• 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!

Where do you land

Where do you land?

  • I am wealthy, and favor tax hikes for the wealthy

    Votes: 8 11.4%

  • I am not wealthy, and favor tax hikes for the wealthy

    Votes: 27 38.6%

  • I am wealthy, and against tax hikes for the wealthy

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I am not wealthy, and against tax hikes for the wealthy

    Votes: 23 32.9%

  • Other

    Votes: 12 17.1%

  • Unsure

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    70
BDBoop said:
So much talk about how the wealthy deserve this, and the rich need that. Where do you fall in all this?
Click to expand...
I'm not wealthy but I support tax hikes on the wealthy. There are many people in this country who can be taxed extra and not have the slightest dent in their income and life. One of the many ways to get rid of a deficit is to raise taxes on those who can afford it. If I were wealthy, I would be willing to make the sacrifice. There are obviously wealthy people who think it's preposterous that they give some more of their money to help their country, but I would prefer it if people like that left the country anyway, so I'm not interested in their greedy bitchin'.
 
"Tax hike" is such a loaded word.

I support closing tax loopholes on almost everything, and getting rid of almost all kinds of tax expenditures while lowering overall rates. It's high time the government stop micromanaging the tax code and subsidizing and incentivizing certain behaviors. There are certain people from ALL classes who are paying less than they should.

Why do we subsidize childbearing? Why do we give tax incentives to homeowners but not renters? Why does the tax code favor married people over singles?
 
Last edited:
theplaydrive said:
I'm not wealthy but I support tax hikes on the wealthy. There are many people in this country who can be taxed extra and not have the slightest dent in their income and life. One of the many ways to get rid of a deficit is to raise taxes on those who can afford it. If I were wealthy, I would be willing to make the sacrifice. There are obviously wealthy people who think it's preposterous that they give some more of their money to help their country, but I would prefer it if people like that left the country anyway, so I'm not interested in their greedy bitchin'.
Click to expand...

Exactly as stated, except to my perception, it would require no "sacrifice" on their part.
 
StillBallin75 said:
"Tax hike" is such a loaded word.

I support closing tax loopholes on almost everything, and getting rid of almost all kinds of tax expenditures while lowering overall rates. It's high time the government stop micromanaging the tax code and subsidizing certain behaviors. There are certain people from ALL classes who are paying less than they should.

Why do we subsidize childbearing? Why do we give tax incentives to homeowners but not renters? Why does the tax code favor married people over singles?
Click to expand...

I recognize the same when people get bend about overhauling medicine. I don't think it's medicine that needs accountability/change. I think it's the insurance industry.
 
StillBallin75 said:
"Tax hike" is such a loaded word.

I support closing tax loopholes on almost everything, and getting rid of almost all kinds of tax expenditures while lowering overall rates. It's high time the government stop micromanaging the tax code and subsidizing certain behaviors. There are certain people from ALL classes who are paying less than they should.

Why do we subsidize childbearing? Why do we give tax incentives to homeowners but not renters? Why does the tax code favor married people over singles?
Click to expand...

We need more people to work, to fund the entitlement programs for the elderly.
Married people produce more kids, generally speaking.

Home mortgage interest deduction mostly benefits wealthier people.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
We need more people to work, to fund the entitlement programs for the elderly.
Married people produce more kids, generally speaking.
Click to expand...

Not a good enough reason to subsidize it. Rather than indirectly trying to get people to change their childbearing behavior through tax incentives (which will be a net negative for the government for at least 18 years), we can bring in more legal immigrants right NOW.
 
JohnWOlin said:
As much as it sucks, I believe eventually we will all need tax hikes, at least to Clinton era rates. However, I believe it should be slowly done over a 8-12 year period starting with a new tax bracket on the billionaire, then millionaire, then go down to 250K and above, then the upper middle class, middle class, working class, and then poor. However I am also in favor of "regressive" social security taxes meaning the more you make the less you have to pay. So if the billionaire is paying 40% of his earnings federally, he is paying 5% or less into social security. If the poor is paying 10% of his earnings and I think and I think should only get a certain percentage back at the end of the year and it SHOULD NOT get ANY back for state and local taxes he should also pay much more into Social Security as a percentage than a billionaire.
Click to expand...

Regressive Social Security tax is what we have now. Haven’t you ever earned enough that you stop paying SS tax for the rest of the year? I retired at 55. It turned out for me that if I had worked for another 7 years, my SS check would now be less that $10 a month more. And, if you earn less during your life your SS check is smaller. Isn’t that regressive enough?

BTY, I'd go with the other parts of your plan! Believe it or not.
 
BDBoop said:
Let 'em go. It's not like they're contributing. I refuse to respond to fear tactics.
Click to expand...

Great! A state, in the red with deficits and gasping for higher revenue will suddenly see an emigrating population, especially among those most able to pay higher taxes. The actual result is not exactly what you had in mind.
 
ElijahGalt said:
Great! A state, in the red with deficits and gasping for higher revenue will suddenly see an emigrating population, especially among those most able to pay higher taxes. The actual result is not exactly what you had in mind.
Click to expand...

Both the state and the general population are going to sink into poverty and debt, anyway. You're not losing anything.
 
When a person is rich, they are the ones getting the most from our economic system. As a simple value proposition, they should be willing to pay more for the system that's been so good to them.
 
Bardo said:
Where do they move?

If federal income tax rates are increased are they going to move to Mexico?

And you say "massive tax hike" like everyone's talking about a massive tax hike or something. :2razz:
Click to expand...

I was actually referring to state implemented tax hikes, like New York's Millionaires Tax. Seems like everyone wants to relocate to Texas or other red states in the Midwest these days. Texas, alone, is doing significantly better than most other states. Yet, their tax rate is significantly lower and they've created something like 40% of all new American jobs since summer of 09.


And it is, indeed, possible for wealthy Americans to move out of America completely because, or in significant influence of economic factors. The wealthiest of Americans are usually those in charge of millions of jobs. It's part of the reason (in my opinion) that they've decided to take this money and put it some where else. That is why GE received a hefty tax return instead of paying their "fair share." Can we say flat tax?
 
ElijahGalt said:
Great! A state, in the red with deficits and gasping for higher revenue will suddenly see an emigrating population, especially among those most able to pay higher taxes. The actual result is not exactly what you had in mind.
Click to expand...
Do you have a link that proves this with statistics? There are plenty of wealthy people willing to pay higher taxes who wouldn't leave a state because of it so I'm not inclined to accept your argument. And if you're arguing that a significant amount of people would leave the entire country b/c of higher taxes, then that's ridiculous.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
We need more people to work, to fund the entitlement programs for the elderly.
Married people produce more kids, generally speaking.

Home mortgage interest deduction mostly benefits wealthier people.
Click to expand...

On the whole, I see no real need for the state to subsidize these behaviors. Immigration is a better tool to solve the population demographic problem than getting people (often ****ty parents) to make more babies.
 
Kandahar said:
Yep, that's a very good rationale for a small government approach...at the state level. But whereas (I'm assuming) you see that as a model for the federal government to emulate, I see it as a good reason for a stronger federal government, to make up for the relative dearth of spending that inevitably will occur at the state level. It's harder to move to another country than to move to another state, and most people have no desire to do so even if they're paying more taxes in this country than elsewhere.

To answer the poll question: Yes, I support higher taxes on the wealthy. It's not a matter of "class warfare," it's a matter of the federal government being able to pay its bills. And it makes more sense to tax people who actually HAVE money to tax, than to tax people who don't.
Click to expand...

We have BOTH a spending problem and a tax problem. The spending problem is obvious, we're spending far more than we can afford on reckless, wasteful, and unconstitutional entitlement programs. The problem with the tax system is that it is 55,000 pages long, possibly 54,975 too long. It is convoluted and polluted with special interest pork and expensive. To pay off the bills, as you say, would be to drastically cut spending while reforming the tax code so that it becomes as similar to a flat rate as possible.

