• 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!

Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

Should the 2001/2003 GWB tax cuts be extended for people that make under $250k?


  • Total voters
    55
is there any limit to what the top 1% should have to pay in your mind. MOre than a quarter is confiscatory in my mind and right now lots of people pay close to half their income in taxes once you figure in state, local, and federal taxes. If you leave more than a million than you end paying even more

I don't trust dem politicians to stop at a certain point if they think they can buy the votes of the minions

the income tax and the death tax never would have even received 15% support if the current numbers were contemplated when those taxes were passed.

In Europe they don't have an infinite progression like you are talking about, so it is a straw man to say that progressive taxation will lead to that in America.

Do you have any example on your side? I don't think so, which is why your fear is just a speculation.
 
You are addressing 2 different subjects in your post, government spending, whether to have a progressive vs a regressive tax system.

Government spending is not a function of the type of tax system we have.

This can be easily demonstrated by our history when we had much higher taxes and much lower debt.

Spending is determined on priorities of the electorate (we the people) and their representatives they vote into office.

Agreed, but I think you can admit that since spending increases are more popular then balancing the budget, any surpluses from raising taxes put pressure on spending to be increased.

There are many factors that cause spending to increase, and one of the many promoters is increased taxes.


I would rather have high spending with a balanced budget then low spending with a budget defecit, and I get the impression that is at the root of this issue.
 
Last edited:
You are addressing 2 different subjects in your post, government spending, whether to have a progressive vs a regressive tax system.

Government spending is not a function of the type of tax system we have.

This can be easily demonstrated by our history when we had much higher taxes and much lower debt.

Spending is determined on priorities of the electorate (we the people) and their representatives they vote into office.

true but you do understand it is legitimate to criticize a system where those who pay no taxes have an equal ability to vote up the tax rates of those who do

you do understand that there are good faith arguments against progressive taxes that have nothing to do with economics per se and there are some people who think that individuals should not be pawns of whatever the majority considers the greater good or their greater good.
 
true but you do understand it is legitimate to criticize a system where those who pay no taxes have an equal ability to vote up the tax rates of those who do

From my point of view, this doesn't really have anything to do with the poor. The tax situation for the poor has not really changed much though any of our tax changes. The poop pay little to no taxes, and never have, because it it understood they have little to no money to pay taxes. If they did, they would not be poor.

The real battle is between the upper and middle classes, and due to the massive tax cuts on the wealthiest this has forced more of the tax burden to the middle class, pushing more and more of them into the lower class and creating more and more debt that is not covered by the tax revenues.
you do understand that there are good faith arguments against progressive taxes that have nothing to do with economics per se and there are some people who think that individuals should not be pawns of whatever the majority considers the greater good or their greater good.

Just as there are many people that feel we should not be subsidizing corporations, or unfunded wars to make the middle east safe for big oil.
The spending priorities are a completely different issue than what type of tax system is best.

The issue with progressive vs regressive taxes is do we increase taxes on on the top tax brackets proportional to their wealth as our system was designed by our forefathers, or do we continue to make it more regressive where the wealthy pay a lesser share of their wealth than the middle class.
 
In Europe they don't have an infinite progression like you are talking about, so it is a straw man to say that progressive taxation will lead to that in America.

Do you have any example on your side? I don't think so, which is why your fear is just a speculation.

basing what has happened in europe is fine with me

the next time some gun hater claims we are paranoid to think dems want to ban handguns I will just point to England.

but thanks for your evasion--I asked at what point is too much and you ignored it

and you forget dems once imposed 90% rates-we don't need to look to europe to see the pathetic parasitism of the left here
 
From my point of view, this doesn't really have anything to do with the poor. The tax situation for the poor has not really changed much though any of our tax changes. The poop pay little to no taxes, and never have, because it it understood they have little to no money to pay taxes. If they did, they would not be poor.

The real battle is between the upper and middle classes, and due to the massive tax cuts on the wealthiest this has forced more of the tax burden to the middle class, pushing more and more of them into the lower class and creating more and more debt that is not covered by the tax revenues.


Just as there are many people that feel we should not be subsidizing corporations, or unfunded wars to make the middle east safe for big oil.
The spending priorities are a completely different issue than what type of tax system is best.

The issue with progressive vs regressive taxes is do we increase taxes on on the top tax brackets proportional to their wealth as our system was designed by our forefathers, or do we continue to make it more regressive where the wealthy pay a lesser share of their wealth than the middle class.

I find it interesting you paen the tax hiking dems and ignore the founders

right now the tax system is the most skewed it has ever been with the rich paying the higher percentage of the total bill even though the rates are lower.

its beause the Bush tax adjustments sadly knocked lots of people off the income tax.

I think we need a system where everyone suffers when taxes are increased
 
basing what has happened in europe is fine with me

the next time some gun hater claims we are paranoid to think dems want to ban handguns I will just point to England.

Right you are, I agree with you that bad social policies in America could lead to even worse social policies because of Europe. But if we are going to use European nations as examples of what American policies could be, then we should agree on how the same thing can't happen with fiscal policy because it hasn't happened anywhere in Europe.

Great to get an agreement on that.

but thanks for your evasion--I asked at what point is too much and you ignored it

and you forget dems once imposed 90% rates-we don't need to look to europe to see the pathetic parasitism of the left here

But I think whatever tax rate under Clinton is fine, he is cool. so what?


and it was HOOVER who instigated the 90% income tax rates, not any Democrat.
 
Right you are, I agree with you that bad social policies in America could lead to even worse social policies because of Europe. But if we are going to use European nations as examples of what American policies could be, then we should agree on how the same thing can't happen with fiscal policy because it hasn't happened anywhere in Europe.

Great to get an agreement on that.



But I think whatever tax rate under Clinton is fine, he is cool. so what?


and it was HOOVER who instigated the 90% income tax rates, not any Democrat.

really? Mbig's post said that didn't happen until well after HOover was gone

BTW in many cases those huge rates didn't hit nearly as many people as the proposed Obama tax hikes will. No I cannot cite the source right now but I have heard several say the effective tax rate on the top 1%-based on the proposed obama hikes would be the highest effective rate in history due to all the ways people were able to avoid that confiscatory rate 50years ago
 
really? Mbig's post said that didn't happen until well after HOover was gone

BTW in many cases those huge rates didn't hit nearly as many people as the proposed Obama tax hikes will. No I cannot cite the source right now but I have heard several say the effective tax rate on the top 1%-based on the proposed obama hikes would be the highest effective rate in history due to all the ways people were able to avoid that confiscatory rate 50years ago

I agree with you that some taxation like that should be avoided, which is why I support Clinton's tax rate. If Obama wants to go above what there was under Clinton, then I would oppose that.


Yeah you are right, Hoover increased income taxes to 63% on top earners, and it only reached 90% during WWII. FDR first raised taxes in 1933 to 73%, but the largest increase was during WWII.

Either way, Hoover increased it drastically.

The Tax Foundation - U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2010
 
I find it interesting you paen the tax hiking dems and ignore the founders

I don't know what you mean there. Clarify please.

right now the tax system is the most skewed it has ever been with the rich paying the higher percentage of the total bill even though the rates are lower.

No it was skewed the most when tax rates were 92% for the the top tax bracket. We are but a fraction of that now.

its beause the Bush tax adjustments sadly knocked lots of people off the income tax.

Perhaps it would be cheaper to build poor houses, or increase welfare? How do you get blood out of a turnip?

I think we need a system where everyone suffers when taxes are increased.

I think being poor, is suffering enough! If you wish to trade places with the poor, I am sure you will find takers!
 
I agree with you that some taxation like that should be avoided, which is why I support Clinton's tax rate. If Obama wants to go above what there was under Clinton, then I would oppose that.


Yeah you are right, Hoover increased income taxes to 63% on top earners, and it only reached 90% during WWII. FDR first raised taxes in 1933 to 73%, but the largest increase was during WWII.

Either way, Hoover increased it drastically.

The Tax Foundation - U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2010

Hoover was a failure-jacking up taxes was a major mistake. Yes he was GOP, but he still was awful:mrgreen:
 
I don't know what you mean there. Clarify please.



No it was skewed the most when tax rates were 92% for the the top tax bracket. We are but a fraction of that now.



Perhaps it would be cheaper to build poor houses, or increase welfare? How do you get blood out of a turnip?



I think being poor, is suffering enough! If you wish to trade places with the poor, I am sure you will find takers!

the rate of progresstivity is at its highest since less people are paying income taxes now in terms of percentages.

I oppose policies that are designed to keep people poor or expand the amount of people dependent on the government. current dem policies do that IMHO
 
I oppose policies that are designed to keep people poor or expand the amount of people dependent on the government.

That ... is like the definition of American capitalism.
 
That ... is like the definition of American capitalism.

its an interesting thing about progressive taxation... even though i support them because it gives more income to poorer individuals, it also gives a dis-sentive for someone to increase their income because their tax rate will increase the more they make.

I care less about the disincentive for the rich because they are already rich :p


Regressive taxation sucks, but it gives an incentive for people to increase their income to pay at a lower tax rate
 
its an interesting thing about progressive taxation... even though i support them because it gives more income to poorer individuals, it also gives a dis-sentive for someone to increase their income because their tax rate will increase the more they make.

I care less about the disincentive for the rich because they are already rich :p


Regressive taxation sucks, but it gives an incentive for people to increase their income to pay at a lower tax rate

how does progressive income tax give the poor more income

just curious. through income redistribution which is not necessarily a component for Prog income taxes or by lessening their tax burden?

the other point is interesting

my main reason for opposing progressive rates is to prevent the vote buying and the power it gives congress.
 
the rate of progresstivity is at its highest since less people are paying income taxes now in terms of percentages.

Progressive taxes are designed to be proportional to wealth, to prevent the regressive situation we are in today where 20% of the population owns 80% of the wealth.
I oppose policies that are designed to keep people poor or expand the amount of people dependent on the government. current dem policies do that IMHO

Than your position is counter productive to your goal, because the more wealth you take from people, the more you make them dependent on the government.

It was why the progressive tax was created in the first place and why we have a middle class now which is slowly deteriorating due to the shift in tax burden away from the wealthy onto the middle class.
 
my main reason for opposing progressive rates is to prevent the vote buying and the power it gives congress.

As if the people with the most money, especially now with the new supreme court ruling, don't have the most influence on legislation?
 
how does progressive income tax give the poor more income

just curious. through income redistribution which is not necessarily a component for Prog income taxes or by lessening their tax burden?

the other point is interesting

my main reason for opposing progressive rates is to prevent the vote buying and the power it gives congress.

It is pretty simple, but if someone agrees with it is another issue.

If the poor pay less taxes then the rich for a given amount of government spending, then the poor are getting to keep more income then during a flat tax system with the same government expenditure.
 
Progressive taxes are designed to be proportional to wealth, to prevent the regressive situation we are in today where 20% of the population owns 80% of the wealth.


Than your position is counter productive to your goal, because the more wealth you take from people, the more you make them dependent on the government.

It was why the progressive tax was created in the first place and why we have a middle class now which is slowly deteriorating due to the shift in tax burden away from the wealthy onto the middle class.

I don't see how you can make the claim that progressive taxation has to be proportional to wealth... or else it isn't progressive.

If anything, progressive taxation should relate to the rich paying more for each dollar devoted to increasing their standard of living, and not the rich owning more wealth.

I think that people get most of their standard of living from spending, and not from having already bought items (such as houses). So in that case, the system today is still progressive.

but wealth should still play a part in how progressive a tax system is interpreted as being though.
 
Progressive taxes are designed to be proportional to wealth, to prevent the regressive situation we are in today where 20% of the population owns 80% of the wealth.


Than your position is counter productive to your goal, because the more wealth you take from people, the more you make them dependent on the government.

It was why the progressive tax was created in the first place and why we have a middle class now which is slowly deteriorating due to the shift in tax burden away from the wealthy onto the middle class.

No, the more handouts you give people the more dependent you make them on the government and probably on those politicians you support

I love the t hought that progressive income taxes actually help the poor. They don't. IF that were true we wouldn't have so many poor today and the wealth skew would not be that great. What progressive income taxes does is transfer wealth from those who earn it to other elites who benefit from the government having lots of wealth--not the poor and that is why rich dems support such taxation
 
Back
Top Bottom