• 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!

Obama Proved Last Night who benefits from Government spending

TurtleDude said:
funny you ignore 100+ years of no income tax and it ignores effective rates.
Click to expand...

I didn't ignore it.. if you want to go back to how things were funded by the government back then, I'm all for it. Everything changed around 1913-1930. So to stay topical within the contexts of the system we now use, I simply quoted figures within that time frame. Get it?

the top marginal rate affects far more people now than those vaunted top rates you socialists want to impose on the rich
Click to expand...
.

That's because the dollar is worth less and cost of living has gone up, not because more people are earning more in real wages.

And are you implying that the entire country, from the '30s to the '80s was socialist based? You do realize those where the most prosperous years of our country and countrymen... right?


You also ignore the fact that there were far many more deductions and evasions available back when the top marginal rates were higher
Click to expand...

You ignore that no deductions are going to amount to the halving of all income tax rates for the wealthy, from minimum 70% during the 30s thought the 80s, and the 35% they now enjoy.
 
Occam's Razor said:
I didn't ignore it.. if you want to go back to how things were funded by the government back then, I'm all for it. Everything changed around 1913-1930. So to stay topical within the contexts of the system we now use, I simply quoted figures within that time frame. Get it?

.

That's because the dollar is worth less and cost of living has gone up, not because more people are earning more in real wages.

And are you implying that the entire country, from the '30s to the '80s was socialist based? You do realize those where the most prosperous years of our country and countrymen... right?




You ignore that no deductions are going to amount to the halving of all income tax rates for the wealthy, from minimum 70% during the 30s thought the 80s, and the 35% they now enjoy.
Click to expand...

what part of the population was affected by the top rates then

how about now

what was the effective top rate then

Now
 
TurtleDude said:
what part of the population was affected by the top rates then

how about now

what was the effective top rate then

Now
Click to expand...

The wealthy are wealthier, so of course there are more people hitting the top rates.

Also, the income required to hit the top rate is lower than it used to be, so of course more are hitting the top rate.
 
TurtleDude said:
Nonsense-the bottom are getting money from the federal government
Click to expand...

Really? Really? That has nothing to do with the effective tax rates. Also its untrue. The money they get isn't enough for them to survive off off without working.

Futurama-Fry-Meme.jpg
 
sangha said:
*yawn*

It's already been covered, endlessly. Next you'll be asking me to define "fair share" again.
Click to expand...

wrong again

many of the posts talk about billionaires who pay a lower effective rate than most of those in the top one or two percent.

People making less than several million a year or more are treated the same for taxes as Gates yet are far closer to the middle class than the uber wealthy
 
TurtleDude said:
wrong again

many of the posts talk about billionaires who pay a lower effective rate than most of those in the top one or two percent.

People making less than several million a year or more are treated the same for taxes as Gates yet are far closer to the middle class than the uber wealthy
Click to expand...

Define treated the same.
 
TurtleDude said:
wrong again

many of the posts talk about billionaires who pay a lower effective rate than most of those in the top one or two percent.

People making less than several million a year or more are treated the same for taxes as Gates yet are far closer to the middle class than the uber wealthy
Click to expand...

Your point?
 
TurtleDude said:
wrong again

many of the posts talk about billionaires who pay a lower effective rate than most of those in the top one or two percent.

People making less than several million a year or more are treated the same for taxes as Gates yet are far closer to the middle class than the uber wealthy
Click to expand...

You know Turtle, I want to stop right here and tell you that I think you are right about something and I have been saying it for years........ at least you are in the right neighborhood even though you are not in the correct house.

As long as I can remember, I have been saying that people who make $150K or $200K or even 300K per year are far closer to those at the bottom than they are to those at the top. And as such they should begin identifying with those at the bottom. They should align themselves with those at the bottom. They should vote with those at the bottom. They should agree politically and economically with those at the bottom.

But, for the most part, they do not. Instead they like to think they are rich and wealthy and better than those at the bottom. Heck, they vote as if they are better than those in the average working class to boot.

They have cast their economic lot with the rich.

They have case their political lot with the wealthy.

So lets respect their decision even though we both know better.

They are like and yet unlike the dogs who used to roam beneath the heavy laden banquet tables of the rich nobles in medieval times. The landed lords and ladies sat upon their inherited lands and feasted at the table piled high with all manner of food and drink. And occasionally they would toss some scraps and bones to the dogs underneath that table. And some of the quicker dogs, some of the dogs which learned faster than the slower ones, they were able to figure out which lord or lady threw the bones with the most meat and they ate well while others of their kind did not and had to fight over the leaner pickings. And some dogs are well and got fat.

At the end of the night, every one of those dogs knew by instinct that they were still a dog. They did NOT climb upon the banquet table and try to ape their owners pretending they were now human simply because they ate a little better than their slower fellow dogs.

it is too bad God or nature did not give some humans the good instincts that he have dogs.
 
Occam's Razor said:
Yes, get ready for a return to the prosperity of the 40s, 50s, and 60s...
Click to expand...

that is moronic. your razor needs honing. In the late 40's and 50's we were the only real manufacturing power left. no one has been able to establish that those idiotic tax rates were responsible. and guess what, the lower classes carried a far higher share of the income tax burden than they do now

the rich don't owe you anything and its time the teat sucklers start earning the milk they lap up
 
TurtleDude said:
that is moronic. your razor needs honing. In the late 40's and 50's we were the only real manufacturing power left. no one has been able to establish that those idiotic tax rates were responsible. and guess what, the lower classes carried a far higher share of the income tax burden than they do now

the rich don't owe you anything and its time the teat sucklers start earning the milk they lap up
Click to expand...

Never said they owed me anything at all. Just saying that for five decades being taxed at 70%, the wealthy were still wealthy. Just saying that five decades is pretty hardcore precedent and that paying anything less is a benefit... meaning that raising taxes for the rich to 50% from 35% is still a benefit... it's not stealing... get your head out of whatever media mouthpiece's ass you have it stuck up.

It's called rational critical thinking... not party line ideological BS...
 
Occam's Razor said:
Never said they owed me anything at all. Just saying that for five decades being taxed at 70%, the wealthy were still wealthy. Just saying that five decades is pretty hardcore precedent and that paying anything less is a benefit... meaning that raising taxes for the rich to 50% from 35% is still a benefit... it's not stealing... get your head out of whatever media mouthpiece's ass you have it stuck up.

It's called rational critical thinking... not party line ideological BS...
Click to expand...

its parasitic thinking

why should the rich-the top one percent who make 22% of the income and pay 40% of income tax burden pay even more? do you see taxes as based only on ability to pay rather than shared sacrifice or value received?
 
Boo Radley said:
So after 250,000 we should increase at each next 250,000? OK. Let's call or congresscritters. ;)
Click to expand...

nope but Its idiotic watching your fellow travelers constantly talk about billionaires when their unholy schemes are directed at the upper middle class
 
TurtleDude said:
nope but Its idiotic watching your fellow travelers constantly talk about billionaires when their unholy schemes are directed at the upper middle class
Click to expand...

$250,000 upper middle class? Says who?

Overall, the median household income of a household whose householder had a bachelor's degree or higher was $77,179. The median household income for those with a master's degree was $81,023, while those with a doctorate or professional degree had a median income above $100,000 annually.[2][14][24

American middle class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Foster regards the upper 20 percent of earners as "upper income" and the lower 20 percent as "lower income." He regards the 60 percent in the middle as middle class, with household incomes roughly between $25,000 and $100,000.

Median household income in the United States was $52,175 in 2008, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Factbox: What is middle class in the United States? | Reuters
 
TurtleDude said:
its parasitic thinking

why should the rich-the top one percent who make 22% of the income and pay 40% of income tax burden pay even more? do you see taxes as based only on ability to pay rather than shared sacrifice or value received?
Click to expand...

Parasitic? Damn you're wrong headed... does anyone on the right understand real wealth? If they all earned their money honestly, you might begin to have a point.

Look... it's really simple... First of all, we are in a 70% consumer economy created by the wealthy shipping manufacturing off shore, not to save their businesses, but to increase already profitable businesses, to increase their bonuses... parasitic?

The only way real wealth is created is through the investment of time and labor. It's understandable for a worker to accept that their time and labor may make others rich, but when those companies begin paying less than a living wage and rewarding those executives for that abuse of life commodities while they are reaping huge (disproportionate) bonuses and saleriies... that is parasitic.

When productivity rises every year, yet pay remains stagnant, that is parasitic...

When the rich and their corporations subvert our representation... that is parasitic.

When large corporate farms (the majority of food producers in this country now) get farm subsidies... that is parasitic

When oil companies are reporting record quarter after record quarter profits and receive subsidies, that is parasitic.

When failing financial institutions accept TARP funds and continue to hand out pink slips to the grunts while plying themselves with bonuses in celebration of their monumental failures and buy up smaller competitors with those funds, that is parasitic.

When those same financial institutions manufacture derivatives that even MIT math geeks can't figure out... that is parasitic.

When wealthy execs get access to resources on public lands at stupid low lease rates, that is parasitic.

When thirty percent of the wealth in this country is transferred from the working poor and middle class to the super rich in less than two decades, that is massive wealth redistribution, and highly parasitic.

When companies spend millions lobbying for the dis-assembly of regulations that preserve competition, such as in finance/banking/insurance, radiio/television/print media, oil/natural gas/renewables and on and on... that is parasitic.

This goes way beyond the tax rate on yearly income.

Don't come whining to me with the worn out right wing talking points about robbing the rich... it's been the rich robbing from the middle class for a few decades now. Get over it... and get real.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom