• We will be rebooting the server around 4:30 AM ET. We should be back up and running in approximately 15 minutes.
  • 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!

Elections have consequences... and they are starting....

AdamT said:
I think that the 40% dividend rate only applies to high income individuals, and of course that's the statutory rate -- not the effective rate. But of course you only want to talk about that with respect to the 1950s and you want to pretend that people actually pay the statutory rate nowadays.
Click to expand...

Uh anyone making over 200K a year will be paying that on some of their earning and most will be taxed at a far higher rate than the current 15%

so again its a massive tax hike
 
TurtleDude said:
well lets see

we started progressive taxation in earnest when

and then track the size of our government
Click to expand...

Okay ... your argument, so I'm waiting....
 
AdamT said:
Okay ... your argument, so I'm waiting....
Click to expand...

you don't understand history? the huge increase in our federal goverment coincides with the imposition of a massive progressive income tax system
 
TurtleDude said:
you don't understand history? the huge increase in our federal goverment coincides with the imposition of a massive progressive income tax system
Click to expand...

I think you would have to compare the growth of government, say, in the 50s through the 70s, when we had a very progressive tax code and consistently reduced the national debt, to the 80s through the 2000s when we had a flatter tax code and consistently ran up the debt.

What you'll find is that spending as a percentage of GDP consistently rose from WWII through the 80s, and only fell during the 90s under the Clinton tax rates.

What you'll also find is that spending in nominal dollars was almost flat when our tax code was at it's most progressive, and then it started rising when the tax code began to flatten out.

As usual, the facts contradict the right wing talking point.
 
AdamT said:
I think you would have to compare the growth of government, say, in the 50s through the 70s, when we had a very progressive tax code and consistently reduced the national debt, to the 80s through the 2000s when we had a flatter tax code and consistently ran up the debt.

What you'll find is that spending as a percentage of GDP consistently rose from WWII through the 80s, and only fell during the 90s under the Clinton tax rates.

What you'll also find is that spending in nominal dollars was almost flat when our tax code was at it's most progressive, and then it started rising when the tax code began to flatten out.
Click to expand...

you try to evade by demanding an exact correlation without understanding that a cause might not have an effect instantaneously. the income tax code is more progressive now than at any time in the last 60 years and the deficit and government spending is at an all time high

a progressive tax and big government have gone together in this nation. and payment for all that idiocy couldn't come close to being done if people were taxed at the same rate (let alone the same amount of taxes)
 
TurtleDude said:
you don't understand history? the huge increase in our federal goverment coincides with the imposition of a massive progressive income tax system
Click to expand...

Overly simplistic as usual. First you might want to recognize that the military is part of the federal government. You might also want to track how the federal government has paid for past wars. Finally you may want to account for the boom and bust cycles of the last century. Little things.
 
AdamT said:
Dimwits on the right try to argue that raising the top rate to where it was under Clinton would kill small businesses, but they are ignorant of the fact that the small business growth rate was about 150% higher under Clinton than it was under Bush.
Click to expand...

If going up to Clinton rates can bring business growth up 150%, then we should jack them up even higher!

(liberal logic)

Now on to the reality of EVERYTHING else that was going on in the economy back then... oh, don't want to consider all the rest? Figured as much.
 
CriticalThought said:
Overly simplistic as usual. First you might want to recognize that the military is part of the federal government. You might also want to track how the federal government has paid for past wars. Finally you may want to account for the boom and bust cycles of the last century. Little things.
Click to expand...


massive fail on your part

so as a LIBERTARIAN do you support the progressive tax system which is income redistribution?
 
Arbo said:
If going up to Clinton rates can bring business growth up 150%, then we should jack them up even higher!

(liberal logic)
Click to expand...

An example of poor argument there, on several levels. First, no one has proposed jacking them up even higher (straw man argument). And second, it's a reductio ad absurdum argument.
 
TurtleDude said:
massive fail on your part

so as a LIBERTARIAN do you support the progressive tax system which is income redistribution?
Click to expand...

I proposed my own tax system. If you are genuinely interested in what I had to propose on the issue do a search for "EPICT" on the forum to find the thread.
 
AdamT said:
An example of poor argument there, on several levels. First, no one has proposed jacking them up even higher (straw man argument). And second, it's a reductio ad absurdum argument.
Click to expand...

NO ONE HAS CALLED FOR 45% or 50% etc rates on the rich?

LOL
 
CriticalThought said:
I proposed my own tax system. If you are genuinely interested in what I had to propose on the issue do a search for "EPICT" on the forum to find the thread.
Click to expand...

maybe tomorrow
 
Boo Radley said:
Just a return to the pre Bush tax cuts will likely be enough.
Click to expand...
no all the patricians will leave if you make them pay their taxes. the rich are a higher tier of humanity, you can't really expect them to care about the rest of us and pay any kind of taxes whatsoever. honestly i think we should pay the rich just to live here.
 
AdamT said:
Cool. So their competitors will benefit and make up for these guys' dumb, politically-based decisions by taking their business and hiring more workers.
Click to expand...



No, the workers will end up with two or three part time jobs with no benefits at all, and then be forced into the Government Plan at cost.


The Workers lose choice, have allot more travel time, cost and scheduling head aches.


The quality of their health care plan becomes that of the IRS buerocracy and they don't get to choose from varied carriers anymore.


The only people to gain are the Government Overseers.
 
AdamT said:
An example of poor argument there, on several levels.
Click to expand...

The most obvious one being it's liberal logic. And it is noted you ignored the more important comment below it, just like you ignored every other thing that was going on in the economy when those higher rates were 'ok' and didn't kill business. Figures, yet again.
 
AdamT said:
Cool. So their competitors will benefit and make up for these guys' dumb, politically-based decisions by taking their business and hiring more workers.
Click to expand...

Nope, their competitors will have higher costs and less profit. Economic ignorance is never pretty, you should stop showing it off.
 
Boo Radley said:
Just a return to the pre Bush tax cuts will likely be enough.
Click to expand...

Enough for what? Data has shown it won't bring in enough 'extra' money to make any difference.
 
TurtleDude said:
Why are you diverting-Hes a left wing hack-that is the point I made. I don't know him personally and I admit he was an excellent student. But he's a parasite advocate and I have no use for that. His arguments are based on an assumption that much higher marginal tax rates "were feair" and thus the current tax rates on the wealthy are unfair to the people who pay even less.

I was a nominee for that scholarship. Professors Yates, Foltz and Dahl who nominated me noted that half the people who get the award will be less qualified than I am but at least another 50 who also were turned down were also more qualified than I was.

I agree with their assessments
Click to expand...

You are full of yourself, aren't you? :lamo
 
Arbo said:
Ah, more prognosticating! Excellent. It never ends.
Click to expand...

Call it what you will. All you'd have to do to prove me wrong is to answer the questions I posed. You should be quite motivated to do so, because if you could, it would help to establish the correctness of view and make it more difficult for me to establish mine.

Arbo said:
And it is noted you ignored the more important comment below it, just like you ignored every other thing that was going on...
Click to expand...

Just as you have ignored my points...again, I suppose I can't blame you. If you were to address them directly, it would be obvious (probably even to you) that you don't have a case.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom