• 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!

Would you support the Boles Simpson debt reduction plan?

Would you support Bples Simpson

  • yes

    Votes: 3 33.3%

  • no

    Votes: 3 33.3%

  • other

    Votes: 1 11.1%

  • not sure enough of what is in it

    Votes: 2 22.2%
  • Total voters
    9
  • Poll closed .
listener

listener

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
52
Reaction score
4
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Thay is the question?
 
I would prefer the"vote Obama out of office" debt reduction plan.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060902671 said:
I would prefer the"vote Obama out of office" debt reduction plan.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but Romney will spend just as much. He doesn't have the backbone to cut spending. He can't stand up to the corporate interests that are demanding it.
 
Voltaire X said:
Sorry, but Romney will spend just as much. He doesn't have the backbone to cut spending. He can't stand up to the corporate interests that are demanding it.
Click to expand...

So give Obama another four years? :lamo
 
Initially I did...but now I realize just how much the middleclass and the poor have been hammered...now I support obamas plan...
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060902806 said:
So give Obama another four years? :lamo
Click to expand...

Better than giving Romney a potential 8. I'll take four years of Obama and then welcome two completely new candidates in 2016.
 
Strip out the continuance of Obamacare, and I would be willing to make that compromise.
 
lpast said:
Thats 3 yrs ago stuff....they have put forth a plan since then...but you already know that :)....the evidence is all around you Cpwill the rich need a tax increase and the middleclass and poor need the break this time...:) but you know that too
Click to expand...

:)

No Country Leans On Upper Income Earners As Much As The US


In our country it isn't that we don't tax the upper income deciles, it's that by and large we don't tax our middle class like other nations do. that's why we raise less as a % of GDP in revenue than they do.

:) and before you start bringing it up, that's counting both payroll and income taxes ;)





What we need is not a system that tries to take from one at the expense of another, or raise ones' burden to lower anothers'. What we need is a tax system that is simple and sane, instead of our current spaggetti mess.
 
cpwill said:
:)

No Country Leans On Upper Income Earners As Much As The US




:) and before you start bringing it up, that's counting both payroll and income taxes ;)





What we need is not a system that tries to take from one at the expense of another, or raise ones' burden to lower anothers'. What we need is a tax system that is simple and sane, instead of our current spaggetti mess.
Click to expand...

n our country it isn't that we don't tax the upper income deciles, it's that by and large we don't tax our middle class like other nations do. that's why we raise less as a % of GDP in revenue than they do.

CPWill the evidence that your last statement is total utter nonesense is all around you...ive posted dozens of factual links showing just how bad the middleclass has been pummeled and how its shrunk and the ranks of the poor have risen all the while the american richest have gotten fabulously richer. This we pay to much taxs is too much trash. Thats all they ever say WE NEED MORE TAX CUTS that will fix it....trickle down food to end hunger, trickle down housing to end homelessness because there are no jobs...trickle down this and that...



Obama put it perfect in one of his localized speeches...here is pretty much a quote..not exact. Republicans answer to everything is the richest need a tax cut. In good times, the rich need a tax cut. In bad times the rich need a tax cut. In war the rich need a tax cut. World Starvation th rich need a tax cut. Devastating natural disasters the rich need a tax cut. The republicans believe the only remedy for everything is tax cuts.
 
lpast said:
CPWill the evidence that your last statement is total utter nonesense is all around you...ive posted dozens of factual links showing just how bad the middleclass has been pummeled and how its shrunk and the ranks of the poor have risen all the while the american richest have gotten fabulously richer.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree. That just doesn't happen to flow from taxes, but rather from the fact that poor national economic decisions (such as those being made by the current administration) will always disproportionately harm those least able to protect themselves.
 
Absolutely not.

Reducing defense procurement by 15% when the military is already overburdened with maintenance costs for old equipment. Stupid, reduce the maintenance cost by getting new equipment. You can only keep 40+ year old equipment running for so long, eventually you will need new equipment.

Sustaining Obama care and even adding a public option, no way. Increasing the authority of a government agency also sounds like a very bad plan to institute socialistic controls. Eliminating tax deductions for businesses providing healthcare, yep, that should really help the healthcare problem as it becomes cheaper and easier to just pay the "obamacare tax" instead.

15% gas tax when cost are already high for gas. Sure, take even more money out peoples pockets, that should really help a consumer based economy.

I notice that nowhere does it address reducing Welfare or Medicaid. No, instead it wants to reduce pensions of people who worked and earned it. The plan is a very good example of Dem thinking and pandering to the left while totally ignoring reality or coming up with a plan that cuts from all of government.

This whole plan, if adopted is just one more mile on the road to revolution.
 
cpwill said:
Oh I agree. That just doesn't happen to flow from taxes, but rather from the fact that poor national economic decisions (such as those being made by the current administration) will always disproportionately harm those least able to protect themselves.
Click to expand...

Marine the harm thats been done to the middleclass and poor did NOT happen in the last 3.5 yrs it started in 1981
 
A core element is a flat tax to eliminate what they called the reality that the super rich and corporates write the tax code and accordingly exempt themselves via deductions - so it doesn't matter was rate is set at in the current system as the super rich and mega corporations will exempt themselves. A flat tax eliminates tax loopholes for the rich.
 
i'd support moving all of the tax brackets back to 1990s levels.
 
Helix said:
i'd support moving all of the tax brackets back to 1990s levels.
Click to expand...

Why not completely redo the entire tax system, making it simple to understand and implement and removing most of the deductions and convolutions in the system?
 
DVSentinel said:
Why not completely redo the entire tax system, making it simple to understand and implement and removing most of the deductions and convolutions in the system?
Click to expand...

sure, as long as the end result is not regressive.

i doubt we'll see it in our lifetimes, though. those deductions and convolutions were paid for by a lot of lobbying. also, what is considered a "loophole," and which loopholes do we eliminate?
 
DVSentinel said:
Why not completely redo the entire tax system, making it simple to understand and implement and removing most of the deductions and convolutions in the system?
Click to expand...

I agree. We've got to get corporate money out of Congress first though. Until that happens, progress can't be made on a myriad of issues.
 
Helix said:
sure, as long as the end result is not regressive.

i doubt we'll see it in our lifetimes, though. those deductions and convolutions were paid for by a lot of lobbying. also, what is considered a "loophole," and which loopholes do we eliminate?
Click to expand...

All of them.

Basically, for income tax, a flat tax of around 25% for all with a maximum of 5% reduction for donation to charity. Adjust tax rate for all as necessary. Capital gains, inheritance, etc, are income. No earned income credit, no family credit, no marriage deduction, etc. At the end of the year, you earned x number of dollars during the year after including losses and then give the government 25% of it.(or whatever other rate meets our needs).

For Corporations, lets say around 15% for those who have 5% or less profits, 25% for those with between 5-10% profits, 35% for those earning between 10-20% profit and 75% for any corporation earning greater than 20% profit. Taxes apply for only those profits earned in the United States, it's territories or protectorates.

Tariffs are applied equal to what the other country taxes our products entering their country. If there is a relief of tariffs if the company produces in the US, it is only applied to those products produced in the US. If someone like Toyota only assembles in the US, then we tariff the parts coming in but not the finished model assembled here.

Government spending is reduced to only those items which are a benefit to all Americans, not a limited number of them. Since Social Security and Medicare are separate tax items, independent of federal income tax withholdings, then they are separated from governments direct control. Like the post office, the government sets it up, but then only chooses it's head and cannot take anything from it. If the final analysis shows that simply buying all seniors and disabled persons a private insurance policy with acceptable co-pay is more cost effective, then we do that instead of the government running the whole show and making the mess of it as they have.
 
DVSentinel said:
All of them.

Basically, for income tax, a flat tax of around 25% for all with a maximum of 5% reduction for donation to charity. Adjust tax rate for all as necessary. Capital gains, inheritance, etc, are income. No earned income credit, no family credit, no marriage deduction, etc. At the end of the year, you earned x number of dollars during the year after including losses and then give the government 25% of it.(or whatever other rate meets our needs).

For Corporations, lets say around 15% for those who have 5% or less profits, 25% for those with between 5-10% profits, 35% for those earning between 10-20% profit and 75% for any corporation earning greater than 20% profit. Taxes apply for only those profits earned in the United States, it's territories or protectorates.

Tariffs are applied equal to what the other country taxes our products entering their country. If there is a relief of tariffs if the company produces in the US, it is only applied to those products produced in the US. If someone like Toyota only assembles in the US, then we tariff the parts coming in but not the finished model assembled here.

Government spending is reduced to only those items which are a benefit to all Americans, not a limited number of them. Since Social Security and Medicare are separate tax items, independent of federal income tax withholdings, then they are separated from governments direct control. Like the post office, the government sets it up, but then only chooses it's head and cannot take anything from it. If the final analysis shows that simply buying all seniors and disabled persons a private insurance policy with acceptable co-pay is more cost effective, then we do that instead of the government running the whole show and making the mess of it as they have.
Click to expand...

a flat 25 percent tax is incredibly regressive. you're basically proposing a massive tax cut for the top tier and a massive increase for the bottom. (edit to indicate that i just noticed that you included capital gains as income, so that brings down the tax cut for many at the very top.)

as for corporations, i don't have a problem with allowing businesses to deduct expenses and losses. i'd propose undercutting the lower rates in Europe, but ensure that every corporation actually pays that low rate.
 
Helix said:
a flat 25 percent tax is incredibly regressive. you're basically proposing a massive tax cut for the top tier and a massive increase for the bottom. (edit to indicate that i just noticed that you included capital gains as income, so that brings down the tax cut for many at the very top.)

as for corporations, i don't have a problem with allowing businesses to deduct expenses and losses. i'd propose undercutting the lower rates in Europe, but ensure that every corporation actually pays that low rate.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is that we haven't used an equal taxation (equal based upon percentage) in the past, so the system is already way out of whack and a gross adjustment will occur.

Your corporate tax scheme might help some, but if a company is charging enough to exceed 20% profits in a multibillion dollar corporations, I have no problem cutting the family jewels off. Especially since taxation is based upon profit, which is only after payroll, R&D and other factors have already been taken out. For the most part, the drug companies (last I heard around a 28% profit margin, almost entirely from the US) would be the worst hurt. I haven't looked at all of Europe's taxes, but most companies would be happy I think at a 15% or 25% rate (10% or 20% if the donate enough to charities), especially if they don't have to fess up for overseas profits. Our current nominal tax rate for corporations is around 64% on global profits. Ouch, no wonders they are trying to hide what they can. And since my plan would tax all companies doing business in the US, whether US owned or not, I think we would come out better in the end.
 
lpast said:
Marine the harm thats been done to the middleclass and poor did NOT happen in the last 3.5 yrs it started in 1981
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. Middle decile incomes rose from the 1980's as costs of living fell. Until 2008, when we started this grand keynesian experiment we find ourselves in.


When politicians disperse money, do you think that they follow economic incentives, or political ones?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom