• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Bush Tax Cuts.

WilliamJB

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
314
Reaction score
59
Location
Albany, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Obviously, extending the Bush tax cuts seems to be the next big fight in Congress, with liberals arguing that keeping the breaks for the most wealthy Americans is simply going to increase the deficit while conservatives argue that raising taxes on the rich will discourage them from investing, hiring employees, and consequently reducing unemployment. It seems to me that a nice compromise might be extending the cuts for everyone with the proviso that those in the top bracket spend the extra money actually hiring people for their businesses, etc. I personally oppose extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, but if this provision was added, I'd be all for it. After all, the argument all the Republicans make is that lowering unemployment will be the result of keeping the Bush tax cuts in place. Thoughts?
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Extend all of them for at least 2 yrs. That will take away some of the uncertainty. Maybe that will be enough to get people to spend/hire with the money they are sitting on.
Now is not the time to raise taxes on anyone.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
77,013
Reaction score
34,029
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Obviously, extending the Bush tax cuts seems to be the next big fight in Congress, with liberals arguing that keeping the breaks for the most wealthy Americans is simply going to increase the deficit while conservatives argue that raising taxes on the rich will discourage them from investing, hiring employees, and consequently reducing unemployment. It seems to me that a nice compromise might be extending the cuts for everyone with the proviso that those in the top bracket spend the extra money actually hiring people for their businesses, etc. I personally oppose extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, but if this provision was added, I'd be all for it. After all, the argument all the Republicans make is that lowering unemployment will be the result of keeping the Bush tax cuts in place. Thoughts?

I think people who assume raising taxes on the wealthy will keep them from hiring are nuts.

Businesses don't hire based on how much money they have lying around. They hire based on what demand they have to fill. If they don't have enough customers to justify a new hire, they aren't going to hire.

This is a demand-side recession. Supply-side solutions aren't going to work.
 

WilliamJB

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
314
Reaction score
59
Location
Albany, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Extend all of them for at least 2 yrs. That will take away some of the uncertainty. Maybe that will be enough to get people to spend/hire with the money they are sitting on.
Now is not the time to raise taxes on anyone.

I understand the argument, as I included it in my original post, but you didn't address my point about mandating that the tax cuts be used for hiring. Would you support that kind of provision? And why hasn't anyone suggested this in the real world? It would seem like a pretty simple solution to the debate about taxes.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
255,299
Reaction score
77,453
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I understand the argument, as I included it in my original post, but you didn't address my point about mandating that the tax cuts be used for hiring. Would you support that kind of provision? And why hasn't anyone suggested this in the real world? It would seem like a pretty simple solution to the debate about taxes.

I oppose partial extensions. THe rich already pay too much of the income tax burden and that is harmful for two reasons. The first is fairness-the top 1% pay almost 40% of the tax burden while 47% pay none of it yet that bottom 47% has far more say in national elections. They have massive representation without taxation

the more important reason is for the good of the country irrespective of tax bracket. Right now way too many people have no real skin the the game nor any incentive to demand the government stop spending recklessly. If you merely raise taxes on the rich, you are telling the majority of the citizens--ie the people who elect the vast majority of the politicians and use the vast majority of the government services-that they have no duty to help pay down the deficits. Given these people will continue to benefit from government spending without suffering any additional taxes and since they will be told it is the duty of the rich to pay more and more taxes what incentives will those who receive tax break extensions have to demand less waste and less government spending.

Indeed, its the rich who most should have the tax break extensions. They already know the score and pay the bill.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
255,299
Reaction score
77,453
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I understand the argument, as I included it in my original post, but you didn't address my point about mandating that the tax cuts be used for hiring. Would you support that kind of provision? And why hasn't anyone suggested this in the real world? It would seem like a pretty simple solution to the debate about taxes.

Uh many of us in the top 2% don't have any ability to hire people. and its demand that requires hiring for those who need labour.
 

WilliamJB

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
314
Reaction score
59
Location
Albany, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I oppose partial extensions. THe rich already pay too much of the income tax burden and that is harmful for two reasons. The first is fairness-the top 1% pay almost 40% of the tax burden while 47% pay none of it yet that bottom 47% has far more say in national elections. They have massive representation without taxation

the more important reason is for the good of the country irrespective of tax bracket. Right now way too many people have no real skin the the game nor any incentive to demand the government stop spending recklessly. If you merely raise taxes on the rich, you are telling the majority of the citizens--ie the people who elect the vast majority of the politicians and use the vast majority of the government services-that they have no duty to help pay down the deficits. Given these people will continue to benefit from government spending without suffering any additional taxes and since they will be told it is the duty of the rich to pay more and more taxes what incentives will those who receive tax break extensions have to demand less waste and less government spending.

Indeed, its the rich who most should have the tax break extensions. They already know the score and pay the bill.

I understand that the top 1% pay most of the taxes, but the reasonable conclusion from that should be, why is the wealth so unevenly distributed that fully 47% of the population don't pay taxes? That means 47% make so little money in a year that they don't even fall into the lowest tax bracket. Talk about an insane disparity between the top and the bottom.

I didn't pay any (income) taxes last year because I made $12,000. Now, if we had a flat tax, which seems to be what you would support, I would pay, say, $1,200 a year in taxes. $1,200 less in my pocket means I don't eat for a few months. If you make $500,000 a year and pay $50,000 in taxes, you might not be able to get that new flat screen.

It never ceases to amaze me how we've somehow managed to make the most wealthy and powerful Americans the victims in the national dialogue. We're talking about people with generational wealth that (1) they never worked for, as they either inherited it or simply put enough money in the right places to turn a profit, and (2) live extremely comfortable lives regardless of whether they pay 10%, 20%, or 50% of their income in taxes. Under Eisenhower, the top tax rate was 90%. It's now in the mid-30s. Who has been getting progessively more favorable treatment from the government over the past 50 years?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
255,299
Reaction score
77,453
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I understand that the top 1% pay most of the taxes, but the reasonable conclusion from that should be, why is the wealth so unevenly distributed that fully 47% of the population don't pay taxes? That means 47% make so little money in a year that they don't even fall into the lowest tax bracket. Talk about an insane disparity between the top and the bottom.

I didn't pay any (income) taxes last year because I made $12,000. Now, if we had a flat tax, which seems to be what you would support, I would pay, say, $1,200 a year in taxes. $1,200 less in my pocket means I don't eat for a few months. If you make $500,000 a year and pay $50,000 in taxes, you might not be able to get that new flat screen.

It never ceases to amaze me how we've somehow managed to make the most wealthy and powerful Americans the victims in the national dialogue. We're talking about people with generational wealth that (1) they never worked for, as they either inherited it or simply put enough money in the right places to turn a profit, and (2) live extremely comfortable lives regardless of whether they pay 10%, 20%, or 50% of their income in taxes. Under Eisenhower, the top tax rate was 90%. It's now in the mid-30s. Who has been getting progessively more favorable treatment from the government over the past 50 years?

buying votes is the reason. 47% is a huge voting bloc.

using your logic I should have to pay many times more for a cheeseburger or tv set than you do.

you need to learn more about effective tax rates and stop relying on top marginal rates

tell me what does your existence do for me that justifies me having to pay for your share of the government services you use?
 

WilliamJB

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
314
Reaction score
59
Location
Albany, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Uh many of us in the top 2% don't have any ability to hire people. and its demand that requires hiring for those who need labour.

So if the top 2% aren't going to use their tax break to hire people, then why on earth should the other 98% give a tiny rat's a** if they don't get to keep an extra couple of million?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
255,299
Reaction score
77,453
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
So if the top 2% aren't going to use their tax break to hire people, then why on earth should the other 98% give a tiny rat's a** if they don't get to keep an extra couple of million?

the rich don't exist to feed you. the rich are rich because they have engaged in behavior that is useful in most cases. your envy is showing. and why should the rich not say economically squash you like a grape if you have that attitude? seriously if you want such class war a guy making 12k a year is pretty easy to screw over if the rich in your area decide to do it
 

WilliamJB

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
314
Reaction score
59
Location
Albany, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
buying votes is the reason. 47% is a huge voting bloc.

Sounds good to me. And why shouldn't those 47% vote for their own interests rather than the interests of the top 2%?

using your logic I should have to pay many times more for a cheeseburger or tv set than you do.

That's a different story. A cheeseburger is worth a set amount of money and whoever sells it needs to make at least that much to stay in business.

you need to learn more about effective tax rates and stop relying on top marginal rates

Entirely possible. Please explain.

tell me what does your existence do for me that justifies me having to pay for your share of the government services you use?

(1) Presumably you're not a sociopath and I'm a human;

(2) My not starving to death in the next few years will make finishing my PhD easier which will make getting a job that pays me enough to pay income tax easier, which increases the number of people paying taxes overall, which means more roads, more medicare, etc. and less deficit.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,951
Reaction score
28,520
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
buying votes is the reason. 47% is a huge voting bloc.

using your logic I should have to pay many times more for a cheeseburger or tv set than you do.

you need to learn more about effective tax rates and stop relying on top marginal rates

tell me what does your existence do for me that justifies me having to pay for your share of the government services you use?

If this approach failed to convince hardly anyone the first few hundred times you made it, who do you think you are winning over now with the same 47% boogeyman that is suppose to scare us all?
 

WilliamJB

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
314
Reaction score
59
Location
Albany, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
the rich don't exist to feed you. the rich are rich because they have engaged in behavior that is useful in most cases. your envy is showing. and why should the rich not say economically squash you like a grape if you have that attitude? seriously if you want such class war a guy making 12k a year is pretty easy to screw over if the rich in your area decide to do it

No, the rich are rich because they were born into wealthy families. Of course there are the anecdotal Bill Gates' of the world, but the majority have money due to sheer dumb luck. I don't know nearly enough about you to envy you, but I think it unlikely since I do something I love for a living and make enough to get by.

Hmm, 2% huh? If we're talking about who can squash who, I think I might be a little worried if I were you. 98% is a lot of people. I'd also bet that the vast majority of those in the armed forces are not in the 2% :)
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
255,299
Reaction score
77,453
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
If this approach failed to convince hardly anyone the first few hundred times you made it, who do you think you are winning over now with the same 47% boogeyman that is suppose to scare us all?

you are a class warfare type and of course its not going to convince you. your political viability is based on buying the votes of the many with the money of a minority
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
255,299
Reaction score
77,453
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
No, the rich are rich because they were born into wealthy families. Of course there are the anecdotal Bill Gates' of the world, but the majority have money due to sheer dumb luck. I don't know nearly enough about you to envy you, but I think it unlikely since I do something I love for a living and make enough to get by.

Hmm, 2% huh? If we're talking about who can squash who, I think I might be a little worried if I were you. 98% is a lot of people. I'd also bet that the vast majority of those in the armed forces are not in the 2% :)

you have really bought into the leftwing babble. most millionaires are first generation millionaires. You seem rather mad that your parents didn't work hard to give you what you are mad others may have been given. SO you are lying when you claim the majority of those you want to tax more somehow are just lucky.

many americans want to make it to the top they don't buy into your spite and envy. and when the majority of this country start thinking as you do this country will be doomed. THe rich will leave and people like you will starve
 

WilliamJB

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
314
Reaction score
59
Location
Albany, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
you have really bought into the leftwing babble. most millionaires are first generation millionaires.

Source please.

You seem rather mad that your parents didn't work hard to give you what you are mad others may have been given. SO you are lying when you claim the majority of those you want to tax more somehow are just lucky.

I've got a pretty thick skin and don't mind getting personal, but you really ought not to make assumptions about my familial situation. My parents are actually quite wealthy and would be more than happy to pay for my basic necessities. I try not to let them, however, since independence is important to me.

many americans want to make it to the top they don't buy into your spite and envy. and when the majority of this country start thinking as you do this country will be doomed. THe rich will leave and people like you will starve

Wow, talk about buying into the hype. Yeah, we're all going to be millionaires one day if we just work hard enough. Tell that to the guy who works 18 hour days in the bodega under my building to scrape together enough money to feed his kids.

I suspect I might represent what you fear most. I'm from an upper class family and have plenty of structural advantages, but I've decided not to side with those who have the most money, power, and influence. You keep screaming about class warfare, but then endlessly talk about the "bottom 47%." I think someone has looked at the numbers and is getting nervous.

And yes, the bottom 47% have political power, but it's the only power they have. If they start to realize it, I would be interested to see what happens...
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
255,299
Reaction score
77,453
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Source please.



I've got a pretty thick skin and don't mind getting personal, but you really ought not to make assumptions about my familial situation. My parents are actually quite wealthy and would be more than happy to pay for my basic necessities. I try not to let them, however, since independence is important to me.



Wow, talk about buying into the hype. Yeah, we're all going to be millionaires one day if we just work hard enough. Tell that to the guy who works 18 hour days in the bodega under my building to scrape together enough money to feed his kids.

I suspect I might represent what you fear most. I'm from an upper class family and have plenty of structural advantages, but I've decided not to side with those who have the most money, power, and influence. You keep screaming about class warfare, but then endlessly talk about the "bottom 47%." I think someone has looked at the numbers and is getting nervous.

And yes, the bottom 47% have political power, but it's the only power they have. If they start to realize it, I would be interested to see what happens...

you made the idiotic claim that most wealthy people inherited their money-where was the proof for that--why should I be held to higher standards of proof than you when you made that claim.

I don't fear someone like you-your attitude proves to me you can never compete with someone like me.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
255,299
Reaction score
77,453
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
No, the rich are rich because they were born into wealthy families. Of course there are the anecdotal Bill Gates' of the world, but the majority have money due to sheer dumb luck. I don't know nearly enough about you to envy you, but I think it unlikely since I do something I love for a living and make enough to get by.

Hmm, 2% huh? If we're talking about who can squash who, I think I might be a little worried if I were you. 98% is a lot of people. I'd also bet that the vast majority of those in the armed forces are not in the 2% :)

proof for that claim please. there are numerous citations on this forum to the fact that most millionaires or those in the top 2% are there without inheritance. try again or GIYS
 

WilliamJB

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
314
Reaction score
59
Location
Albany, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I understand that the top 1% pay most of the taxes, but the reasonable conclusion from that should be, why is the wealth so unevenly distributed that fully 47% of the population don't pay taxes? That means 47% make so little money in a year that they don't even fall into the lowest tax bracket. Talk about an insane disparity between the top and the bottom.

This is entirely dependent on the way we structure our tax system. It doesn't objectively indicate anything one way or the other about the actual distribution of wealth.

If we changed the tax system tomorrow such that only the bottom 1% paid no taxes and the next 46% just paid .001%, would our society suddenly improve because there weren't as many people in the lowest bracket?
 

WilliamJB

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
314
Reaction score
59
Location
Albany, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This is entirely dependent on the way we structure our tax system. It doesn't objectively indicate anything one way or the other about the actual distribution of wealth.

If we changed the tax system tomorrow such that only the bottom 1% paid no taxes and the next 46% just paid .001%, would our society suddenly improve because there weren't as many people in the lowest bracket?

No, but the percentage of the population in the top tax bracket still says something meaningful about the inequality of wealth distribution. But that is ultimately beside the point. The fact remains that there is a massive inequality between the top 5% and bottom 85%. I could present you with reams of data demonstrating this, but you're well-informed enough to be aware of this data, I'm assuming.

I'd be interested to hear your take on the original proposal I put forward in this thread, though, RightinNYC (after my last exchange I'm a little hungry for some intelligent debate...)
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
No, but the percentage of the population in the top tax bracket still says something meaningful about the inequality of wealth distribution.

Given that tax brackets are artificial constructs, no, it doesn't.

Again, imagine that we created another tax bracket tomorrow that was .0011% higher and applied to incomes over $50m. Using your logic, that would mean that we instantly reduced income inequality because fewer people were in the top tax bracket.

But that is ultimately beside the point. The fact remains that there is a massive inequality between the top 5% and bottom 85%. I could present you with reams of data demonstrating this, but you're well-informed enough to be aware of this data, I'm assuming.

Inequality is a relative term. Moreover, I'm not sure why it's objectively a bad thing.

I'd be interested to hear your take on the original proposal I put forward in this thread, though, RightinNYC (after my last exchange I'm a little hungry for some intelligent debate...)

I don't know how it could possibly work in real life. What constitutes investment in job growth? Buying yachts and investing in the stock market both spur job growth, but I don't think that's what you had in mind.
 

WilliamJB

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
314
Reaction score
59
Location
Albany, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Given that tax brackets are artificial constructs, no, it doesn't.
Again, imagine that we created another tax bracket tomorrow that was .0011% higher and applied to incomes over $50m. Using your logic, that would mean that we instantly reduced income inequality because fewer people were in the top tax bracket.

Fair enough.

Inequality is a relative term. Moreover, I'm not sure why it's objectively a bad thing.

Yes, it's a relative term, but compared to most other developed countries, ours is pretty bad. Which does have negative consequences even for those in the top tiers. Look at South Africa. One of the most unequal countries in the world, which is directly correlated to their insane crime rate.

And yes, there is certainly a place for inequality. But when that inequality is disproportionately concentrated among certain ethnic groups, there's clearly something structural going on. I know that's a little off topic, but I think it gets at the larger point that success is not equally available to everyone regardless of their origins.

I don't know how it could possibly work in real life. What constitutes investment in job growth? Buying yachts and investing in the stock market both spur job growth, but I don't think that's what you had in mind.

Actually, I'd be OK with that, as long as it could be demonstrated that buying those yachts and investing in the stock market created jobs. Also, if you include small (or medium or large, for that matter) businesses as among the top 2% of taxpayers, it would be exceedingly easy to track if they used their tax cuts to hire people, rather than simply give payouts to their shareholders.
 
Last edited:

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,951
Reaction score
28,520
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
you are a class warfare type and of course its not going to convince you. your political viability is based on buying the votes of the many with the money of a minority

Dude - check the POLL on your right wing wet dream - you are convincing hardly anyone.
 

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
21,285
Reaction score
8,373
Location
Venice Beach, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Some quality analysis of Bush 42's fiscal policy:

1

2
 
Top Bottom