rather than wage income.
 
HumblePi said:
A wealth tax would raise trillions of dollars. This country absolutely cannot grow economically when we're taxing low income families more than those at the top .01% of the top 10%. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed into law in late 2017, brought down the tax bracket on the highest earners. Billionaire Warren Buffett has repeatedly pointed out the disparity, advocating that rich Americans should pay higher taxes. To make that argument, he famously noted that he pays fewer taxes, on a percentage basis, than his secretary and other employees, since a bulk of his wealth is in stock rather than wage income.
Click to expand...

Trillions??? Do they teach math in Canada? You just gave us 4 billion dollars by taking income from the rich, how many rich people will it take to get a trillion in revenue to the federal gov't and at what consequence

When I see people like you wonder what kind of education and upbringing you had because all I see from you is class envy, jealousy with no consequences and very naive very poorly informed and educated Canadian talking about U.S. economics.
 
Conservative said:
Trillions??? Do they teach math in Canada? You just gave us 4 billion dollars by taking income from the rich, how many rich people will it take to get a trillion in revenue to the federal gov't and at what consequence

When I see people like you wonder what kind of education and upbringing you had because all I see from you is class envy, jealousy with no consequences and very naive very poorly informed and educated Canadian talking about U.S. economics.
Click to expand...

Absolutely 'trillions' but that's over the next decade of course, not happening tomorrow or next year. But it's the right direction. Actually these are statistics coming from a very learned Professor of Law at Harvard, Elizabeth Warren.

Oh, and I'm not from Canada, just a fyi

A Wealth Tax Could Raise Trillions — and Save Our Democracy
 
HumblePi said:
Absolutely 'trillions' but that's over the next decade of course, not happening tomorrow or next year. But it's the right direction. Actually these are statistics coming from a very learned Professor of Law at Harvard, Elizabeth Warren.

Oh, and I'm not from Canada, just a fyi

A Wealth Tax Could Raise Trillions — and Save Our Democracy
Click to expand...

A decade is 10 years, a trillion dollars is 100 billion per year and with 1.47 trillion of the budget discretionary spending that won't solve anything. You are very naive, gullible, and very poorly informed
 
HumblePi said:
A wealth tax would raise trillions of dollars. This country absolutely cannot grow economically when we're taxing low income families more than those at the top .01% of the top 10%. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed into law in late 2017, brought down the tax bracket on the highest earners. Billionaire Warren Buffett has repeatedly pointed out the disparity, advocating that rich Americans should pay higher taxes. To make that argument, he famously noted that he pays fewer taxes, on a percentage basis, than his secretary and other employees, since a bulk of his wealth is in stock rather than wage income.
Click to expand...

This is all just an excuse to create a federal property tax exactly how they created the income tax - promising it would ONLY be a 1% income tax ONLY against the rich.

To tax the rich is simple. Of the 22,000 page tax code, 21,000 of those pages are specific exemptions for the super rich. Not one Democrat (or Republican) in Congress EVER proposes doing so. Not one Democratic Party candidate now proposes eliminating even ONE loophole for the super rich by which they pay $0 in taxes.

Want to tax the rich? Simple. Establish a flat rate income tax allowing NO exemptions except for children. Problem solved. HELL WOULD FREEZE OVER before ANYONE in Congress would propose this. All their money comes from the super rich - and they have their own special exemptions for themselves they also use.

If a federal property tax is established - which is what a "wealth tax" is, everyone would have to report everything they own to determine their wealth - and it will become YOU paying a tax on your car, your furniture, your jewelry, your home and everything else you own - all part of a "wealth tax." Nothing anyone owned would be safe from be seized.
 
Conservative said:
A decade is 10 years, a trillion dollars is 100 billion per year and with 1.47 trillion of the budget discretionary spending that won't solve anything. You are very naive, gullible, and very poorly informed
Click to expand...

How many people are in the top .01% of the top 10% of wealth in this country? And how much more will that top 10% be paying with 5 cent on every dollar tax increase? Do the math.
 
HumblePi said:
Absolutely 'trillions' but that's over the next decade of course, not happening tomorrow or next year. But it's the right direction. Actually these are statistics coming from a very learned Professor of Law at Harvard, Elizabeth Warren.

Oh, and I'm not from Canada, just a fyi

A Wealth Tax Could Raise Trillions — and Save Our Democracy
Click to expand...

Hell would freeze over before Elizabeth Warren would every propose closing ANY loophole by which the super rich pay no taxes.

She's a pathological liar and understands proposing a federal property tax results in the federal government gaining control over everything everyone in the USA has - literally everything you have - the clothes you are wearing, everything - all part of your "wealth" to be taxed every year - and seized if you don't pay. Forget about ever retiring - you'll be paying a tax on everything you own until you die, even when you no longer have any income in retirement.
 
HumblePi said:
How many people are in the top .01% of the top 10% of wealth in this country? And how much more will that top 10% be paying with 5 cent on every dollar tax increase? Do the math.
Click to expand...