And a decentralized United States based on the self-determination of citizens is a populist cause. It's the people's government and the perfect example of a bottom-up model of self-governing. I'm not proposing succession should be legal and tolerated, but that the rights of individual states are far too wide than is commonly accepted. The federal government has overtaken control in so many aspects of our lives and even the lives of people in other countries. It is absolutely unnecessary, harmful, and unconstitutional.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If I remember correctly, the whole idea was started when the early progressives believed in the separation of the classes.
Click to expand...

... and wanted to prevent that. It was more of an oligarchical thinking that created a separation of the classes. That's been around forever.
 
ElijahGalt said:
What happens to the wealthy tax base when states implement a massive tax hike on the wealthy? It disappears. They move.
Click to expand...

Let them move. At least then the political parties won't have class warfare to count on when discussing financial policies. We shouldn't have to pick sides.
 
digsbe said:
I'm not wealthy. I am against tax hikes for the wealthy. Why should we forcibly restrict their financial freedoms to pay for a failing and foolish budget?
Click to expand...

Why should the none wealthy lose the medicare and soc they are dependent on? Increasing revenue to balance the budget shouldn't be all about cutting middle class programs. The burden should be shared. Greece raised taxes on their populace, and they are in worse shape then we are. Sometimes tax increases are practical.
 
tessaesque said:
That's it! It's time for a lefty revolt!! *grabs guns and armor*
Click to expand...

You don't know who leftist really are. I'll give you a hint, the ones in the streets of Greece are demanding less government than you.
 
Goshin said:
I don't think you've thought this through.

They ARE contributing. They don't just sit on that money, they INVEST it. That means it is available for capital or loans, to expand businesses and start new ones, thereby creating more jobs (and preserving existing ones).

If they take their money to another state, or to another country (an island republic, or one of those little countries with no income tax), and we lose out on the capital investment they represent.... then yeah, we're going to have problems. That wealth is no longer going to be there to use to create MORE prosperity, as in for you and me.

I don't know where people get the idea that a man worth 400 million dollars, simply has a stack of money that he's sitting on, hoarding it, and it isn't doing anything. I know a number of wealthy people, though I'm working-poor myself, and none of them do that. They own businesses (that employ people!), they INVEST in businesses (that EMPLOY people!!), they buy stock in businesses (that EMPLOY people!!!), etc.

Why do businesses sell stock? To increase capital so they can do more biz, which often means hiring more people.

When you lose the wealthy, you're hurting your own economy, and everybody down to the dirt-farmer and the ditch-digger.
Click to expand...

Nothing is stopping anybody from buying foreign stock. You don't have to live in the country you purchase stock in.
 
digsbe said:
I'm not wealthy. I am against tax hikes for the wealthy. Why should we forcibly restrict their financial freedoms to pay for a failing and foolish budget?
Click to expand...
I would agree with you if taxing the wealthy had a noticeable affect on their "financial freedoms". Fortunately, it doesn't.
 
ElijahGalt said:
Great! A state, in the red with deficits and gasping for higher revenue will suddenly see an emigrating population, especially among those most able to pay higher taxes. The actual result is not exactly what you had in mind.
Click to expand...

Again [Jedi mind tricks] this is not the thread you seek. You want to start that thread, go start it.
 
Kandahar said:
Not a good enough reason to subsidize it. Rather than indirectly trying to get people to change their childbearing behavior through tax incentives (which will be a net negative for the government for at least 18 years), we can bring in more legal immigrants right NOW.
Click to expand...

Well I largely agree, but I think that's the motivation behind the subsidy.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
... and wanted to prevent that. It was more of an oligarchical thinking that created a separation of the classes. That's been around forever.
Click to expand...

I specifically pointed out that was the intention of the early progressives.
Not modern progressives.

The early progressives were very much interested in the separation of the classes.
They were borderline fascists.

Modern progressives have tempered/discarded the craziness, pseudo science of the early progressives.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
I specifically pointed out that was the intention of the early progressives.
Not modern progressives.

The early progressives were very much interested in the separation of the classes.
They were borderline fascists.

Modern progressives have tempered/discarded the craziness, pseudo science of the early progressives.
Click to expand...

Tell me who you are referring to when you are discussing "early" progressives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom