• 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 it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

Is it unreasonable to pay a little more?

  • Yes. I'm a greedy bastard!! I need MORE!!!

    Votes: 21 27.6%
  • No. There's comes a point in wealthiness where it just doesn't even matter anymore.

    Votes: 48 63.2%
  • I'm not sure.

    Votes: 7 9.2%

  • Total voters
    76
All I can say is your wrong, and i don't understand the mind of a liberal, probably how you don't understand the mind of a conservative.

It took 30 years of taxing the wealthy too little and spending excessively to create our debt. To think that our debt can be significantly reduced by only addressing one of the causes is not being realistic. to put it nicely.
 
It took 30 years of taxing the wealthy too little and spending excessively to create our debt. To think that our debt can be significantly reduced by only addressing one of the causes is not being realistic. to put it nicely.
Thats not what i even said, actually if you look from my previous comments you will see that i said we cant just reduce the debt by cutting spending or just taxing it must be both and more.
 
Thats not what i even said, actually if you look from my previous comments you will see that i said we cant just reduce the debt by cutting spending or just taxing it must be both and more.

I was going by your statement to Boo that he was wrong when he said, "Only a balanced approach, one that includes both tax increases and spending cuts will have any chance of being successful."

Are you now saying Boo was correct?
 
All I can say is your wrong, and i don't understand the mind of a liberal, probably how you don't understand the mind of a conservative.

No, I get along quite well and understand many conservatives. Remember those who see only one way are a very small percentage, as few are t the extremes of the political spectrum.
 
And I bet you don't know how to get the stuff out of the ground left to your own devices be it hay, soybeans, corn, cranberries, rice, potatoes or whatever.

I have cut, bailed and feed hay to cattle and then slaughtered them.

There goes you getting a Christmas card from Ingrid Newkirk
 
It took 30 years of taxing the wealthy too little and spending excessively to create our debt. To think that our debt can be significantly reduced by only addressing one of the causes is not being realistic. to put it nicely.

its taxing the middle class too little that has caused the middle class to demand so much government
 
The government has been ripping off every class for the past 230 plus years....IMHO.
 
its taxing the middle class too little that has caused the middle class to demand so much government

This kind of gaul is what cost Romney and Ryan the election. You take the tax cuts agreed to by the working class because you say it will trickle down, and then you use those tax cuts to move working class jobs overseas, and then have the gaul to complain that those who's jobs were moved out of the country, are now not paying enough taxes.

All I can say is I hope you guys on the far right can keep it up until 2014 so moderates can retake the House!
 
Totally agree, but there's two sides to this equation. We need new sources of revenue and spending cuts at the same time.
The fact is that all of the Bush tax cuts would have to expire in order to make even a small difference. Clinton had a surplus budget because everyone paid their "fair" share. Not just the rich. Bush cut the taxes for everyone because he felt that if there is a surplus in the budget, it rightfully belongs to all tax payers; poor, middle class and rich.
 
I can't understand why the Uniparty gets so polarized that it's "all about revenue" or it's "all about spending". A shortfall is a shortfall. BOTH numbers figure into the calculation, but the mere notion that operating at continual deficit is somehow sustainable or even sane is something only a "classically trained" economist (IMHO, one of those professions that is highly skilled in precisely measuring something that very few of them understand AT ALL) could support.

If you want to look at the numbers, it was fairly obvious that Clinton presided over a long, UPWARD trend in spending that saw the budget go from something around $1.8T to $2.1T, but as soon as the "conservative" Bush came to power, that line turned SHARPLY upwards. The PCLL would tell you that the solution is for their President to spend MORE - well, geez, guys, Bush tried that. Spent like a drunken sailor - and guess what - the economy looked great to all of those economists and analysts - then it crashed just like any reasonable and intelligent observer had predicted it would do. DUH!!!!

But, Bush really did take the cake. While Clinton did increase spending, he matched that with increased tax. Bush's administration (and let's not forget that lovely bunch in Congress that get to duck the blame for their dirty work) did BOTH wrong. Up with spending, down with taxes. How could the RRR defend such stupidity? Then, when the Uniparty shuffled the deck to bring the US "change" the new champion of the RRR did EXACTLY what Bush did, only threw a few trillion more into bailouts - and the PCLL defends THAT idiocy.

It SHOULD occur to you/us all that there is something more wrong with the country that just the question of revenue vs. expenditure (which for a decade are BOTH wrong).
 
The tax on the wealthy is only on income. Many of the wealthiest don't have income so they come under a different classification that is not called income. They get a lower tax. This is one scam that is backed by the Whitehouse. Senator Kerry gets taxed on a Senator salary but has assets with his wife that are in the hundreds of millions.

Another scam are deductions, which were not addressed. Romney was smart since he was going to lower the tax rate, since the tax rate is more for show when it comes to the most wealthy. He was going reduce deductions where the money magic really occurs. This is what allows the rich and well connected get to lower their final tax rate. General Electric had the sanme corporate rate as large business, but through deductions did not have to pay taxes.

Polititians don't like to touch deductions, because this is how they money launder campaign donations from wealthy special interest groups. The tax code is a who's who of campaign money laundering.

If you were to touch deductions, the tax code would shrink shrink and the kickback scam would be harder. For example, unions contributed to Obama, so they get a deduction/exemption from Obamacare. They get their contribution money back by donating up front. If we eliminated all new deductions, then campaign contributions may not be cost effective. Hollywood got a new deduction since they provided campaign value via propaganda. They are very wealthy and may say we accept higher rates, but will pay less.

Romney was well aware of how the game works. But since the game is still on, he and the other smart rich will always win the game, since there is always a need for money laundering by polititians.
 
I was going by your statement to Boo that he was wrong when he said, "Only a balanced approach, one that includes both tax increases and spending cuts will have any chance of being successful."

Are you now saying Boo was correct?
You know what ur right i was wrong,i do agree with Boo. sorry
 
Although I think they should pay way more then they do, I think you went about this badly. Although I think that the reason why they don't pay more is because they are greedy human beings who want it all to be theirs, you should still be as unbiased as possible when making the poll.
 
The tax on the wealthy is only on income. Many of the wealthiest don't have income so they come under a different classification that is not called income. They get a lower tax. This is one scam that is backed by the Whitehouse. Senator Kerry gets taxed on a Senator salary but has assets with his wife that are in the hundreds of millions.

Another scam are deductions, which were not addressed. Romney was smart since he was going to lower the tax rate, since the tax rate is more for show when it comes to the most wealthy. He was going reduce deductions where the money magic really occurs. This is what allows the rich and well connected get to lower their final tax rate. General Electric had the sanme corporate rate as large business, but through deductions did not have to pay taxes.

Polititians don't like to touch deductions, because this is how they money launder campaign donations from wealthy special interest groups. The tax code is a who's who of campaign money laundering.

If you were to touch deductions, the tax code would shrink shrink and the kickback scam would be harder. For example, unions contributed to Obama, so they get a deduction/exemption from Obamacare. They get their contribution money back by donating up front. If we eliminated all new deductions, then campaign contributions may not be cost effective. Hollywood got a new deduction since they provided campaign value via propaganda. They are very wealthy and may say we accept higher rates, but will pay less.

Romney was well aware of how the game works. But since the game is still on, he and the other smart rich will always win the game, since there is always a need for money laundering by polititians.

Which is one more reason to STOP taxing income (with the million loopholes in tens of thousands of pages of tax code) and tax consumption by a national VAT on ALL transactions. I could write the entire code on one single page. EVERYONE pays on everything except for healthful foods, medical care (not including drugs) and children's clothing.

BTW: it is also informative to note the proportion of revenue that comes not from income tax itself, but payroll tax - which IMHO is the #1 shift of tax burden onto the middle class.
 
No one should ever have to pay more than 40% in total taxes.

Sadly, with today's tax environment some people are paying above 50% total tax.
 
Of course the higher taxes will "make a dent"....every little bit helps....It angers me that Romney's, or any wealthy man's, real tax percentage was 13%, while mine at one tenth the income was 11%...
Fairness over greed.
The Bush tax cuts should never have been allowed.
I do agree that spending is out of hand...this applies to both private and public sectors, in a great many areas.
Salaries to "bosses" - way out of hand...
Truth over propaganda.

After you paid the 11% how much should you be taxed again if you invest that same money to live off of?
 
After you paid the 11% how much should you be taxed again if you invest that same money to live off of?
If Mr. Earthworm would forgive me butting in on his reply: IMHO that should depend on HOW you invest your money. If it is creating wealth (adding value to a resource or delivering a service needed to do so) why should it be taxed at all? However, if it is from a purely speculative gain (be it in real estate or market speculation) it should be hit very hard indeed (BTW: do you want to guess where the prepondrence of income for Wall Street and really rich guys fits in there???)
 
..It angers me that Romney's, or any wealthy man's, real tax percentage was 13%, while mine at one tenth the income was 11%...
Fairness over greed.

this is the mindset I don't understand. you admit they pay a higher % and high actual dollar amount and yet you still bitch about it not being fair.

leads me to believe "you guys" don't give a **** about "fair" and you just want to punish the rich because they have more than you do.
 
And here I thought by the very nature of percentages, the rich WERE paying more than everyone else. Not only is their tax rate typically higher, 20-35% of a million is substantially higher than 0% of $30k. In my opinion, unless you're paying more than the rich are, in either percentage or net value, it's rather hypocritical to say they're not paying "enough". New taxes are always great unless you're the one who has to pay for it, right?

You're not figuring in the fact that more and more of the wealth is concentrated into a smaller and smaller group of people who are in positions of power that they've been using to manipulate everything to be this way (no-bid government contracts, lobbying for regulation that drives the small guy out, etc.), so what do they expect? Our system of capitalistic society wasn't designed to be so lopsided, and is destined to fail if it continues in the same direction. "Hypocritical"? We should be so lucky.
 
You're not figuring in the fact that more and more of the wealth is concentrated into a smaller and smaller group of people who are in positions of power that they've been using to manipulate everything to be this way (no-bid government contracts, lobbying for regulation that drives the small guy out, etc.), so what do they expect? Our system of capitalistic society wasn't designed to be so lopsided, and is destined to fail if it continues in the same direction. "Hypocritical"? We should be so lucky.

Everything you've pointed out has come from corrupt politicians allowing themselves to be bought. Your solution is to give these corrupt politicians more power and more money. Mine is to reduce their power and scope.

- What percentage of rich people (Let's say net worth over 2 million dollars) actually manipulates the government and the economy? A surprisingly small percentage. Most rich people aren't the monopoly man.
- What percentage of politicians allow campaign contributions and lobbyists to influence their votes? Almost all of them.

You really can't see who's the problem here?
 
Last edited:
You would have to cut it by about a third and that's just to break even today, and depending on how you would change social security or medicare they would have to be cut again in the future to not go over cost.

What would you cut to get us below our current revenue levels?

MILITARY AND FOREIGN AID is what I would cut. We have no business providing aid to ANYbody with money we do not have. I can't believe Obama recently signed a billion dollar "gift" package to the Egyptians that include a squadron of fighter jets. He should be impeached for that but noone says sht.
 
Whats really going on is that the government is deliberately putting us further into debt and are conning retarded idiots into thinking we just need to tax the **** out of the rich to solve our debt instead of drastically cutting spending.

Of course. But who's going to believe they are deliberately doing it, even while their actions continue to prove it? Even worse, who's going to believe the reason why they want to deliberately buckle the financial system? I'm not even sure if I believe it but everything they do shows this to be the case.





















\
 
A) A person making 100K whose skill set is worth 100K
B) A person making 50K whose skill set is worth 25K

If you think person A is the greedy one, it makes you a jealous have-not. Period.

That's our society. Instead of trying to get more for ourselves, we do nothing but bellyache about how someone else has it better. F'n whiners.

I couldn't care less who's got what. I was talking about the billionaires who have more money than they could possibly ever spend because that's who I thought Obama was talking about when he said the whole fiscal cliff solution was being held up by a "small sliver of the very wealthiest who didn't want to pay a little more". I would think the small sliver is far beyond the 50-100k bracket..
 
I will say this.... Considering the extra-Constitution and un-Constitutional budgeting and spending model that the Government of the United States is currently using, I do not believe that ANY American curently paying income taxes should be required to pay a single penny more until two things have happened:

1. The Budget of the United States is brought back within the Constitutionally prescribed limitations.
2. No income group is exempted from paying income taxes.
 
Back
Top Bottom