• 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!

Do You Want Higher Taxes?

Did you miss what you wrote?



If you want to clarify go for it.

You still miss the time component

a tax hike can have a short term increase in revenues and in the long run cause the revenues to decrease

its really a simple concept that has been proven true time and time again.
 
I love this sort of bitterness and general hatred. SO investors are all parasitic robber barons?

that really is one of the most stupid comments I have seen. many retirees are investors. when a farmer retires and sells his farm to a developer what does he do? he normally invests the money. what is a 401K plan?

You must have missed the super wealthy part. oh well. When you decide to debate properly, let me know.
 
You know this entire debate about whether or not lowering taxes raises revenue is simply absurd!! Do you all not understand math??

On any given year.. The amount of tax revenue will increase if there is no change in the tax code.. That is just how our economy works.. Look how much they increased during the Clinton years..

So?? If on an average year?? Revenue increases by say $600 billion.. And we then do a tax cut that costs $320 billion.. The revenue is still going to increase $280 billion.. Get it?? Why is it so hard for you republicans to figure that out?? During the Bush years, revenue increased, but not nearly as much as it would have without the tax cuts.. The economy shrank under Bush and grew under Clinton..

Now please!! Got take elementary school math.. Basic adding and subracting.. It is really sad seeing you all get your butts kicked by some pretty basic facts..
 
You must have missed the super wealthy part. oh well. When you decide to debate properly, let me know.

great-so that means who? when your dem masters limit their tax hike schemes to the 400 or so billionaires then maybe your rants will have relevance

last I checked the dems keep wanting to use 200K as the threshold
 
I do not care, at all, what percent of my income I pay in taxes. I care what I get for those taxes. And that is what the debate seriously lacks. Taxes are not different from a business transaction. We pay for a service or product. In this case, we're paying for security, infrastructure, law enforcement... and social assistance. We get something for paying for that. We get a stronger, more prosperous country. Small minded people who can't understand economics outside of their own wallets don't realize that empowering every person in this country into a stable and strong financial position improves the whole economy for everyone.
 
You still miss the time component

a tax hike can have a short term increase in revenues and in the long run cause the revenues to decrease

its really a simple concept that has been proven true time and time again.


Okay fine you clarified what you meant.

So you would be in favor in raising taxes if it cost the government revenue, correct?
 
Okay fine you clarified what you meant.

So you would be in favor in raising taxes if it cost the government revenue, correct?

I oppose tax hikes on those who pay too much

I prefer far less government and that would not require any tax hikes

if you are hell bent on hiking taxes they should be hiked on those who need to pay at least some of their costs as citizens.

and that is not the top 5%

later
 
for most liberals..........anyone accumulating wealth via Capitalism is a criminal.
.

While I do not fully meet the definition of a liberal (see below), I certainly stand “for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically: such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities”.

So, as a “semi-liberal” (for lack of a better term), I believe that anyone who hoards resources to the point of being wasteful and to the point of allowing the less fortunate to suffer (via hoarding), is guilty of causing that suffering and thus immoral. In court cases, where there are relevant laws or precedents, those who cause others to suffer are often punished. So, in this sense, the above described hoarders could be considered criminals.

Capitalism is an economic system, not a political one (see below). Government has always had taxes in order to maintain order, the greater good, etc. Therefore, one can have a capitalistic economic system and a liberal political system, which acts to serve the greater good. Ungoverned Capitalism is not likely something even you (TurtleDude) would find acceptable (this means bad things, including monopolies).

I also wanted to clear up some common misconceptions. It seems that some are using the terms liberalist and socialist interchangeably. Clearly, as seen in the definition below, the two words do not mean the same thing. While one can have a capitalistic economic system and a liberal political system, one cannot have pure capitalism and pure socialism, as capitalism calls for the ownership and control of production, etc. to be in private hands and socialism calls for it to be in the hands of the community as a whole.

Please people, I spent some time trying to make these distinctions understandable, so if you don’t understand something please ask. Also, for those of you who are familiar with these concepts, I welcome any helpful additions.

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Socialism | Define Socialism at Dictionary.com

Liberalism: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)

Liberalism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Badmutha
for most liberals..........anyone accumulating wealth via Capitalism is a criminal...


what a very stupid and untrue comment.
 
I oppose tax hikes on those who pay too much

I prefer far less government and that would not require any tax hikes

if you are hell bent on hiking taxes they should be hiked on those who need to pay at least some of their costs as citizens.

and that is not the top 5%

later

So you are just being disingenuous when using the buzz word cliches about big government.


BTW life ain't fair just ask Charles Goodyear.;)
 
Oh I bet there is a rather strong correlation between high earners and high intelligence. Luck has far less to do with it but that erroneous assumption makes it far easier to justify imposing confiscatory taxes on "lucky people" than talented ones.

I do not doubt that you are "guessing" that high earners are of high intelligence (as I do not see a reference). It is not advisable to make important decisions based on hunches - this leads to error. I am by no means insinuating that the most wealthy of our population do not hold intelligent people; I am only asking for data supporting your argument.

Also, I know many wealthy people who inherited their wealth or had some significant amount of money to start investing with and I know many people who were born into poverty and have struggled throughout their life as a result. This does not mean that such people are intelligent or not, it only designates a starting environment and an ending monetary result.
 
Last edited:
In truth I'd like to be like my fellow citizens corporations (they're citizens too now, correct?) and not pay any taxes.

Good point man, I don't think many people realize that legally, corporations are considered citizens/people (also a side note .. they get the benefits of being "people", yet not the consequences that a rightful person receives) .. just watched a documentary on this .. very creepy .. can look for it and post it if you like :)
 
I wish you could convince millions of americans that is true

You talk as if you know that millions of people would prefer to get next to nothing and not work than to have good paying jobs. I have friends who are out of work, newspaper reporter, mortgage broker, telecommunications relay specialist, a housewife whose husband left her with 6 month old twins, a the manager of a health club, an electrical engineer, 2 former small business owners and I can tell you two things I know to be true:

1. They don't want to be on the dole.

2. They can't find a job.
 
could you please define "self-made" - do you mean started with $0, $100, $1,000, $10,000? Also, please define "wealthy", $100,000 per year? $1,000,000 per year? Finally, what is you source?

the source is The Millionaire Next Door, a study of America's millionaires. by Self-Made they mean "did not inherit any portion of their wealth", but are rather first-generation millionaires whose parents were usually middle or lower class.

also .. could you please define "vast majority" .. does this mean 51%? because that is a majority .. but so is 95%, so what is it?

about 85%
 
I oppose tax hikes on those who pay too much

I prefer far less government and that would not require any tax hikes

if you are hell bent on hiking taxes they should be hiked on those who need to pay at least some of their costs as citizens.

Well if we are talking about ponying up on citizenship points how many sons and daughters of the rich and famous have/had their butts humping through the desert making the world safe for millionaires? Those Americans pay in sweat equity and who benefits the most from their sacrifices? Where's the quid pro quo from the wealthy?
 
Good point man, I don't think many people realize that legally, corporations are considered citizens/people (also a side note .. they get the benefits of being "people", yet not the consequences that a rightful person receives) .. just watched a documentary on this .. very creepy .. can look for it and post it if you like :)

It's certainly not everyone that can get away with paying no taxes and jetting around with Obama all the same.
 
what about the 47% who get all the citizenship benefits of the top 5% yet they pay NO federal income taxes.

and GE paid plenty of taxes on profits obtained in other nations. they also paid tons of payroll taxes on their domestic workers.

LOL! :man shoveling steaming heaps of bull****:
 
the source is The Millionaire Next Door, a study of America's millionaires. by Self-Made they mean "did not inherit any portion of their wealth", but are rather first-generation millionaires whose parents were usually middle or lower class.



about 85%

Interesting, thank you for posting a reference .. I am now wondering what "did not inherit any portion of their wealth" means, as this could simply mean that the wealth they have accumulated was indeed due to an initial lump of money being available to them - they could be defining it loosely, i.e they started out with a very small percentage of what they have now ... I'll have to see if they clarify that anymore on that site, because having money to work with makes a difference.
 
the source is The Millionaire Next Door, a study of America's millionaires. by Self-Made they mean "did not inherit any portion of their wealth", but are rather first-generation millionaires whose parents were usually middle or lower class.



about 85%

As I mentioned before, I'll have to check into the specifics of those terms .. but I would like to restate that in my opinion, those who hoard money (greedy, wasteful, etc.) and cause suffering in others (via hoarding money that could otherwise be used to serve the greater good) are immoral and our country should not allow such behavior.
 
Except that cuts in income tax rates lead to less income tax revenue, as per above. Thanks for playing.

Except when they didnt.......

Federal Tax Revenue After The Bush Tax Cuts
usgs_linephptitleTotalDirectRevenueyear2003_2007snameUSunitsbbar0stack1sizemcolcspending0178231_188011_215361_240687_2567.png


Federal Tax Revenue After The Reagan Tax Cuts
usgs_linephptitleTotalDirectRevenueyear1982_1988snameUSunitsbbar0stack1sizemcolcspending061777_60056_66644_73404_76916_85429_909.png


Federal Tax Revenue After The JFK/Johnson Tax Cuts
usgs_linephptitleTotalDirectRevenueyear1964_1970snameUSunitsbbar0stack1sizemcolcspending011261_11682_13084_14882_15297_18688_192.png


Reality and your contentions do not get along........
.
.
.
 
the source is The Millionaire Next Door, a study of America's millionaires. by Self-Made they mean "did not inherit any portion of their wealth", but are rather first-generation millionaires whose parents were usually middle or lower class.



about 85%

Well I looked at your link to that secrets to success book (not exactly a peer reviewed piece of literature) and as I do not own the book, I'll have to take your word for it (with caution) on the 85% figure. Also, the book appears to be about millionaires and beyond (e.g. millionaires through billionaires?) and that is a much larger population than the top 5%. I really just need more data and definitions .. where did they get their figures from, how did they define their sample, etc. Still, thanks for at least being honest and sharing the link to where you got your information. :)
 
what about the 47% who are so poor they cannot pay any federal income taxes.

Fixed that for ya. For some reason you always forget that important detail. It's not like anyone is getting away with anything. It's just that the federal tax code sees the benefit of not taxing people who are just barely making their rent. What do you propose we do with these folks? Throw them out into the street?
 
Fixed that for ya. For some reason you always forget that important detail. It's not like anyone is getting away with anything. It's just that the federal tax code sees the benefit of not taxing people who are just barely making their rent. What do you propose we do with these folks? Throw them out into the street?


I dunna know are there alligators in the street?:mrgreen:
 
Except when they didnt........

You mean when you didn't make a relevent post??

Dude!! How about showing some increased due to tax increases?? You are so lame for leaving out half the picture!! Let's see the Clinton years!!! Put up our shut up dude!! If you aren't going to post the full picture then what good are you??

You just don't want to show that Clinton almost doubled the nations income during his time in office.. Did Bush even come close?? Not even!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom