• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do tax cuts for the rich hurt you personally?

Do tax cuts for the rich hurt or affect you personally?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 53.3%
  • No

    Votes: 7 46.7%
  • Not Sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    15

ptsdkid

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
1,704
Reaction score
10
Location
New Hampshire
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Seeing how 99.94% of Americans are not rich, I was wondering how giving tax cuts to the rich would affect or hurt you in your everyday life.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The thing is, is that tax-cuts, usually end up in social program cuts. This in effect affects many people.
 
H

hipsterdufus

ptsdkid said:
Seeing how 99.94% of Americans are not rich, I was wondering how giving tax cuts to the rich would affect or hurt you in your everyday life.
Easy question.

Assuming that the money has to come from somewhere, if the rich don't pay taxes who does? The middle class mostly. So absolutely yes, tax cuts for the rich, and corporate welfare hurts my tax situation a great deal.

The number of "rich" people in America that pay no taxes has been increasing exponentially the past five years. At the same time, we're seeing the same thing with corporations.

What fools Joe Beer Can is that you may get a few crumbs that fall off the table in terms of a tax break - but you make up for it two fold in other areas that most people don't think are related - higher paytroll taxes, higher property taxes etc.

The other part of the equation is this. We are at war and have an 8 trillion dollar deficit. Spending like a drunken sailor, while asking no sacrifice of the average American is unheard of in a time of war.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
The number of "rich" people in America that pay no taxes has been increasing exponentially the past five years.
Really, and the proof of this? And how do they not pay any taxes at all?
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Comrade Brian said:
The thing is, is that tax-cuts, usually end up in social program cuts. This in effect affects many people.
Really.
After the 1961 tax cuts, did social spending go up or down?
After the 1981 tax cuts, did social spendng go up or down?
After the 2001/2003 tax cuts, did social spending fo up or down?

You get one guess.
 
Last edited:

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The number of "rich" people in America that pay no taxes has been increasing exponentially the past five years. At the same time, we're seeing the same thing with corporations.
This is a lie, dissemintaed by the DNC.
The rich pay more in raw $ and in % of income than anyone.

What fools Joe Beer Can is that you may get a few crumbs that fall off the table in terms of a tax break - but you make up for it two fold in other areas that most people don't think are related - higher paytroll taxes, higher property taxes etc.
Interesting.
-After the 2001/2003 tax cuts, when did payroll tax rates go up?
-What does the federal government have todo with property tax rates?

The other part of the equation is this. We are at war and have an 8 trillion dollar deficit. Spending like a drunken sailor, while asking no sacrifice of the average American is unheard of in a time of war.
Yer right.
So, when do we start slashing entitlement spending?
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
Look it up if you're curious. It's a fact.
Generally, its up to the person that made the claim to support it.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
M14 Shooter said:
Really.
After the 1961 tax cuts, did social spending go up or down?
After the 1982 tax cuts, did social spendng go up or down?
After the 2001/2003 tax cuts, did social spending fo up or down?

You get one guess.
?????
2001 and 2003? Programs were cut, with an increase in military spending.
Don't know about '61 and '82, nor do I care. Those were a while ago.
 
H

hipsterdufus

M14 Shooter said:
Generally, its up to the person that made the claim to support it.
Fair enough:

Here's some data from the IRS in 2002 stated in the following article:

The number of affluent individuals and married couples who paid no federal income taxes jumped more than 15 percent in 2002, to 5,650, government data released last week showed.

The chances of having a large income but not paying taxes on any of it are growing, according to the data, issued in the Internal Revenue Service's annual report to Congress on well-to-do Americans who live tax free.

About one in every 436 high-income Americans paid no taxes in 2002, up from one in 531 in 2001 and one in 1,010 in 2000.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/business/03tax.html?ex=1137906000&en=3bb978af4229a56a&ei=5070
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27%
Source: (1) (2)
As a poor man (under 25K per year), I don't have a problem with giving the rich people a brake. After all, if the rich have more money to buy lavish homes, then that translates into job security for me.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Comrade Brian said:
?????
2001 and 2003? Programs were cut, with an increase in military spending.
Don't know about '61 and '82, nor do I care. Those were a while ago.
After EACH of those tax cuts, social spending went up.
1960: $26.1B
1968: $59.4B (+127%)

1980: $313.3B
1988: $533.4B (+70%)

2001: $1115B
2004: $1475B (+32%)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf

So, what basis is there for the arguments that after tax cuts, social spending goes down?
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Because, when the income to the govt. falls, they don't want to spend more, and thus social spending gets cut.

But often times they increase military spending.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Comrade Brian said:
Because, when the income to the govt. falls, they don't want to spend more, and thus social spending.
Social spendng has gone up every year since 1955, regardless of revenue increases or decreases.

You're trying to argue that when revenue goes down, social spending goes down, but there's absolutely no support for your argument.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
M14 Shooter said:
Social spendng has gone up every year since 1955, regardless of revenue increases or decreases.

You're trying to argue that when revenue goes down, social spending goes down, but there's absolutely no support for your argument.
As time goes on, money becomes less valueable. E.g. a dollar 50 yrs. ago would have bought you a lot more than it would today. So in a sense the numbers may seem bigger, but in effect, they are smaller. Also I think you may have counted military spending as social spending too. Governments often act like businesses.
 
H

hipsterdufus

M14 Shooter said:
You said:
The number of "rich" people in America that pay no taxes has been increasing exponentially the past five years.

A 15% gain in one year is "exponential over the last 5 years"?
You said the fact that more rich people paying no taxes was a lie by the left. I show you some of the facts and you ignore them.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Comrade Brian said:
As time goes on, money becomes less valueable. E.g. a dollar 50 yrs. ago would have bought you a lot more than it would today. So in a sense the numbers may seem bigger, but in effect, they are smaller. Also I think you may have counted military spending !s social spending too. Governments often act like businesses.
I suggest you look at the increases, in terms of %, that I posted.
They -far- outstrip inflation.

And the numbers I cited were listed as "Human resources", consisting of:
-Education
-Medicaid
-Medicare
-Income security
-Social security
-Veteran benefits
And thus, nothing to do with defense spending.

Eventually, you're going to have to admit you're wrong. You might as well do it now.
 
H

hipsterdufus

Busta said:
The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27%
Source: (1) (2)
As a poor man (under 25K per year), I don't have a problem with giving the rich people a brake. After all, if the rich have more money to buy lavish homes, then that translates into job security for me.
So if your a lawyer, frivolous lawsuits help your business.
If you're in the environmental field, dirty water and air helps your business.
If you're a mortician mass genocide helps your business.

That's not a rational for tax breaks.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
You said the fact that more rich people paying no taxes was a lie by the left. I show you some of the facts and you ignore them.
OK. But...

-Your claim that the number is increasing exponetially is wrong;
-You cannot show that the number of 'rich' people paying no taxes increased as a function of the tax cuts. Tax situations change all the time, and a wealthy person's taxes going up/down often has little to do with the actual tax rates.
 
H

hipsterdufus

M14 Shooter said:
OK. But...

-Your claim that the number is increasing exponetially is wrong;
-You cannot show that the number of 'rich' people paying no taxes increased as a function of the tax cuts. Tax situations change all the time, and a wealthy person's taxes going up/down often has little to do with the actual tax rates.
"Exponentially" was the wrong word to use. I should have said "significantly increased"
 

Mikkel

Pragmatist
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
Cleveland, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
M14 Shooter said:
After EACH of those tax cuts, social spending went up.
1960: $26.1B
1968: $59.4B (+127%)

1980: $313.3B
1988: $533.4B (+70%)

2001: $1115B
2004: $1475B (+32%)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf

So, what basis is there for the arguments that after tax cuts, social spending goes down?
1960's- Vietnam war
1980's- Reagan Arms race
2001-2003- Iraq War

The true sign of Republican leadership these days, lower taxes, yet a higher price for freedom.

Your statistics hurt conservatives about as much as they do liberals. All of those Republicans who call for balanced budgets in this instance are hypocrites for doing the exact opposite- lowering taxes and increasing spending.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Mikkel said:
1960's- Vietnam war
1980's- Reagan Arms race
2001-2003- Iraq War

The true sign of Republican leadership these days, lower taxes, yet a higher price for freedom.

Your statistics hurt conservatives about as much as they do liberals. All of those Republicans who call for balanced budgets in this instance are hypocrites for doing the exact opposite- lowering taxes and increasing spending.
Not sure what your point is.
The claim was that when there are tax cuts, and tax revenue goes down, social spending also goes down. This is patently false, as demonstrated by the figures I posted.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
ptsdkid said:
Seeing how 99.94% of Americans are not rich,
LOL
What arbitrary income figure did you choose to arrive at that precise statistic?


ptsdkid said:
I was wondering how giving tax cuts to the rich would affect or hurt you in your everyday life.
They don't HURT me, no. But they most definitely AFFECT everyone.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
"Exponentially" was the wrong word to use. I should have said "significantly increased"
Well, even then...

About one in every 436 high-income Americans paid no taxes in 2002, up from one in 531 in 2001 and one in 1,010 in 2000.
So, it went from 0.18% of the wealthy to 0.22%.

You make is sound like the wealthy not paying taxes is common, and after the tax cuts, it's pervasive. I guess you -could- say that the increase (+22%) is significant, but the number of wealthy not paying taxes (0.22%) is not.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom