• 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!

Democrats Want To Lower Taxes On The Rich

Taylor said:
Yes, like Obama said, we're asking folks who can afford it, to pay a little more. I mean, there's only so much you can eat. There's only so big a house you can have.

I know you agree.
Click to expand...

We need to ask the Red States to pay their fair share and not penalize the States that do. This travesty will not stand.
 
iguanaman said:
We need to ask the Red States to pay their fair share and not penalize the States that do. This travesty will not stand.
Click to expand...
We're not penalizing anyone right now. We're just asking folks who can afford it to pay a little bit more.
 
Taylor said:
Those are two totally different taxes supporting totally different sets of programs. If you're "getting a deal" on your Federal taxes, then you're not paying your fair share of Federal taxes.
Click to expand...

That's really not true.

How do you argue that a state that is already paying more into the federal government than they get back from the federal government... is not paying their fair share in taxes.. because they aren't paying even MORE

When another state..which is getting MORE from the federal government than they are paying in (courtesy of those states who supposedly aren't paying their "fair share).. gets to be subsidized even MORE by the states … and is considered.. as "paying their fair share".

Sorry man.. but if we go out to dinner.. and I pay my bill.. AND your bill... and you want me to kick in MORE for you.. because I am "not paying my fair share"....

You don't have a logical leg to stand on.
 
MrWonka said:
Or we could just get rid of the Senate entirely and give it's powers to the House of Representatives.
Click to expand...

Just like a progressive, if it doesn't work for them, get rid of it. Bi-cameral houses are intended to make passage of laws difficult, government that does too much ends in tyranny every time.
 
MrWonka said:
Because it is irrelevant. Why states are paying more into the tax base is irrelevant. The fact is that they are. If a state is generating a certain amount of money for the Federal Government it stands to reason that they should expect to receive a similar amount back.

Obviously places like DC, Maryland and Virginia receive more due to the fact that they have an inordinately high number of government installations there, but by and large it is consistently Red Conservative states that are receiving the most money per capita from the Federal Government whereas blue Liberal states are the ones paying the tab.
Click to expand...

If how much they are paying in is irrelevant then how much they get from it is just as irrelevant. Stop making stupid arguments.
 
Moderate Right said:
LOL. It's funny that Democrats want to raise the cap on SALT deductions, benefitting only the rich. The poor don't pay over $10,000 in SALT. This is all about those high taxed states like California and New York being mad because those high taxed states used to be able to tell their richer citizens, "Don't worry about our state's high tax rates because the federal government will subsidize our high taxes so you really aren't paying them." If these states are going to tax rich people more then they shouldn't allow the federal government to give the money right back to those rich people. They should own their high tax rates and their liberal rhetoric.



Schumer: Democrats will try to overturn tax deduction cap
Click to expand...

New Yorkers paid an average of $31.71 in property taxes last year per $1,000 of home value according to the Empire Center, a fiscally conservative think tank in Albany. Middle class homes in NY are typically north of $350,000 and usually more like $450,000 or more. That means that the Trump/GOP SALT cap deduction hurts the middle class.
 
OpportunityCost said:
If how much they are paying in is irrelevant then how much they get from it is just as irrelevant. Stop making stupid arguments.
Click to expand...

I didn't say how much they are paying is irrelevant. I said WHY they are paying more is irrelevant. What matters is that Liberal blue states tend to pay more and receive less.
 
jaeger19 said:
That's really not true.

How do you argue that a state that is already paying more into the federal government than they get back from the federal government... is not paying their fair share in taxes.. because they aren't paying even MORE

When another state..which is getting MORE from the federal government than they are paying in (courtesy of those states who supposedly aren't paying their "fair share).. gets to be subsidized even MORE by the states … and is considered.. as "paying their fair share".

Sorry man.. but if we go out to dinner.. and I pay my bill.. AND your bill... and you want me to kick in MORE for you.. because I am "not paying my fair share"....

You don't have a logical leg to stand on.
Click to expand...
So because there are more high income earners in your state, you think you should pay less in Federal taxes than someone with the exact same income in another state? Sorry, but that doesn't make any logical sense.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Just like a progressive, if it doesn't work for them, get rid of it.
Click to expand...
This government isn't working for anybody, but the super-rich. When the majority of Americans vote one way, but control of a branch of government goes the other there is clearly something very wrong with our system. People are fleeing conservative states in droves and moving to liberal cities. Yet, that should not change the representation power they have in congress. That power should go with them. When your state has laws that drive people away you do not deserve MORE power over the laws of our nation because of it.

OpportunityCost said:
Bi-cameral houses are intended to make passage of laws difficult,
Click to expand...

You can have a Bi-Cameral house and still ensure that it reflects the will of the people. When the majority of Americans vote for one political party that party should have the majority of Representatives. Our founding fathers believed in 1 person 1 vote. The Senate was only created to form a compromise and convince the colonies to unite. It was never a particularly good idea.

The state of Wyoming has a smaller population than the city of Washington D.C. Yet Wyoming has 2 senators and D.C. has none. That is not how a democracy should work and you know it.
 
MrWonka said:
I didn't say how much they are paying is irrelevant. I said WHY they are paying more is irrelevant. What matters is that Liberal blue states tend to pay more and receive less.
Click to expand...


But it ignores that they get more dollars. Every indicator in that study is weighted with the initial dollars sent in to make it appear as though red states are enjoying government largess then throwing in per capita, essentially weighting taxes spent twice. Of course the blue states with higher populations are going to spend more dollars then comparing per capita received AFTER weighting it based on money sent in is a statistical hoax...and you fell for it.

They did NOT believe in one person, one vote; they believed in a republic with democratic representation. The Senate is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing, acting as a roadblock on government doing too much. Don't pretend like you give a damn what the founders thought, they were dead set against government intrusion yet you don't care a whit about that opinion. You are invoking what you think they believed in to support your argument and ignoring everything else they believed in, in some cases even more strongly.
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
So because there are more high income earners in your state, you think you should pay less in Federal taxes than someone with the exact same income in another state?
Click to expand...

Only if the state you're living in has higher taxes. Most federal dollars are immediately turned around and spent back within the states. If the states themselves are collecting more in State taxes then they don't need to be subsidized by the Federal government. As a result, there's no reason to collect additional tax from them.

Try and imagine that you live in a gated community with an HOA. The HOA collects a monthly fee of $50 which it then uses to pay for someone to mow all the lawns in the community, trim all the hedges, and rake all the leaves. Well if an individual homeowner decides to hire his own professional groundskeeper to do all that himself then that saves the HOA money as it's one less lawn they have to take care of. It makes no sense for the HOA to then charge that homeowner the full $50 monthly fee for lawn maintenance when the homeowner himself is paying someone else out of pocket for it.
 
MrWonka said:
Only if the state you're living in has higher taxes. Most federal dollars are immediately turned around and spent back within the states. If the states themselves are collecting more in State taxes then they don't need to be subsidized by the Federal government. As a result, there's no reason to collect additional tax from them.

Try and imagine that you live in a gated community with an HOA. The HOA collects a monthly fee of $50 which it then uses to pay for someone to mow all the lawns in the community, trim all the hedges, and rake all the leaves. Well if an individual homeowner decides to hire his own professional groundskeeper to do all that himself then that saves the HOA money as it's one less lawn they have to take care of. It makes no sense for the HOA to then charge that homeowner the full $50 monthly fee for lawn maintenance when the homeowner himself is paying someone else out of pocket for it.
Click to expand...

Or he could quit being an idiot and paying for something twice...
 
OpportunityCost said:
But it ignores that they get more dollars.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. They get more dollars, but not compared to what they pay in.

OpportunityCost said:
They did NOT believe in one person, one vote; they believed in a republic with democratic representation.
Click to expand...
In which each individual gets one vote, and the majority of those voters decide their representation.

OpportunityCost said:
The Senate is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing, acting as a roadblock on government doing too much.
Click to expand...
Garbage nonsense. The founders may have been leary of rapid change, but they never intended a complete and total inability to govern. They certainly never intended for a minority of Americans to control 3 out of the 4 main government entities. That's flat garbage and you know it.

OpportunityCost said:
Don't pretend like you give a damn what the founders thought, they were dead set against government intrusion yet you don't care a whit about that opinion. You are invoking what you think they believed in to support your argument and ignoring everything else they believed in, in some cases even more strongly.
Click to expand...
Pot, Kettle, Black. My party isn't the one allowing the current U.S. President to violate every single solitary law we have on the books. When it comes to understanding the law, understanding the history and understand the Constitution Conservatives don't have a leg to stand on. Virtually every legal scholar on the subject is 100% in agreement with me.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Or he could quit being an idiot and paying for something twice...
Click to expand...

What if he got a better deal on lawn care? What if he's anal about his lawn and would rather pay more for someone to do it better? What if the people that the HOA hired ****ed up and accidentally wrecked one of his Rose Bush's? The point is that so long as the guy is maintaining his own lawn and keeping up with the standards set by the HOA there's no rational reason for the HOA to charge him for a service he doesn't need.

The only reason the HOA handles the lawn care is to make sure it's done properly and uniformly. So you don't have some lazy asshole who lets his lawn grow too long and have it look like crap. So long as he's maintaining his lawn to the same standards or better there's no rational reason for the HOA to complain or charge him.
 
MrWonka said:
No, it doesn't. They get more dollars, but not compared to what they pay in.
Click to expand...

You paid absolutely no attention to the actual dollars I posted earlier, that statement is categorically false.


In which each individual gets one vote, and the majority of those voters decide their representation.
Click to expand...

In which there are two types of representation, one solely for the people and one for the state itself. Its easy to see which you are roundly ignoring.


Garbage nonsense. The founders may have been leary of rapid change, but they never intended a complete and total inability to govern. They certainly never intended for a minority of Americans to control 3 out of the 4 main government entities. That's flat garbage and you know it.
Click to expand...

They intended checks and balances to keep government from doing too much. If you don't understand how many ways and times they stated it, you just aren't paying attention.


Pot, Kettle, Black. My party isn't the one allowing the current U.S. President to violate every single solitary law we have on the books. When it comes to understanding the law, understanding the history and understand the Constitution Conservatives don't have a leg to stand on. Virtually every legal scholar on the subject is 100% in agreement with me.
Click to expand...

Deflection, appeal to authority, and hyperbole all in one paragraph. Forget Trump, talk policy and stay on subject and if there are more than 100 legal scholars, I guarantee you they aren't all going to agree and no way in hell are they going agree 100% with you, that assertion is just stupid.
 
MrWonka said:
What if he got a better deal on lawn care? What if he's anal about his lawn and would rather pay more for someone to do it better? What if the people that the HOA hired ****ed up and accidentally wrecked one of his Rose Bush's? The point is that so long as the guy is maintaining his own lawn and keeping up with the standards set by the HOA there's no rational reason for the HOA to charge him for a service he doesn't need.

The only reason the HOA handles the lawn care is to make sure it's done properly and uniformly. So you don't have some lazy asshole who lets his lawn grow too long and have it look like crap. So long as he's maintaining his lawn to the same standards or better there's no rational reason for the HOA to complain or charge him.
Click to expand...

Because he signed up for the HOA, because he is choosing to pay twice, because you set up a stupid analogy.
 
Taylor said:
Indeed. It's really too bad that rich people in California and New York don't want to pay their fair share.
Click to expand...
Don't those two states contribute more to federal taxes than they receive in federal benefits?
 
MrWonka said:
Only if the state you're living in has higher taxes. Most federal dollars are immediately turned around and spent back within the states. If the states themselves are collecting more in State taxes then they don't need to be subsidized by the Federal government. As a result, there's no reason to collect additional tax from them.
Click to expand...
That's clearly not true - of the five states with the highest per capita tax burden (New York, Hawaii, Maine, Vermont and Minnesota) - just one (Minnesota) receives a below-average share of per capita federal spending. Higher state taxes don't take the place of federal taxes, which pay for things like grants, defense contracts, salary and wages for federal employees, etc.

MrWonka said:
Try and imagine that you live in a gated community with an HOA. The HOA collects a monthly fee of $50 which it then uses to pay for someone to mow all the lawns in the community, trim all the hedges, and rake all the leaves. Well if an individual homeowner decides to hire his own professional groundskeeper to do all that himself then that saves the HOA money as it's one less lawn they have to take care of. It makes no sense for the HOA to then charge that homeowner the full $50 monthly fee for lawn maintenance when the homeowner himself is paying someone else out of pocket for it.
Click to expand...
That doesn't describe this situation. Federal and State taxes pay for very different things. It's not about mowing the same patch of grass.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Don't those two states contribute more to federal taxes than they receive in federal benefits?
Click to expand...
Taxes are levied on individuals, not on states. The richest taxpayers are always going to contribute more to federal taxes than they receive in federal benefits, regardless of the state they live in.
 
MTAtech said:
New Yorkers paid an average of $31.71 in property taxes last year per $1,000 of home value according to the Empire Center, a fiscally conservative think tank in Albany. Middle class homes in NY are typically north of $350,000 and usually more like $450,000 or more. That means that the Trump/GOP SALT cap deduction hurts the middle class.
Click to expand...
:lamo

This is rich. You really are completely two faced. If it's Democrat you approve, if it's Republican it's wrong, but the same arguments apply both times. Classic.
 
Jay59 said:
:lamo

This is rich. You really are completely two faced. If it's Democrat you approve, if it's Republican it's wrong, but the same arguments apply both times. Classic.
Click to expand...

Not allowing property taxes to be fully deductible was designed to be an attack on blue states. Painting this as a way to "tax the rich" is fiction. Why is it fiction? Because the 2017 tax bill was designed to lower taxes on the rich and corporations to the point where those in the $1,000,000 and up category will get a tax-cut of $17.8 billion.
 
MTAtech said:
Not allowing property taxes to be fully deductible was designed to be an attack on blue states. Painting this as a way to "tax the rich" is fiction. Why is it fiction? Because the 2017 tax bill was designed to lower taxes on the rich and corporations to the point where those in the $1,000,000 and up category will get a tax-cut of $17.8 billion.
Click to expand...
I'll bite. So what?

Are we supposed to lower taxes on the rich because they happen to live in New York, California, or Hawaii?
 
Moderate Right said:
LOL. It's funny that Democrats want to raise the cap on SALT deductions, benefitting only the rich. The poor don't pay over $10,000 in SALT. This is all about those high taxed states like California and New York being mad because those high taxed states used to be able to tell their richer citizens, "Don't worry about our state's high tax rates because the federal government will subsidize our high taxes so you really aren't paying them." If these states are going to tax rich people more then they shouldn't allow the federal government to give the money right back to those rich people. They should own their high tax rates and their liberal rhetoric.
Click to expand...

New York State received 84 cents for every dollar it sent in taxes to the Washington DC. The average return for all states was $1.18 cents per tax dollar sent to Washington DC. Who is subsidizing who?

States enjoying the highest returns from Federal revenue sharing compared to tax dollars remitted:
New Mexico 6.1%
West Virginia 3.6%
Alabama 37.7%
Mississippi 43.8%
Vermont 34.9%
Kentucky 41.0%
Montana 40.7%
Alaska 37.4%
Arizona 42.0%
Arkansas 36.5%
Wyoming 42.1%
 
By rich you mean middle class people in high tax states?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom