• 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!

What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

TurtleDude said:
so unless the rich are taxed more and more and more it is class warfare? Class warfare is when one class is taxed too much. that is currently the rich-with or without tax cuts
Click to expand...

NO THAT IS NOT CLASS WARFARE! ITs called a progressive tax system....
 
TheDemSocialist said:
NO THAT IS NOT CLASS WARFARE! ITs called a progressive tax system....
Click to expand...

which is an appeal to class warfare. vote for us-we will tax the rich more so you can have goodies and don't have to pay for them

most of the justifications spewed by dems for the PIT is based on the specious and dishonest claim that the rich don't pay enough or that a flat tax would be a "tax cut" for the rich (which again appeals to class warfare)

claiming to be a democratic socialist really is an admission you want to wage class warfare
 
TurtleDude said:
which is an appeal to class warfare. vote for us-we will tax the rich more so you can have goodies and don't have to pay for them

most of the justifications spewed by dems for the PIT is based on the specious and dishonest claim that the rich don't pay enough or that a flat tax would be a "tax cut" for the rich (which again appeals to class warfare)

claiming to be a democratic socialist really is an admission you want to wage class warfare
Click to expand...

and "vote for us, we'll keep you rich people from paying more taxes" is not class warfare? c'mon td, what's the difference?
 
liblady said:
and "vote for us, we'll keep you rich people from paying more taxes" is not class warfare? c'mon td, what's the difference?
Click to expand...

Lets see

Its not class warfare to object to being taxed more so that what you earn is taken from you

it is class warfare to claim others need to have more of what they earned taken from them because

1) they don't deserve the wealth

2) others deserve it more

I don't need to attack anyone to justify only paying for what I use. Its very difficult to justify income redistribution without attacking those you want to loot
 
TurtleDude said:
Lets see

Its not class warfare to object to being taxed more so that what you earn is taken from you

it is class warfare to claim others need to have more of what they earned taken from them because

1) they don't deserve the wealth

2) others deserve it more




I don't need to attack anyone to justify only paying for what I use. Its very difficult to justify income redistribution without attacking those you want to loot
Click to expand...

I can answer that with one word JOBS.
More jobs working people pay more taxes leaving the rich to pay less, no working person is going to complain about that.

As for wealth being taken from you corporations had no problem taking taxpayer dollars when bailouts were given out, nor do they have problems takeing no bid contracts or government grants.
Money is money wether it's from the SS fund or state and local. or paychecks.
Corporations has done their fare share of taking from American woking taxes.:peace
 
presluc said:
I can answer that with one word JOBS.
More jobs working people pay more taxes leaving the rich to pay less, no working person is going to complain about that.

As for wealth being taken from you corporations had no problem taking taxpayer dollars when bailouts were given out, nor do they have problems takeing no bid contracts or government grants.
Money is money wether it's from the SS fund or state and local. or paychecks.
Corporations has done their fare share of taking from American woking taxes.:peace
Click to expand...

you have no right to a job. a job is a way a corporation obtains labor. If no corporations need labor you don't get a job
 
TurtleDude said:
which is an appeal to class warfare.
Click to expand...
No.. No it is not.... Just because you are taxed more does not mean someone is raging war on you.....

vote for us-we will tax the rich more so you can have goodies and don't have to pay for them
Click to expand...
Ohhh this bull**** again?
Welcome to politics, and campaign politics... Its not class warfare its called campaigning to peoples interests...

most of the justifications spewed by dems for the PIT is based on the specious and dishonest claim that the rich don't pay enough or that a flat tax would be a "tax cut" for the rich (which again appeals to class warfare)
Click to expand...
No... Turtle... No it does not..

Explain to me Turtle what is class warfare... Explain it to me. Im interested how your brain works..


claiming to be a democratic socialist really is an admission you want to wage class warfare
Click to expand...
:shock:
Ehhh kinda...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
No.. No it is not.... Just because you are taxed more does not mean someone is raging war on you.....


Ohhh this bull**** again?
Welcome to politics, and campaign politics... Its not class warfare its called campaigning to peoples interests...


No... Turtle... No it does not..

Explain to me Turtle what is class warfare... Explain it to me. Im interested how your brain works..



:shock:
Ehhh kinda...
Click to expand...

opinions noted-rejected due to clear bias behind the opinions
 
LesGovt said:
In your haste to be cute, you failed to read my posting or you just did not understand it. First, let's look at a definition:

Aggregate: taking all units as a whole.

In other words, when I said, "...we know that the tax cut for the rich, when considered in aggregate, went heavily to the non-wealthy," I was talking about the total of all the dollars allocated from the Bush tax cuts for those under $250,000 and those above $250,000. I originally learned this fact from CNN, but cannot locate the link tonight. Here is just one source from which I got my information:

"An August report by the Congressional Budget Office actually shows a higher figure of $3.9 trillion as the 10-year cost of extending the cuts and patching the AMT. The U.S. Department of Treasury in February estimated the cost a little higher than $3.7 trillion.

In case you’re curious, extending tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 a year accounts for about $679 billion for the 10 years while patching the AMT accounts for about $672 billion, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center."

PolitiFact Virginia | Bobby Scott said the budget will be "close to" balanced in four years if the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule

By the way, CNN had reported that the figures were total of $3.7 trillion divided thusly: Under $250,000 income - $3 trillion; over $250,000 income - $700 billion.
Click to expand...


What is your point?
 
Catawba said:
What is your point?
Click to expand...

Four points:

1. The greatest portion of the Bush tax cuts went to the non-wealthy. If the Dems want revenue for the of lowering the defit, they could find $3.7 trillion savings by ending all of the Bush tax cuts.

2. In the last GOP debate, one of the questioners asked the candidates if they would agree to a 10 to 1 split between spending cuts and tax increases. If the tax cuts were $3.7 trillion, I would think the Republicans and the Democrats should accept that split. Don't you agree?

3. The cuts in expenditures should begin year one and continue to rise over the ten years, but the tax increases should only come when the economy has rebounded long enough to be agreed that the recession has truly ended.

4. My last point was that you were wrong when you said, "One would think, that like a clock, you would at least be right twice a day. You continually prove that axiom wrong:" I enjoyed this part.
 
Last edited:
LesGovt said:
Four points:

1. The greatest portion of the Bush tax cuts went to the non-wealthy. If the Dems want revenue for the of lowering the defit, they could find $3.7 trillion savings by ending all of the Bush tax cuts.
Click to expand...

That is a way to look at it if suffering is of no concern. The humane perspective however, and has been documented, is that the wealthy received more individual benefit from the temporary Bush tax cuts than did the non-wealthy. With one in seven Americans poor now, many of the working class left unemployed and seniors barely hanging on, it would be stupid to the extreme to place further hardship on those who have already suffered the most.

It took both 30 years of too little revenues and too much spending to create our debt and its going to take 30 years of the reverse to reduce our debt back to manageable levels

2. In the last GOP debate, one of the questioners asked the candidates if they would agree to a 10 to 1 split between spending cuts and tax increases. If the tax cuts were $3.7 trillion, I would think the Republicans and the Democrats should accept that split. Don't you agree?
Click to expand...

I thought they should have accepted the 4 to 1 spending cuts to tax revenue increases, but they didn't. Besides, all the GOP candidates raised their hand saying their ideology was more important than reducing the debt.

3. The cuts in expenditures should begin year one and continue to rise over the ten years, but the tax increases should only come when the economy has rebounded long enough to be agreed that the recession has truly ended.
Click to expand...

I would agree we need to end our optional ME wars immediately and reduce our military back to a defense only size, reducing the deficit spending by $350 billion a year, but there is no reason why we cannot simultaneously eliminate the tax cuts for those making more than one million dollars and increase revenues as well as cutting spending. This way we reduce the deficit without causing further suffering for our citizens.

4. My last point was that you were wrong when you said, "One would think, that like a clock, you would at least be right twice a day. You continually prove that axiom wrong:" I enjoyed this part.
Click to expand...

Glad you enjoyed it, but you have not shown me to be wrong. Thanks for trying though! :sun
 
TurtleDude said:
actually you are wrong again

the rich pay the highest rates of taxes on the various types of income. They pay more actual dollars too. You whine that the uber rich pay less of a total federal tax rate because most of their income comes from capital gains. Yet that is the uber rich-maybe the top 400 to a couple thousand. the majority of "the rich" those making between 350K to 5 million pay the highest effective rate of income tax

And anyone paying top rates has a right to complain--indeed if you pay a higher rate than another group you have a right to complain because you are paying more for citizenship benefits than many others and you GET ABSOLUTELY NO ADDITIONAL BENEFITS FOR PAYING MORE
Click to expand...

We've already establish that the wealthy get more services

And I think it is a hopeless cause for you to even understand the principle behind progressive taxation as I have not yet seen anything you have said that even hints that you have an understanding of its principle. I am not completely sure, but as a lawyer, aren't you supposed to be able to understand your opponents position in order to make credible arguments against it?

I'll try explaining it one more time ...

Let me begin by asking you some questions ...

Do you believe taxes are necessary? Why or why not?

If the majority of society agrees taxes are necessary, do you believe it is ethically sound to tax a citizen who does not have enough money to pay the most humble of living expenses, i.e. clothing, food and shelter? Why or why not?

Do you think that equal opportunity is ethical? Why or why not?

Once you have answered these questions, I may have some idea s to whether or not you will be able to understand the concept of progressive taxation and I can continue explaining it to you.
 
Catawba said:
Glad you enjoyed it, but you have not shown me to be wrong. Thanks for trying though! :sun
Click to expand...

I hope one day that you will realize that lying is not a virtue. You previously said that I was wrong in what I had said, but you either did not read what I had said or you did not understand the meaning of the work, "aggregate." Either way, you were wrong.
 
20101212_030437_SE12-TAX.jpg
 
MusicAdventurer said:
We've already establish that the wealthy get more services

And I think it is a hopeless cause for you to even understand the principle behind progressive taxation as I have not yet seen anything you have said that even hints that you have an understanding of its principle. I am not completely sure, but as a lawyer, aren't you supposed to be able to understand your opponents position in order to make credible arguments against it?

I'll try explaining it one more time ...

Let me begin by asking you some questions ...

Do you believe taxes are necessary? Why or why not?

If the majority of society agrees taxes are necessary, do you believe it is ethically sound to tax a citizen who does not have enough money to pay the most humble of living expenses, i.e. clothing, food and shelter? Why or why not?

Do you think that equal opportunity is ethical? Why or why not?

Once you have answered these questions, I may have some idea s to whether or not you will be able to understand the concept of progressive taxation and I can continue explaining it to you.
Click to expand...

No you haven't

you have not proven that the average poor person uses less than the average rich person. But we do know something. The poor and middle class sure use more resources than the top few percent but guess what--that huge number pays less taxes than the top few percent.

Yes taxes are necessary. They should not be used to make "society fair"

define equal opportunity. How do you make things equal for stupid or untalented people? You cannot

You aren't in a position to explain anything to me since you constantly post falsehoods.

and if someone cannot pay taxes why should they have a right to demand others pay even more?

I reject the concept of progressive income taxes when they are coupled with an equal citizenship right
 
LesGovt said:
I hope one day that you will realize that lying is not a virtue. You previously said that I was wrong in what I had said, but you either did not read what I had said or you did not understand the meaning of the work, "aggregate." Either way, you were wrong.
Click to expand...

when someone claims the top one percent are not paying their fair share of the income taxes you pretty much know they are not correct
 
TurtleDude said:
I reject the concept of progressive income taxes when they are coupled with an equal citizenship right
Click to expand...

What you are advocating most likely will never happen here in the USA. But there just might be a place for you and your fellow uber John Galts:

Milton Friedman's Grandson to Build Floating Libertarian Nation

seasteading.jpg


Yesterday there was a story floating around, from Details of all places, about how Peter Thiel, founder of PayPal, has donated $1.25 million to the Seasteading Institute. It's an organization led by a former Google engineer named Patri Friedman, son of economist and sci-fi writer David Friedman... and grandson of late University of Chicago economic poobah Milton Friedman:
Milton Friedman's Grandson to Build Floating Libertarian Nation - The 312 - August 2011 - Chicago
Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
what percentage of the top one percent do you think are republicans?
Click to expand...

The percent whose incomes do not depend on the salaries of Americans. At least in terms of investment of contributions.
 
TurtleDude said:
greed is imposing costs on other people who are not responsible for your condition
Click to expand...

Just to be fair, what if the CEO of a company decides to cut 3,000 US jobs (including yours) and ship to China, simply because it will make the investors happy and he/she will make more money. Wouldn't that CEO at least be partially responsible for that person's condition if they were to temporarily fall into poverty as a result of the job loss?
 
TurtleDude said:
what percentage of the top one percent do you think are republicans?
Click to expand...

Don't know, don't care about your strawman. What I do know is that is the the GOP that is willing to sacrifice the economy to protect the tax cuts for the top 1%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom