• 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!

I thought our taxes were not going up?!?!?!?

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,210
Reaction score
32,980
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Read

Six Months to Go Until<br> The Largest Tax Hikes in History


now tell me, is this link wrong? I remember certain folks saying that this administration was not raising taxes.


Is this another campaign promise broken?


How in this near depression can you afford this?
...you're aware that these are the Bush administration's tax cuts expiring, right?
(this belongs in the partisan forum)

Bush's tax cuts were temporary. They're expiring. Saying this is the Obama administration "raising taxes" is incredibly disingenuous. Those tax cuts added about $1.7 trillion to our debt, because they're funded entirely by borrowing money.

Also, you guys have been (incorrectly) calling Cap and Trade the "largest tax increase in history." Which is it?
 
Last edited:

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
You're both a little wrong here.

Effectively, tax rates are going up. However, the rate of increase in actual rates is relatively low compared to previous tax hikes (see 1930s and I believe 50s were rates went to nearly 90%). So in terms of rate increase, this is nowhere near the largest tax increase. But in terms of non-inflation pegged total dollars, it is probably the largest tax increase in US history. But non-pegged inflation dollars are pretty useless in telling us anything for the same reason Hollywood keeps reporting new #1 movies in dollars. They don't peg.

Whether you want to call letting a tax reduction sunset "raising taxes" or merely letting them revert back to what they originally were as dictated in the sun setting law not legislatively raising taxes, rates are going up.

And even if Obama did not add a penny to the debt, we'd still have to raise taxes to reduce the debt.

Obama was never able to keep that promise. Closing off the borders as his detractors want him to do would effectively jack up prices on food and construction which would effectively act as a tax as legal workers would have to fill the jobs at higher rates and with associated payroll taxes. That cost would be transferred to consumers who would effectively pay that tax. There's no way around this. Eliminating tax loops and rebates/subsidies raises additional costs on those who buy the product from companies who no longer have the tax loop or subsidy. They pass the tax to consumers.

Still, I pay little to no attention to campaign promises anyways. Oh look. Another politician broke a campaign promise. Is that suppose to be news?
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
50,518
Reaction score
32,271
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
so, the tax rates will be returning to what they were before the dicknbush windfall for the wealthy
which tax provisions does the OP find objectionable and why?
and which is of greater concern, the accumulation of a larger federal deficit or the levy of taxes upon those who can afford it?
 

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
We can't afford to be shovelling money over to the uberwealthy. We owe $11 trillion already... Enough is enough. They have plenty already, they don't need us borrowing ourselves into oblivion to give them outrageous tax cuts. The main sources of income for the uberwealthy- inheritance and capital gains- are hardly taxed at all under the Bush plan. We need to restore the estate tax and raise capital gains tax brackets to match income tax brackets, not look for ways to prolong the plundering of the federal coffers by the uberwealthy...
 

Donc

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
9,788
Reaction score
2,587
Location
out yonder
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I think that we could put the tax rate at pre-Reagan rate of 70% and clear up some of this debt/deficit whatever it is and not miss a beat. :rock
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,922
Reaction score
74,754
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
...you're aware that these are the Bush administration's tax cuts expiring, right?
(this belongs in the partisan forum)

Bush's tax cuts were temporary. They're expiring. Saying this is the Obama administration "raising taxes" is incredibly disingenuous. Those tax cuts added about $1.7 trillion to our debt, because they're funded entirely by borrowing money.

Also, you guys have been (incorrectly) calling Cap and Trade the "largest tax increase in history." Which is it?
tax cuts never need to be funded

government spending is what costs us money

the fact is Obama's administration is one that panders to those who are a net drain on the public treasury and thus confiscating more wealth from those who are not is a major plank of the Obamunist administration
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,922
Reaction score
74,754
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I think that we could put the tax rate at pre-Reagan rate of 70% and clear up some of this debt/deficit whatever it is and not miss a beat. :rock
a moronic suggestion because the economy would tank

tax hikers assume that the amount of money to be taxed will remain the same after tax hikes
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,922
Reaction score
74,754
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
We can't afford to be shovelling money over to the uberwealthy. We owe $11 trillion already... Enough is enough. They have plenty already, they don't need us borrowing ourselves into oblivion to give them outrageous tax cuts. The main sources of income for the uberwealthy- inheritance and capital gains- are hardly taxed at all under the Bush plan. We need to restore the estate tax and raise capital gains tax brackets to match income tax brackets, not look for ways to prolong the plundering of the federal coffers by the uberwealthy...
what is the uberwealthy and how do tax cuts shovel money to them

do you labour under the delusions that the government owns their wealth in the first place

the obamunists target anyone making more than a couple hundred K a year for tax hikes

they want to jack up by more than 100% the rates on dividends (do you have a 401K)

libs love using people like Bill Gates to rape someone who makes 300K a year
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,922
Reaction score
74,754
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
so, the tax rates will be returning to what they were before the dicknbush windfall for the wealthy
which tax provisions does the OP find objectionable and why?
and which is of greater concern, the accumulation of a larger federal deficit or the levy of taxes upon those who can afford it?
a windfall for the wealthy would be the top 1% (who make 22% of the income) paying less than 22% of the income taxes. As long as that top 1% pay more of the income tax than their share of the income they have no windfall

the real windfall are the 47% who pay no income taxes yet have the same say-vote wise-as Bill Gates when it comes to elections
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,210
Reaction score
32,980
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
a windfall for the wealthy would be the top 1% (who make 22% of the income) paying less than 22% of the income taxes. As long as that top 1% pay more of the income tax than their share of the income they have no windfall

the real windfall are the 47% who pay no income taxes yet have the same say-vote wise-as Bill Gates when it comes to elections
It never ceases to amaze me just how much importance conservatives put on money. "I make more money that means I should get more voting power because I'm more important!"
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
a windfall for the wealthy would be the top 1% (who make 22% of the income) paying less than 22% of the income taxes. As long as that top 1% pay more of the income tax than their share of the income they have no windfall

the real windfall are the 47% who pay no income taxes yet have the same say-vote wise-as Bill Gates when it comes to elections
Well, if you want to talk about fairness, how fair is it that those top 1% don't have to do any labor and can live off only corporate dividends while the 47% who make no income tax have to work at least 40 hours a week usually at minimum wage jobs in which they are very prone to abuse from their employers and management?

I think it evens out a bit.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,922
Reaction score
74,754
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
It never ceases to amaze me just how much importance conservatives put on money. "I make more money that means I should get more voting power because I'm more important!"
this is an interesting claim since the majority of "liberal" policies involve confiscating money from one group and using it to buy power and wealth for Dem leaders by pandering to "have nots"
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,922
Reaction score
74,754
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Well, if you want to talk about fairness, how fair is it that those top 1% don't have to do any labor and can live off only corporate dividends while the 47% who make no income tax have to work at least 40 hours a week usually at minimum wage jobs in which they are very prone to abuse from their employers and management?

I think it evens out a bit.
You are talking out of your butt with such a generalization

the top 1% is anyone making more than about 350K a year. Many of those people work very hard-surgeons, top accountants, good attorneys small business owners. Libs love to point to a Paris Hilton to serve as an example to the people who averaged 60 billable hours a week for 10 years at big corporate law firms or accounting firms or someone who made top grades for 16 years to get into a top residency at a major league hospital where they pull 35 hour shifts.

life isn't fair but screaming that those who are skilled and valuable have some duty to be soaked to make the untalented and unproductive feel better is complete crap
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You are talking out of your butt with such a generalization
Pot, meet kettle.

the top 1% is anyone making more than about 350K a year. Many of those people work very hard-surgeons, top accountants, good attorneys small business owners. Libs love to point to a Paris Hilton to serve as an example to the people who averaged 60 billable hours a week for 10 years at big corporate law firms or accounting firms or someone who made top grades for 16 years to get into a top residency at a major league hospital where they pull 35 hour shifts.

life isn't fair but screaming that those who are skilled and valuable have some duty to be soaked to make the untalented and unproductive feel better is complete crap
I am quite aware that there are white collar professionals who work very hard and earn their wealth. However, those aren't the top 1%. Most of those surgeons, accountants, lawyers, and small business owners are in the upper class or upper-middle class. They deserve to pay their share of progressive taxes, but currently they, too, are getting screwed more by the superwealthy who are benefiting from the tax cuts than from the poor who aren't paying income taxes.

It is those superwealthy who can easily afford taxes that most liberals want to target to ease the burden on the upper class and upper-middle class professionals who can't take the burden as well. Also, by taxing more of the superwealthy, we increase income mobility and social mobility to the upper class and middle class.
 

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other

EDIT:I know it is cartoonish but is a necessary evil to help republicans see the gross inequality they are supporting.
 
Last edited:

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,922
Reaction score
74,754
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Pot, meet kettle.



I am quite aware that there are white collar professionals who work very hard and earn their wealth. However, those aren't the top 1%. Most of those surgeons, accountants, lawyers, and small business owners are in the upper class or upper-middle class. They deserve to pay their share of progressive taxes, but currently they, too, are getting screwed more by the superwealthy who are benefiting from the tax cuts than from the poor who aren't paying income taxes.

It is those superwealthy who can easily afford taxes that most liberals want to target to ease the burden on the upper class and upper-middle class professionals who can't take the burden as well. Also, by taxing more of the superwealthy, we increase income mobility and social mobility to the upper class and middle class.
you are lying

the top 1% starts at around 350K-to say that libs want to target the ultra wealthy is nonsense-it is the ultra wealthy the rich libs want to protect since high income tax rates hurt the hard working rich and thwart them from becoming competition to the ultra wealthy.

If you were truthful then dems would only be targeting those making say well over ten million a year and targeting estates of more than 50 million a year
 
Last edited:

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If you were truthful then dems would only be targeting those making say well over ten million a year and targeting estates of more than 50 million a year
That level of wealth is precisely the level that I want to target.
 

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
libs love using people like Bill Gates to rape someone who makes 300K a year
In my opinion, and I differ from most Democrats here, the rate on the current top income tax bracket is already high enough. What I would do is a couple of things. First I would make an ubertop income tax bracket that starts at $1 m per year and I would set that rate just a bit higher than the current top bracket. Say to 43% or so.

Then I would get rid of the capital gains tax exemptions that are costing us such insane amounts of money to offer. I would tax income made through investment as regular income, the same way wages are taxed. I see no justification for taxing work more heavily than investing.

Do those two things and we would have a surplus sufficient to start paying down the debt. Once the debt is paid off and we have say a couple trillion in the bank for a rainy day, then I would drop all the income tax brackets down slowly until we achieved a balanced budget.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
In my opinion, and I differ from most Democrats here, the rate on the current top income tax bracket is already high enough. What I would do is a couple of things. First I would make an ubertop income tax bracket that starts at $1 m per year and I would set that rate just a bit higher than the current top bracket. Say to 43% or so.

Then I would get rid of the capital gains tax exemptions that are costing us such insane amounts of money to offer. I would tax income made through investment as regular income, the same way wages are taxed. I see no justification for taxing work more heavily than investing.

Do those two things and we would have a surplus sufficient to start paying down the debt. Once the debt is paid off and we have say a couple trillion in the bank for a rainy day, then I would drop all the income tax brackets down slowly until we achieved a balanced budget.
Well, another reform I would do is a minimum income tax - everybody who files their income tax has to pay a minimum amount of money, no matter the exemptions they qualify for or their income bracket. Put it at a small amount of money, say $100, and that very little bit will go a long way to paying off the debt.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,922
Reaction score
74,754
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
That level of wealth is precisely the level that I want to target.
why? those people already pay far more in taxes-even if their effective rate is 10% (its not but I am using that as an example) than they ever use in services. And you know as well as I do that those most soaked are going to be those who are high earners but hardly super rich

70% of the millionaires in the USA (and a millionaire is someone who often makes far less than a million a year) are first generation millionaires and generally are far harder working and industrious than the average voter) it is they who are most punished by the current progressive tax rates and punitive (as of next year) death confiscation taxes
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,922
Reaction score
74,754
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
In my opinion, and I differ from most Democrats here, the rate on the current top income tax bracket is already high enough. What I would do is a couple of things. First I would make an ubertop income tax bracket that starts at $1 m per year and I would set that rate just a bit higher than the current top bracket. Say to 43% or so.

Then I would get rid of the capital gains tax exemptions that are costing us such insane amounts of money to offer. I would tax income made through investment as regular income, the same way wages are taxed. I see no justification for taxing work more heavily than investing.

Do those two things and we would have a surplus sufficient to start paying down the debt. Once the debt is paid off and we have say a couple trillion in the bank for a rainy day, then I would drop all the income tax brackets down slowly until we achieved a balanced budget.
HOw does capital gains tax rates cost anyone money unless you assume that all wealth belongs to the government. who is hurt by having lower rates on capital gains. and there is sound arguments that high capital gains taxes forces capital out of the usa.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,922
Reaction score
74,754
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Well, another reform I would do is a minimum income tax - everybody who files their income tax has to pay a minimum amount of money, no matter the exemptions they qualify for or their income bracket. Put it at a small amount of money, say $100, and that very little bit will go a long way to paying off the debt.


anyone who votes should suffer a tax increase if those voted into power want to raise taxes

nothing is more pernicious than a system where a large number of voters have no disinsentive to raise taxes since they don't pay any

the progressive income tax gave congress more power than any other law or statute or amendment
 

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Well, another reform I would do is a minimum income tax - everybody who files their income tax has to pay a minimum amount of money, no matter the exemptions they qualify for or their income bracket. Put it at a small amount of money, say $100, and that very little bit will go a long way to paying off the debt.
There are about 110 million people who make income in the US. Assuming you mean only income taxes (everybody pays sales and payroll taxes and whatnot), then about 50 million of them pay no income tax. At $100 a piece that would only mean $5 billion a year. That may sound like a lot, but on the scale of the federal budget it is not. That would pay for two days of the wars for example. So, that would help, but I wouldn't say it would go a "long way".

But, the negative impact that even $100 would have, for example on people who work minimum wage jobs and support a family, could be significant. Lots of people would literally need to save up and cut corners for a couple months to get together an extra $100. We have about 45 million people who are classified as "food insecure" in the US, which means that at least once a year they had to go without food for a day or longer purely because they could not afford it. That's an environment where $100 can have a pretty big impact.

But, that said, it's not a terrible idea. If it would make more people feel comfortable that the system was fair, and if we accompanied it with the ideas I suggested, I'd support it.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,922
Reaction score
74,754
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
There are about 110 million people who make income in the US. Assuming you mean only income taxes (everybody pays sales and payroll taxes and whatnot), then about 50 million of them pay no income tax. At $100 a piece that would only mean $5 billion a year. That may sound like a lot, but on the scale of the federal budget it is not. That would pay for two days of the wars for example. So, that would help, but I wouldn't say it would go a "long way".

But, the negative impact that even $100 would have, for example on people who work minimum wage jobs and support a family, could be significant. Lots of people would literally need to save up and cut corners for a couple months to get together an extra $100. We have about 45 million people who are classified as "food insecure" in the US, which means that at least once a year they had to go without food for a day or longer purely because they could not afford it. That's an environment where $100 can have a pretty big impact.

But, that said, it's not a terrible idea. If it would make more people feel comfortable that the system was fair, and if we accompanied it with the ideas I suggested, I'd support it.
why are people making only minimum wages starting families?
 
Top Bottom