• 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?!?!?!?

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
complete BS. Gates is wealthy because he engages in activity that other people find useful and are willing to pay him for
Not really. If that were the whole story, wouldn't that mean Gates could have done just as well in Somalia? Do you believe that to be true? Even if he had somehow gotten the nutrion and education and whatnot there, he never could have gotten together the employees, the investors, the customers, the security and stability a company like that requires, etc.

Here is another way to look at it. The average productivity of a worker in the US is about $91k per year. The average compensation of a worker in the US is about $44k. So, for each employee Gates bring on, he is gaining $47k a year in value. Now, in Somalia where the education is bad, people are struggling with the basic neccesities, violence is everywhere, etc, the average productivity is less than $1k. So, Microsoft has about 110,000 employees. Realistically, they are almost all well above the average for productivity, but lets just assume they aren't to be on the conservative side. That would still mean that Microsoft is getting $5.2 billion a year more value out their employees here than they would if they were in Somalia. The things that make that possible all cost money- schools, hospitals, police, roads, etc. To ask them to chip in to keep that going just makes sense.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
73,305
Reaction score
31,802
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Obama said that taxes wouldn't go up. Call it what you want, but this qualifies as, "taxes going up".
Read my lips.
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,901
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
...you're aware that these are the Bush administration's tax cuts expiring, right?

I am aware that you think when the government "expired tax cuts" that its not a net tax raise. Pretty silly if you ask me.

And did you read the whole link. Only some of these are related to the tax cuts.


(this belongs in the partisan forum)

Please don't whine, if you don't like it report me.


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.

Are net taxes going up? What about obama campaigning that some of us wouldn't see "one dime" of taxes being raised (from thier current position)?


Thats whats disingenuous.


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

Which is it?


It's called a "Strawman" look it up. :thumbs:
 

LiberalAvenger

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
16,881
Reaction score
2,980
Location
virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
The rich conservatives should look at the good side of it. We will then be able to stay in Afghanistan and kill all of our enemies in about twenty more years.:roll:
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,321
Reaction score
72,291
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Not really. If that were the whole story, wouldn't that mean Gates could have done just as well in Somalia? Do you believe that to be true? Even if he had somehow gotten the nutrion and education and whatnot there, he never could have gotten together the employees, the investors, the customers, the security and stability a company like that requires, etc.

Here is another way to look at it. The average productivity of a worker in the US is about $91k per year. The average compensation of a worker in the US is about $44k. So, for each employee Gates bring on, he is gaining $47k a year in value. Now, in Somalia where the education is bad, people are struggling with the basic neccesities, violence is everywhere, etc, the average productivity is less than $1k. So, Microsoft has about 110,000 employees. Realistically, they are almost all well above the average for productivity, but lets just assume they aren't to be on the conservative side. That would still mean that Microsoft is getting $5.2 billion a year more value out their employees here than they would if they were in Somalia. The things that make that possible all cost money- schools, hospitals, police, roads, etc. To ask them to chip in to keep that going just makes sense.
OK so what you are saying is that you hate the right to contract. Because that is the implication of your post.

I raise Corn-one of my business interests. Lets say it costs me 1 dollar a bushel

I advertise corn for 1.50 a bushel

You buy a bushel of corn for that amount. You value the corn at 1.50 a bushel

I make 50 cents profit

why are you entitled to some of that 50 cents? Am I entitled to eat some of the corn you bought?

and what in God's name entitles someone who lives within a certain geo-political distance of me to some of that 50c or to some of the corn you bought?

one of the mistakes income redistributionists make is labouring under the assumption that existing in the same area as a productive person someone contributes to that man's success.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
73,305
Reaction score
31,802
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
OK so what you are saying is that you hate the right to contract. Because that is the implication of your post.

I raise Corn-one of my business interests. Lets say it costs me 1 dollar a bushel

I advertise corn for 1.50 a bushel

You buy a bushel of corn for that amount. You value the corn at 1.50 a bushel

I make 50 cents profit

why are you entitled to some of that 50 cents? Am I entitled to eat some of the corn you bought?

and what in God's name entitles someone who lives within a certain geo-political distance of me to some of that 50c or to some of the corn you bought?

one of the mistakes income redistributionists make is labouring under the assumption that existing in the same area as a productive person someone contributes to that man's success.
Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,321
Reaction score
72,291
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society.
true but sadly many reap the benefits of society without paying their fair share and the top 1-5% pay far far more than their fair share

you dodged my point though
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,321
Reaction score
72,291
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The Pope seems to think so.
true-but being the descendant of protestants -many of whom fought Rome in the old countries and who had no use for papistry, and being agnostic myself I don't really give a rat's ass about the the preachings of the pope
 

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
OK so what you are saying is that you hate the right to contract. Because that is the implication of your post.

I raise Corn-one of my business interests. Lets say it costs me 1 dollar a bushel

I advertise corn for 1.50 a bushel

You buy a bushel of corn for that amount. You value the corn at 1.50 a bushel

I make 50 cents profit

why are you entitled to some of that 50 cents? Am I entitled to eat some of the corn you bought?

and what in God's name entitles someone who lives within a certain geo-political distance of me to some of that 50c or to some of the corn you bought?

one of the mistakes income redistributionists make is labouring under the assumption that existing in the same area as a productive person someone contributes to that man's success.
In order for you complete the transaction above you would require a ton of help from the government. You are using a currency that is maintained by the government, you are hauling the corn on a road that the government paid for, your right to the land the corn was grown on was protected by the government, if the person you sold the corn to just took the corn and refused to pay you, the police and courts are waiting by to intervene on your behalf, the seeds you bought are tested by the government so you know they will make acceptable corn, your corn is certified by the government to be acceptable quality so the purchaser has confidence in the quality of your product, and many of he seeds and equipment and techniques you used to grow the corn reflect years of research and optimization that the government did. If you have a staff at the farm, the government educated them and very possibly helped keep them healthy, fed and housed at some point in the past. Your customer benefited from government spending in a dozen ways like the above as well. The market in which you sell the corn exists and flourishes largely because the government regulates it and keeps it humming along. All that stuff costs money. If the people who benefit from it don't chip in, we couldn't keep providing those services and everything would be a whole lot worse for everybody.

Now, on top of that, of course, your home is also protected, your children can go to school, the police and firemen will show up if you call them, nobody is going to invade the country in which you live, etc, etc.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,321
Reaction score
72,291
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
In order for you complete the transaction above you would require a ton of help from the government. You are using a currency that is maintained by the government, you are hauling the corn on a road that the government paid for, your right to the land the corn was grown on was protected by the government, if the person you sold the corn to just took the corn and refused to pay you, the police and courts are waiting by to intervene on your behalf, the seeds you bought are tested by the government so you know they will make acceptable corn, your corn is certified by the government to be acceptable quality so the purchaser has confidence in the quality of your product, and many of he seeds and equipment and techniques you used to grow the corn reflect years of research and optimization that the government did. If you have a staff at the farm, the government educated them and very possibly helped keep them healthy, fed and housed at some point in the past. Your customer benefited from government spending in a dozen ways like the above as well. The market in which you sell the corn exists and flourishes largely because the government regulates it and keeps it humming along. All that stuff costs money. If the people who benefit from it don't chip in, we couldn't keep providing those services and everything would be a whole lot worse for everybody.

Now, on top of that, of course, your home is also protected, your children can go to school, the police and firemen will show up if you call them, nobody is going to invade the country in which you live, etc, etc.
more crap. You libs find so many excuses to justify making those who work the hardest pay for so many others. If I call the police they don't show up any faster to my house than the guy who only pays 20K a year in taxes

that is a local tax function not based on income ntaxes.

SO you are saying we didn't have markets until we had a confiscatory estate tax and massive income taxes

the BS you people spew is unbelievable. Income taxes were to buy the votes of people like you not to help those of use who do fine without needing nanny state handouts
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
72,664
Reaction score
30,569
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
How about before we target the only people still driving the economy we try something truly revolutionary. We demand government stop their reckless spending. The crippled and dependent pets get off their ass, on their feet, and do whatever it takes to provide for their family. Try...oh...I dont know...doing some of those jobs that immigrants will by damn do to provide for themselves AND their families in their home country. Then...just for fun...lets have all the hypocrite leftist artists sell of their mansions islands and jets, buy a comfortable humble cottage and give the rest to the little people. And let the rich democrats in congress lead by example as well...

I know...its too funny even imagining it.

No...the democrat oliticians will continue to roll in their riches and pander to the crippled dependent pets and pretend they care for them and bank their votes...and lets be honest...they dont even have to try hard...the muppets buy everything.

Oh yes...its the wealthy 1 % that invest and create wealth in this country that are causing the problems...not the pathetic dependent pets and the government spending that has put the country 13.5 trillion in debt.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,321
Reaction score
72,291
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
How about before we target the only people still driving the economy we try something truly revolutionary. We demand government stop their reckless spending. The crippled and dependent pets get off their ass, on their feet, and do whatever it takes to provide for their family. Try...oh...I dont know...doing some of those jobs that immigrants will by damn do to provide for themselves AND their families in their home country. Then...just for fun...lets have all the hypocrite leftist artists sell of their mansions islands and jets, buy a comfortable humble cottage and give the rest to the little people. And let the rich democrats in congress lead by example as well...

I know...its too funny even imagining it.

No...the democrat oliticians will continue to roll in their riches and pander to the crippled dependent pets and pretend they care for them and bank their votes...and lets be honest...they dont even have to try hard...the muppets buy everything.

Oh yes...its the wealthy 1 % that invest and create wealth in this country that are causing the problems...not the pathetic dependent pets and the government spending that has put the country 13.5 trillion in debt.
you hit the nail right on the head. dem politicians get power and wealth by promising their voters the wealth of others. Cutting spending would be cutting their own throats because it would mean they could no longer bribe the voters with promises of government handouts other people have to pay for
 

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
more crap. You libs find so many excuses to justify making those who work the hardest pay for so many others. If I call the police they don't show up any faster to my house than the guy who only pays 20K a year in taxes

that is a local tax function not based on income ntaxes.

SO you are saying we didn't have markets until we had a confiscatory estate tax and massive income taxes

the BS you people spew is unbelievable. Income taxes were to buy the votes of people like you not to help those of use who do fine without needing nanny state handouts
Somebody who pays $20k in income taxes made right around $100k in income. Given that you said "only 20k", I am guessing that you assumed differently.

But, you're just missing the argument. Somebody who doesn't sell corn doesn't require all those services I listed off. Somebody who has $5k worth of property only has $5k to lose if somebody steals their stuff, where somebody with $500k in stuff has $500k to lose, so that service is worth a whole lot more to them. It seems like you're getting overly upset and not following the arguments clearly as a result.
 

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
tax cuts being "tax neutral" is not the issue
Your posts says otherwise.

You stated: "tax cuts never need to be funded." That logically implies you think tax cuts are revenue neutral or positive. No research on the planet worth its ink suggests that with virtually every credible economist, even Reagan's arguing that they are revenue negative.

the issue is statists claiming that tax cuts have to be paid for
They do. No real life tax cut is revenue neutral. They all cost money. Thus they all must be paid for sooner or later. Modern day tax cuts are little more then long term notes payable, but the rates are unknown.

they don't.
Then prove that they are revenue neutral. You know you cannot because they aren't.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,321
Reaction score
72,291
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Your posts says otherwise.

You stated: "tax cuts never need to be funded." That logically implies you think tax cuts are revenue neutral or positive. No research on the planet worth its ink suggests that with virtually every credible economist, even Reagan's arguing that they are revenue negative.



They do. No real life tax cut is revenue neutral. They all cost money. Thus they all must be paid for sooner or later. Modern day tax cuts are little more then long term notes payable, but the rates are unknown.



Then prove that they are revenue neutral. You know you cannot because they aren't.
This is the sort of thinking or feeling that characterizes the tax hiking government expanding left. I don't have to prove tax cuts are neutral because I don't operate under the belief that peoples' wealth is there to be used for the greater good (however that is defined)

Your position is that as long as a majority of voters (be they tax payers or parasites) want more and more spending, those who pay taxes have a duty to be soaked more and more. Tax cuts don't have to be paid for because they are not spending. What you are really saying is that if we cut taxes we have to find a way to fund the outrageous bloated government someway else. Half of what the government spends is not constitutionally proper to start with.

IF my taxes are cut-and I am still a net tax payer-who is forced to pay for my cuts--the people who don't pay taxes in the first place? LOL. Now tell me-is the government actually paying for all its spending now? Of course not so your ranting that tax cuts have to be paid for is crocodile tears at best. What needs to be taxed are the 47u% who don't pay any federal income taxes yet have a rather large say in who gets voted into office

If I save money I don't have to pay for that. I realize many of you operate under the assumption that wealth first belongs to the government and what is left over those who earn it can keep.

The only way you people can justify confiscatory taxes (and yes, when some have to pay half of their income in taxes-state local and federal that is confiscatory) is that it clearly is for everyone's good (BTW the general welfare is not promoted by taking from some for the benefit of other groups). I have several grounds for opposing a progressive tax and "proving tax cuts are neutral" is not necessary to my position.
 
Last edited:

LiberalAvenger

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
16,881
Reaction score
2,980
Location
virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
This is the sort of thinking or feeling that characterizes the tax hiking government expanding left. I don't have to prove tax cuts are neutral because I don't operate under the belief that peoples' wealth is there to be used for the greater good (however that is defined)

Your position is that as long as a majority of voters (be they tax payers or parasites) want more and more spending, those who pay taxes have a duty to be soaked more and more. Tax cuts don't have to be paid for because they are not spending. What you are really saying is that if we cut taxes we have to find a way to fund the outrageous bloated government someway else. Half of what the government spends is not constitutionally proper to start with.

IF my taxes are cut-and I am still a net tax payer-who is forced to pay for my cuts--the people who don't pay taxes in the first place? LOL. Now tell me-is the government actually paying for all its spending now? Of course not so your ranting that tax cuts have to be paid for is crocodile tears at best. What needs to be taxed are the 47u% who don't pay any federal income taxes yet have a rather large say in who gets voted into office

If I save money I don't have to pay for that. I realize many of you operate under the assumption that wealth first belongs to the government and what is left over those who earn it can keep.

The only way you people can justify confiscatory taxes (and yes, when some have to pay half of their income in taxes-state local and federal that is confiscatory) is that it clearly is for everyone's good (BTW the general welfare is not promoted by taking from some for the benefit of other groups). I have several grounds for opposing a progressive tax and "proving tax cuts are neutral" is not necessary to my position.
Would you consider a "war tax" to pay as you go for the wars or do you think the tax cuts will pay for it?
 

Gabriel

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

You stated: "tax cuts never need to be funded." That logically implies you think tax cuts are revenue neutral or positive. No research on the planet worth its ink suggests that with virtually every credible economist, even Reagan's arguing that they are revenue negative.



They do. No real life tax cut is revenue neutral. They all cost money. Thus they all must be paid for sooner or later. Modern day tax cuts are little more then long term notes payable, but the rates are unknown.



Then prove that they are revenue neutral. You know you cannot because they aren't.
I heard an economist say once.. there is only one pop to the market after a tax cut.. after that the effects of a tax cut on the economy as a whole are negligible.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,469
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Would you consider a "war tax" to pay as you go for the wars or do you think the tax cuts will pay for it?
Maybe we should have a constitutional amendment that requires our defense spending NOT be paid for by debt or deficit, but can't come from taxes that have been chosen to pay for other things, such as property taxes for public education. That seems fiscally responsible to me, so conservatives should be all for it.
 

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This is the sort of thinking or feeling that characterizes the tax hiking government expanding left. I don't have to prove tax cuts are neutral because I don't operate under the belief that peoples' wealth is there to be used for the greater good (however that is defined)
What beliefs you hold does not change mathematics. What you are saying is not actually that the tax cuts do not need to be paid for, you're just saying (I think) that we should pay for them by cutting spending. If it really is possible to cut spending dramatically without undermining our place as a major economic power (I'm looking at you military), we should do that, but the first priority with those savings has to be eliminating the deficit then paying off the debt. Putting your hand out for tax breaks at a time when we have a massive deficit and a huge debt is just not reasonable. Talk to me once we've got the debt paid off and a surplus sitting in the bank and then we can discuss how to divide up the tax cuts.
 
Top Bottom