They'll pay nothing. They'll just get Congress to add another couple thousand pages of additional exemptions in the tax code. Who will be paying the tax is you - because you can't afford to buy members of Congress.
 
Why do some many Democrats think if the government takes more money from working people, somehow this will help them? The government isn't taking the money and giving it to you. The government is pocketing it.
 
HumblePi said:
A wealth tax would raise trillions of dollars. This country absolutely cannot grow economically when we're taxing low income families more than those at the top .01% of the top 10%. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed into law in late 2017, brought down the tax bracket on the highest earners. Billionaire Warren Buffett has repeatedly pointed out the disparity, advocating that rich Americans should pay higher taxes. To make that argument, he famously noted that he pays fewer taxes, on a percentage basis, than his secretary and other employees, since a bulk of his wealth is in stock rather than wage income.
Click to expand...
The reason he doesn't pay taxes has nothing to do with tax rates. It has to do with special tax exemptions.

When has Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders or any other Democrat proposed closing the loopholes by which Buffett pays no taxes? NEVER. Never have. Never will. No super rich person would pay $1 of a "wealth tax."

Senator Warren is safely relying on the stupidity of the average person, so her "we'll go get the money from those rich people" is marketable. Of course, she's never actually proposed ANYTHING to get money from rich people.

Avoiding a wealth tax is a piece of cake for the rich - and includes how they avoid taxes now. At the end of the year, just put their "wealth" on paper to a non-taxable investment (piles of those in the tax code). Thus, the wealth instead is a debt they can write off. After the 1st of the year, pull back however much they want to. Repeat each year. Problem solved. No really RICH person would ever pay $1 of a wealth tax. However, Elizabeth Warren could hit them up for political contributions from each to get them still more tax code exemptions. That how our political government works. That's how Senator Warren works.

Since Senator Warren has NEVER proposed closing ANY tax loophole for the super rich nor ANY tax increase on the rich, why does anyone who isn't 100% a gullible chump believe her?

In the Democratic debates, every candidate is going to be promising all they will do - of which none of them actually ever proposed doing. It is a competition over who is the best liar making the most persuasive false promises. But this is not unique to Democratic politicians of course.

It is IRRELEVANT what any of them say. ONLY what they have DONE.
 
Last edited:
Kushinator said:
What's the alternative? Your political party had full control of government and did nothing to address spending (so they could avoid being swept out of office), and cut a massive hole in baseline revenue. Republicans no longer control the HoR, and will soon lose the Senate and Presidency in upcoming elections. At that point, we will already be in a recession primarily exacerbated by poor economic policy (stimulus with full employment). Then you will belly ache about Democrats causing the recession because they took the house in 2018, call for additional tax and spending cuts, and claim Trump wasn't given a chance.

Thread is bookmarked for future reference.
Click to expand...

Who will there be to blame? Every single democratic candidate is openly promoting massive tax increases and massive new entitlement, If Dems get full control of government there will be a massive recession
 
HumblePi said:
How many people are in the top .01% of the top 10% of wealth in this country? And how much more will that top 10% be paying with 5 cent on every dollar tax increase? Do the math.
Click to expand...

Figure it out but more importantly where did you learn it was someone else's responsibility to pay for your own personal responsibility issues? you believe rich people owe you?
 
Conservative said:
You are probably the more poorly informed individual in this forum, Obama had a Democratic Congress 2009-2010, two trillion dollar deficits, had a Democratic Senate in 2011-2012, trillion dollar deficits, GOP Congress 2014 and 2016, deficits all under 1 trillion dollars! That is reality, yours is totally and completely biased, partisan, and based upon total ignorance of data
Click to expand...

Obama only had 1 trillion dollar deficit. Bush signed the 2009 budget.
 
99percenter said:
Obama only had 1 trillion dollar deficit. Bush signed the 2009 budget.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Democrat super-majority in Congress passed a veto-proof budget in 2009 and 2010. Neither President had any say in the budget during those two years. Furthermore, it is not Presidents who spend, but rather Congress. For 5 of Bush43's 8 years, and 6 of Obama's 8 years, Congress (both Republican and Democrat) passed Continuing Resolutions, Omnibus, and Supplimental Spending bills with veto-proof majorities. Just as they have done for 2 of Trump's 3 years.
 
Glitch said:
Actually, the Democrat super-majority in Congress passed a veto-proof budget in 2009 and 2010. Neither President had any say in the budget during those two years. Furthermore, it is not Presidents who spend, but rather Congress. For 5 of Bush43's 8 years, and 6 of Obama's 8 years, Congress (both Republican and Democrat) passed Continuing Resolutions, Omnibus, and Supplimental Spending bills with veto-proof majorities. Just as they have done for 2 of Trump's 3 years.
Click to expand...

As you will see it is a waste of time dealing with this poster who has a bad case of BDS and very limited if any civics, history understanding and spends all the time bashing Bush who has been out of office over 10 years. Never will you see this post posting any links to support claims made and yet calls himself an independent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom