• 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!

Is the OWS against Capitalism?

Is the OWS Movement against Capitalism?


  • Total voters
    69
Because its the fiscally responsible thing to do. The middle class folks already see their benefits and entitlements being cut. Its time for the wealthy to give up their tax breaks too.

How is it fiscally responsible to think that the proposed tax increases on the wealthy which increases revenues $80-$100B annually will address an approximate $1T annual deficit?
 
How is it fiscally responsible to think that the proposed tax increases on the wealthy which increases revenues $80-$100B annually will address an approximate $1T annual deficit?

I imagine it'd be better than doing nothing.
 
"The percentage increase in after-tax income tilts greatly in favor of those making over $1 million, for one, especially when compared to Americans making between $40,000-$50,000."

The issue with this position and the supporting data is that amount of taxes paid by those making $40-50k was so little that a decrease in their marginal tax rate was going to make a nominal increase in their after-tax income. Conversely the amount of tax revenue generated by those whose income was over $1m was sufficient enough that their marginal tax rate reduction amounted to a much greater number/percentage.
 
I imagine it'd be better than doing nothing.

Maybe so, maybe not. If the wealthy decide to retract from the US market and invest overseas the reduction in available capital AND taxable income would hurt would it not?
 
Why is it the fiscally responsible thing to do? Taxing the rich even more, will just make them invest even less in the US. Taxes for the rich in the US, is just as high as the rest of the word, in fact it is higher than many countries. I hope you realize how much they are already paying.

For me your policy sound extremely fiscally irresponsible, because there is no way you will be able to cover the deficit by only increasing the taxes on the rich, and it will damage the economy, because they are going to invest elsewhere.

For me it sounds like you support feel good politics. Feel good policies were one of the main causes for what created this mess in the first place. Such as making a national policy that everyone can get a house, that they did everything to stop the crisis in 2001 so they inflated the bouble, and the budget deficit.

You still haven't responded to the simple question. What makes you think America is so different from Europe, so that America can pursue different policies, but get similar outcomes? In Europe, the taxes are high for everyone, and that is why they can afford a welfare state. America will not afford a welfare state by just taxing the rich.

Its a fallacy to compare ourselves to europe. Our GDP is roughly equivalent to the whole continent and we have 300 million people. As for rich not wanting to invest, that has been repeatedly proven to be false by liberal and conservative economists. We had some of our most prosperous times during the clinton years and even bushs own treasury secretary called tax cuts a mistake. he was forced to resign for not agreeing with it.
 
Maybe so, maybe not. If the wealthy decide to retract from the US market and invest overseas the reduction in available capital AND taxable income would hurt would it not?

In order to help our country, financially, I believe we must cut spending and tax the rich. If the wealthy want to take their business elsewhere, and leave America to rot, then I think it is then time for the government to grapple them back into America's affairs.
 
In order to help our country, financially, I believe we must cut spending and tax the rich....

this is exactly what Obama & the Democrats want to do, but the Republicans keep calling it "Communism".

Standard & Poor's called for a balanced approach, of $3 trillion in spending cuts & $1 trillion in more tax revenue from the rich, over ten years.

its a good plan. it asks for sacrifice from all.

and the GOP said no.
 
Last edited:
...I think it is then time for the government to grapple them back into America's affairs.

And how does this comply with the US Constitution or are you being facetious?
 
And how does this comply with the US Constitution or are you being facetious?

We are in troubling times. Our nation is suffering while the uber-rich move jobs overseas, which only adds to the problem.

Corporations are not people, so I can see no problem if the government ordered corporations to focus their business in America.

I have supported the right and the rich for far too long, and have realized that they don't give a damn about the poor.
 
We are in troubling times. Our nation is suffering while the uber-rich move jobs overseas, which only adds to the problem.

Corporations are not people, so I can see no problem if the government ordered corporations to focus their business in America.

I have supported the right and the rich for far too long, and have realized that they don't give a damn about the poor.

the poor don't pay for the lobbyists and the PACs that fund the Republican's campaigns.

so no, the GOP doesn't give a **** about the poor.
 
this is exactly what Obama & the Democrats want to do, but the Republicans keep calling it "Communism".

In a grossly broad sense it is. The aim to ‘tax the rich’ and ‘give to the poor’ theoretically ultimately results in a ‘class-less’ society which is a tenant of Socialism. The presence of an ‘authoritarian’ government somewhat supports the ‘Communism’ claim. Both of these are not my personal opinion but merely an explanation of the basis for the position of some.



Standard & Poor's called for a balanced approach, of $3 trillion in spending cuts & $1 trillion in more tax revenue from the rich, over ten years.
its a good plan. it asks for sacrifice from all.
and the GOP said no.

It is a good plan but still not sufficient enough. Per whoever’s published budget the debt will continue to increase for the next 10-15 years. The $4t you mention above will push the ‘point of no return’ out 7-8 years but only. The President’s debt commission came up with even more and was supported by both parties but still garnered no support from the White House. Why? At issue is that the spending/borrowing is increasing to the point that debt service will overcome the ability to generate revenue in the medium term.
 
I have supported the right and the rich for far too long, and have realized that they don't give a damn about the poor.
Well neither does the Left give a damn about the poor. The Left's rhetoric focuses on the middle class.
 
How is it fiscally responsible to think that the proposed tax increases on the wealthy which increases revenues $80-$100B annually will address an approximate $1T annual deficit?

where are you getting your numbers from. The bush tax cuts for the wealthy amount to 4 trillion over 10 years which is 400 billion a year.
 
Its a fallacy to compare ourselves to europe. Our GDP is roughly equivalent to the whole continent and we have 300 million people.
Why?

Sure Europe is a little bit poorer, but not by much. The idea that you can pursue different policies in the US than in Europe, and get the same results as Europe is really dumb. Fact is, the richest 1% take about 15% of Americas economy (after the crisis). Shall 15% of the economy pay for a welfare state that costs 40% of GDP. It is pretty obvious that everyone has to pay, not just the 1% if you want to live in a welfare state.

As for rich not wanting to invest, that has been repeatedly proven to be false by liberal and conservative economists. We had some of our most prosperous times during the clinton years and even bushs own treasury secretary called tax cuts a mistake. he was forced to resign for not agreeing with it.
No it hasn't. In fact there are direct evidence that there are policies that scares the rich away. Just compare Venezuela and Chile.

Now over to Clinton tax rates. Actually the tax rates for rich today is higher than under Clinton. States taxes have increased, especially for the rich, and there is some new taxes from the health care legislation. Taxing the rich is like plucking the golden goose. If you pluck to much it is going to fly away, or in modern economic terms. Invest outside the US. Companies are already investing outside the US.
 
It is pretty selfish and greedy to want student loans to be forgiven.

I thought they were protesting against greed?

Show me where this has been officially endorsed as a position of the Occupy movement?
 
Actually, Bush gave tax cuts to everyone. Did you forget about that in your zeal to blame the wealthy?

The mega rich got bigger tax cuts than the middle class due to the cuts he made in the tax rate on capital gains and inheritance. That doesn't even include the tax subsidies for companies to outsource American jobs.
 
Because its the fiscally responsible thing to do. The middle class folks already see their benefits and entitlements being cut. Its time for the wealthy to give up their tax breaks too.

The majority of voters are saying the same thing.
 
The mega rich got bigger tax cuts than the middle class due to the cuts he made in the tax rate on capital gains and inheritance. That doesn't even include the tax subsidies for companies to outsource American jobs.

exactly!!!
 
Maybe so, maybe not. If the wealthy decide to retract from the US market and invest overseas the reduction in available capital AND taxable income would hurt would it not?

That didn't happen in the 1940's through the 1970's when effective tax rates for the rich was much higher than it is now. Nor did it happen in the 1990's when Clinton increased the tax rates.

What increased the outsourcing of investment and jobs were the tax subsidies for doing so.
 
And how does this comply with the US Constitution or are you being facetious?

Can you show me where in the Constitution it says we must provide tax breaks for outsourcing American jobs???
 
Well neither does the Left give a damn about the poor. The Left's rhetoric focuses on the middle class.

I find this to be untrue. The left focuses on the poor as well.

You mean to tell me republicans are interested in the well-being of the poor class? What a laugh.
 
where are you getting your numbers from. The bush tax cuts for the wealthy amount to 4 trillion over 10 years which is 400 billion a year.

My numbers come from my own calculations, from IRS income data and using those proposals that I am aware of. The only proposals that I am aware of are for increasing the rate from 35.5 to 39.5, 4%. This applied to the income of the top bracket, around $2t, results in an annual revenue increase of $80b. Of course the IRS data is a couple of years old and there may be other rate increase proposals out there that I am not aware of.

Where did you get your numbers?
 
as far as I am concerned, giving tax-breaks for companies to move jobs overseas, is treason.

The Democrats have a bill to end the tax breaks for outsourcing jobs. Guess who is blocking the bill?
 
Back
Top Bottom