• 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!

John Boehner speaks of tax compromise

so why don't you-a big lover of sticking it to the rich tell us five benefits that will come from say allowing everyone but the top 2% or so to retain the Bush tax cuts

How/when have I ever expresses a sticking it to the rich attitude?? -- I'm the one who walked you through how wealth is generated through a partnership between biz and gov. Remember?

You keep trying to paint me as a 'Robin Hood' who wants to rob from the rich to pay the poor freeloaders, putting words in my mouth and only replying to my posts with the same moronic Hannity far-right talking points. Mr. Broken record.

Write this down: People, both as workers and as investors, respond logically to the incentives that government sets for them.

I'm leaning in favor of the 2-year across the board extension, but re: Obama's proposal - the middle & lower income earners are the consumers, the lower spends most of their income just to pay bills and feed their family. The upper income can take the hit and sill maintain a healthy investment portfolio.
 
what exactly do you consider to be 'equal protection'?

In terms of taxes the definition of equal means either everyone pays the same dollar value tax, or eveyone pays the same percentage.

I'm opposed to discrimination, lefties love it.
 
Cause. lowered taxes, and increased spending means a higher deficit, as the US savings rate was negative at the time the US government had to borrow from foreign investors, of who the Chinese made the biggest gains in holdings of US government debt during that time frame

CAUSE: Spending outside constitutional limits means higher deficit when tax payers are adamant about not being robbed to pay the law breaking federal government that much money.

SOLUTION: Reduce spending to Constitutional limits, replace Congressthings that voted for that spending.
 
Tax cuts have to either be accompanied by spending cuts or government borrowing to pay for government programs

Tax cuts typically lead to increased federal revenues, so what's the problem?

Oh, you're dealing out pieces of that static socialist pie that doesn't recognize that economies can grow when people aren't being robbed of their means to create.
 
So you have nothing on how increasing taxes will create jobs. Here is a hint, If companies pay more taxes there is less for expansion and hiring new employees. Many will not hire because of the fear of the cost of the new Obama care bill

I think what motivates most of these tax hikers is either the mistaken belief that they will somehow be given some of the wealth taken from the rich or they are just envious of those who make more than them

many libs on chat boards tend to be somewhat well educated but aren't the leaders of their party. they often think they are very intelligent but they cannot understand why the "corrupt market" or "evil corporations" don't value their obvious brilliance with hefty paychecks. so their reaction to this lack of success is to rage against those better off then they are.
 
The first personal income tax was imposed during the civil war... 3% for all incomes over $800.

So much for a top school with honors and a JD...
:lamo:lamo

The courts ruled that bit of thievery unconstitutional.
 
How/when have I ever expresses a sticking it to the rich attitude?? -- I'm the one who walked you through how wealth is generated through a partnership between biz and gov. Remember?

You keep trying to paint me as a 'Robin Hood' who wants to rob from the rich to pay the poor freeloaders, putting words in my mouth and only replying to my posts with the same moronic Hannity far-right talking points. Mr. Broken record.

Write this down: People, both as workers and as investors, respond logically to the incentives that government sets for them.

I'm leaning in favor of the 2-year across the board extension, but re: Obama's proposal - the middle & lower income earners are the consumers, the lower spends most of their income just to pay bills and feed their family. The upper income can take the hit and sill maintain a healthy investment portfolio.

a fancy way of being an advocate of class warfare-stick it to the rich, anyone making over 200K can afford it

I wish I was smart enough to know what a couple million people need in terms of after tax income.
 
Tax cuts typically lead to increased federal revenues, so what's the problem?

Oh, you're dealing out pieces of that static socialist pie that doesn't recognize that economies can grow when people aren't being robbed of their means to create.
If that is the case lower taxes to zero and federal revenues will skyrocket

the fact is a growing economy will increase tax revenues. Reagan increased taxes and revenue increased, he decreased taxes and revenue increased. Clinton increased taxes and both the economy and revenue grew
 
How/when have I ever expresses a sticking it to the rich attitude?? -- I'm the one who walked you through how wealth is generated through a partnership between biz and gov. Remember?

You keep trying to paint me as a 'Robin Hood' who wants to rob from the rich to pay the poor freeloaders, putting words in my mouth and only replying to my posts with the same moronic Hannity far-right talking points. Mr. Broken record.

Write this down: People, both as workers and as investors, respond logically to the incentives that government sets for them.

I'm leaning in favor of the 2-year across the board extension, but re: Obama's proposal - the middle & lower income earners are the consumers, the lower spends most of their income just to pay bills and feed their family. The upper income can take the hit and sill maintain a healthy investment portfolio.

What the last stimulus tax breaks have found is not that the lower income people are spending the tax breaks as much as expected. That is why the velocity of the stimules is less than had been anticipated. Lower income people have been doing a better job of being responsible and have taken down their debt with a bunch of the tax money. Good for them. good for banks, not good for the economy. Upper income people which make up a large part of consumer spending, will mostly do one of two things. Spend or invest. This economy needs more of both.

We should all be tired of the us versus them mentality of this white house. If we can't afford to reverse the increase in taxes because the deficit is too high then we as a country should contribute. If the arguement is that the economy can't stand it right now then let all of the cuts continue.
 
I think what motivates most of these tax hikers is either the mistaken belief that they will somehow be given some of the wealth taken from the rich or they are just envious of those who make more than them.

Mostly it's the latter.

I'm envious of someone pulling in a half-million a year. But I want to be able to make that kind of money. The left feels that since they didn't earn it, it should be stolen to make things "equal" somehow.

That the socialist programs always fail to improve anyone's life isn't as important to them as the fact that "the rich" have been robbed.

The lower class people duped by the socialist promises of something for nothing of course expect more handouts. Look at those dumb people expecting Obama to buy their houses for them after their messiah was elected. Look at those dumb people demanding yet another "stimulus". They're all goonion folk waiting for the socialist gravy train to stop at their doorstep.

The one thing they have in common is total disdain for the American ideals of independence, self-reliance, hard work, self-respect, honesty and integrity.
 
If that is the case lower taxes to zero and federal revenues will skyrocket

the fact is a growing economy will increase tax revenues. Reagan increased taxes and revenue increased, he decreased taxes and revenue increased. Clinton increased taxes and both the economy and revenue grew

is your only grounds that of revenue?

if we confiscated all income above say 100K revenues would go way up (as would the body count on both sides) but would there be legitimate grounds to oppose it

if the constitution was taken seriously, equal protection would demand that everyone keeps the same amount of the next dollar they earn
 
If that is the case lower taxes to zero and federal revenues will skyrocket

the fact is a growing economy will increase tax revenues. Reagan increased taxes and revenue increased, he decreased taxes and revenue increased. Clinton increased taxes and both the economy and revenue grew



None of that is fact! :rofl
 
I thought I might add my opinion, but Turtledude and his sort seem to have already assigned me one. Apparently, the only reason I support raising taxes on the upper class because I'm jealous and I want the money to come to my pocket!

Since we get to hand out ridiculous opinions to the opposition now, conservatives support eugenics. I totally hate how conservatives are always supporting eugenics.
 
Mostly it's the latter.

I'm envious of someone pulling in a half-million a year. But I want to be able to make that kind of money. The left feels that since they didn't earn it, it should be stolen to make things "equal" somehow.

That the socialist programs always fail to improve anyone's life isn't as important to them as the fact that "the rich" have been robbed.

The lower class people duped by the socialist promises of something for nothing of course expect more handouts. Look at those dumb people expecting Obama to buy their houses for them after their messiah was elected. Look at those dumb people demanding yet another "stimulus". They're all goonion folk waiting for the socialist gravy train to stop at their doorstep.

The one thing they have in common is total disdain for the American ideals of independence, self-reliance, hard work, self-respect, honesty and integrity.

what the libs I have been debating, or brushing off my pant legs fail to note, that the current system is doomed to fail sooner or later

since the majority of those who vote for people like obama continue to vote for his ilk based on promises of

1) they will get more and more government services

2) they won't have to pay additional (assuming they pay income taxes in the first place) taxes for additional handouts

3) and only the evil rich will be soaked

they will continue to vote for the people who give them stuff and have ABSOLUTELY NO INCENTIVE to demand their masters to stop the insane spending.

one day the money will run out and these dependents will be like birds who depend on a feeder all year long finding that the owners forgot to put the birdfeed out in the coldest days of winter.

its gonna be ugly and these parasite enablers continue to act as if this is not a possibility
 
Yes, those of us that are intelligent have to deal with the ignorant.

Don't waste my time. Go google the laffer curve on your own time.

Please I know about the Laffer curve, and it will make a difference at the edges (a measurable one) but not in the middle
 
I thought I might add my opinion, but Turtledude and his sort seem to have already assigned me one. Apparently, the only reason I support raising taxes on the upper class because I'm jealous and I want the money to come to my pocket!

Since we get to hand out ridiculous opinions to the opposition now, conservatives support eugenics. I totally hate how conservatives are always supporting eugenics.

feel free to make a rational argument as to how you are helped by the people who pay most of the taxes having to pay even more while you get to keep your tax cut

the crap that you cannot afford it is bunk. if you dems are serious about stopping the deficit growing and growing you need to give up tons of dem created entitlements and tell your voting block they need to start paying far more of the taxes
 
is your only grounds that of revenue?

if we confiscated all income above say 100K revenues would go way up (as would the body count on both sides) but would there be legitimate grounds to oppose it

if the constitution was taken seriously, equal protection would demand that everyone keeps the same amount of the next dollar they earn

Perhaps takle a look at the quote that I responded to, whether tax revenues increase or decrease over time in response to a tax cut is questionable, unless one also looks at what revenues would have been without the tax cut



How do you measure how much protection one receives from the military, the police, the fire department, the FDA to account for how much in govermnment services they have received
 
Perhaps takle a look at the quote that I responded to, whether tax revenues increase or decrease over time in response to a tax cut is questionable, unless one also looks at what revenues would have been without the tax cut



How do you measure how much protection one receives from the military, the police, the fire department, the FDA to account for how much in govermnment services they have received

you cannot but police and fire come from local taxes but the only way to claim the rich don't pay enough for what they get is to assume the rich use more than 40% of such services which is beyond specious and those who pay no income tax use none which is even more ludicrous

in reality, the rich use less direct government services than the poor and middle classes.
 
The largest tax increase in history up to that time. :2wave:

what was the net impact of the reagan administration on taxes-ie what was the tax burden on January of 1981 vs January of 1989
 
you cannot but police and fire come from local taxes but the only way to claim the rich don't pay enough for what they get is to assume the rich use more than 40% of such services which is beyond specious and those who pay no income tax use none which is even more ludicrous

in reality, the rich use less direct government services than the poor and middle classes.

In direct services you are correct, but in the law and order that the government provides the rich do you to maintain and grow their wealth in the stability that is created.

Ie no socialistic or communistic revolutions
 
In direct services you are correct, but in the law and order that the government provides the rich do you to maintain and grow their wealth in the stability that is created.

Ie no socialistic or communistic revolutions

that is so speculative given the rich are far more mobile than the middle class

but the fact remains the rich get no de jure advantages from the government in return for the de jure requirement that they pay for almost half of the services funded by the income tax and all of what is funded by the death confiscation tax.

and the rich will not get any benefit from the tax cut being eliminated for them next year
 
I thought I might add my opinion, but Turtledude and his sort seem to have already assigned me one. Apparently, the only reason I support raising taxes on the upper class because I'm jealous and I want the money to come to my pocket!

Since we get to hand out ridiculous opinions to the opposition now, conservatives support eugenics. I totally hate how conservatives are always supporting eugenics.

No. Eugenics was a Progressive ideal, and the most vociferous baby-killers draw their ideological heritage from the early eugenicists who viewed abortion as a means of reducing the Negro Race.
 
Back
Top Bottom