• 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!

Millionaire Surtax - Democrats Cave

The amount that they are paying, is far less than its ever been, first of all. When incomes increase by 250 percent in 30 years for a tax bracket, their taxes should not be going down, they should either being staying still or going up.
 
FFDP666 said:
There are no facts to back up what you are saying, a small increase in taxes is going to have no effect on the jobs market.
Click to expand...
Complete bull****, speak with small business owners who are trying to make payroll and file under the business. Besides, taxing doesn't solve spending, cut that out and THEN talk temporary tax increases. Besides, people are already overtaxed.
A small surtax on millionaires is supported by a huge amount of the American people 85 percent total, 66 percent of millionaires.
Click to expand...
Source that. Most people I talk to don't support it.
Most of those rich know they have nothing left to spend that money on, when their taxes go up, their money habits do not change much at all, and if you think they do, you will need to bring up some proof of some kind to back that up. The idea that a tax increase will kill jobs is factless.
Click to expand...
I have known plenty of wealthy people because I live in an oil city, they don't complain about having nothing to spend money on.
someone posted either here or on another post a chart showing what the main concerns are for a business, and an increase in taxes is not high on the list.
Click to expand...
Because they are too busy trying to make business work with all of the regulations and compliance issues they have. Don't try to bull**** me, my dad owned a business, I've known hundreds of business owners, and I know what their biggest gripes are.

I'll turn this around. What we need to do is tax the middle class more considering almost 50% of people don't pay federal income tax. Imagine all the money that would come in with a middle class paying taxes and an additional middle class surtax. Like you said, it's not like people need new vehicles....or any vehicles whatsoever, people can take the bus. You don't need a decent sized fllat screen TV or a house, you can use a digital antenna and rent. People have S.S. so it's not like they need extra money for savings or investment, retirement planning isn't for everyone anyway. So yeah, let's tax the middle class until everyone pays their "fair share" and then we'll talk about the 1% since more middle class "revenue" will come about than more taxes on the wealthy. The middle class has too much already anyway.
*You get the point?
Click to expand...
 
FFDP666 said:
The amount that they are paying, is far less than its ever been, first of all. When incomes increase by 250 percent in 30 years for a tax bracket, their taxes should not be going down, they should either being staying still or going up.
Click to expand...
I was waiting for more talking points.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I was waiting for more talking points.
Click to expand...

No one, in our government, at least none that I've heard, are talking about taxing small businesses. Putting aside the fact most small business's don't fall into that category (the "rich"), the small business owners that do count that business's income as their own that fall under being a millionaire, would be excluded from the surtax, thats one of the ideas proposed by the left. You can use individual circumstances to back up any argument you want, but the fact is that you need to look at the big economic picture. The economy is driven by consumer demand, that is the largest problems facing business's today, not taxes. CONCERN about regulations is 2nd, and actual regulations and red tape, taxes is somewhere after those. and like i said, most business's would not be affected by a tax on millionaires, and those that might be, could be covered from the tax as well. Taxes are the way to raise revenue, but in an economic downturn raising that revenue off the backs of the people that drive the economy by demand (the lower brackets and the middle class and upper middle class) is not an option, so to help raise revenue, you have to look at those on the higher income brackets, and as part of a way to help stimulate the economy, a payroll tax cut for the lower/middle income brackets is not a bad idea, and it can be paid for by a slight raise on the wealthiest Americans, who by the way, are paying the lowest in income taxes in our recent history, the income tax for them being lower only a few other times in our entire history. the rich's income has also shot up over the years, so to use that revenue to help offset needed spending cuts, needs to be part of the discussion.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I'll turn this around. What we need to do is tax the middle class more considering almost 50% of people don't pay federal income tax. Imagine all the money that would come in with a middle class paying taxes and an additional middle class surtax. Like you said, it's not like people need new vehicles....or any vehicles whatsoever, people can take the bus. You don't need a decent sized fllat screen TV or a house, you can use a digital antenna and rent. People have S.S. so it's not like they need extra money for savings or investment, retirement planning isn't for everyone anyway. So yeah, let's tax the middle class until everyone pays their "fair share" and then we'll talk about the 1% since more middle class "revenue" will come about than more taxes on the wealthy. The middle class has too much already anyway.
*You get the point?
Click to expand...

Thats disgusting. You would rather have the poor live even more of a reduced lifestyle so the rich can keep an extra 3 percent of their income?
Click to expand...
 
and if we are talking about "fair" (which is not my argument for a higher tax on the rich) then lets really talk about fairness. the income for the top 1 percent has gone up by 275 percent since 1979, while their share of the income tax burden has gone up only about 15 percent. How is that fair, when everyone else's incomes have barley kept up with inflation and living expenses? How is it "fair" that one person is born with unlimited wealth, while another is born into a poverty so bad, they have almost no hope of getting out? and even will all that, you people say, we still should not have a secure social safety net for the countries needy?
 
 
What's shocking is the dem's making an economically smart choice. /boggle.
 
FFDP666 said:
and if we are talking about "fair" (which is not my argument for a higher tax on the rich) then lets really talk about fairness. the income for the top 1 percent has gone up by 275 percent since 1979, while their share of the income tax burden has gone up only about 15 percent. How is that fair, when everyone else's incomes have barley kept up with inflation and living expenses? How is it "fair" that one person is born with unlimited wealth, while another is born into a poverty so bad, they have almost no hope of getting out? and even will all that, you people say, we still should not have a secure social safety net for the countries needy?
Click to expand...

If the conversation is about "fair" and you say it isn't, but let's just say it was, the correct answer would be to tax all income the same.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Thats disgusting. You would rather have the poor live even more of a reduced lifestyle so the rich can keep an extra 3 percent of their income?
Click to expand...

I don't think he mentioned the poor...I read him talking about the middle class.

But you have a nice way of hyperbolizing...good job.
 
MrVicchio said:
What's shocking is the dem's making an economically smart choice. /boggle.
Click to expand...

Only a handful of the dem's made that wise choice.....those are the folks that need to be re-elected next year. Reid would have lost the vote to pass the bill had he not caved.
 
Mycroft said:
I don't think he mentioned the poor...I read him talking about the middle class.

But you have a nice way of hyperbolizing...good job.
Click to expand...
Wrong guy quoted. I don't emotionalize like that poster about logic based things like economics and policy.
 
FFDP666 said:
Thats disgusting. You would rather have the poor live even more of a reduced lifestyle so the rich can keep an extra 3 percent of their income?
Click to expand...
No,l what is disgusting is people who don't earn other people's money constantly demanding a share of it. It is not your property and if you want to use the revenue argument then you need to go after the most revenue which is the middle class. In typical partisan fashion you completely missed the point. You're dismissed.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Wrong guy quoted. I don't emotionalize like that poster about logic based things like economics and policy.
Click to expand...

Sorry about that...you are correct.

I was intending to reply to FFDP666's response to your post.
 
Mycroft said:
Sorry about that...you are correct.

I was intending to reply to FFDP666's response to your post.
Click to expand...
No biggie. Notice the emotional flinch when I turned the tables on tax contribution, it's good for the class they are jealous of but not good for anyone else.
 
 
just let the Bush tax cuts for the upper bracket expire. 39.6 is still pretty low, historically.

tumblr_ky5fa4DpqC1qb5ooqo1_400.jpg
 
Helix said:
just let the Bush tax cuts for the upper bracket expire. 39.6 is still pretty low, historically.

View attachment 67120075
Click to expand...
Where is the justification for more taxes? What is the accountability on the part of government? Are they going to stop spending? Because the people they are taking money from must budget for having less when taxes increase, or they could just shift the money to less taxed venues and revenues could drop again like the old days. Whatev.
 
haymarket said:
Debt. Deficit. Crumbling infrastructure. Social Security in peril in decades down the road.
Click to expand...
So where is the justification? The debt was caused by spending too much, taxes won't solve the problem. Deficit is a result of spending too much, taking more in will not solve the problem and revenues drop during high tax periods, more taxes will not solve the problem. Crumbling infrastructure could be solved by spending existing revenues appropriately instead of creating more government agencies that waste tax monies collected and get in the way, social spending is a huge waste that could be made more efficient, etc.
Social Security is problematic because it's funding mechanism was tethered to the general fund and the "trust" contains nothing but I.O.U.s, also the earner/recipient ratio has slipped into critical territory. More taxes will not solve that problem.

So again. What justification is there for more taxes?
 
LaMidRighter said:
So where is the justification? The debt was caused by spending too much, taxes won't solve the problem. Deficit is a result of spending too much, taking more in will not solve the problem and revenues drop during high tax periods, more taxes will not solve the problem. Crumbling infrastructure could be solved by spending existing revenues appropriately instead of creating more government agencies that waste tax monies collected and get in the way, social spending is a huge waste that could be made more efficient, etc.
Social Security is problematic because it's funding mechanism was tethered to the general fund and the "trust" contains nothing but I.O.U.s, also the earner/recipient ratio has slipped into critical territory. More taxes will not solve that problem.

So again. What justification is there for more taxes?
Click to expand...
Reduce the deficit.
 
LaMidRighter said:
So where is the justification? The debt was caused by spending too much, taxes won't solve the problem.
Click to expand...

"Too much" is entirely subjective. Taxes have also been cut, so it's just as easy to say it was from not enough taxation.

Either way, tax increases most certainly would help the problem. Basic math.

Please don't argue by asserting your own assumptions from the start.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Where is the justification for more taxes? What is the accountability on the part of government? Are they going to stop spending? Because the people they are taking money from must budget for having less when taxes increase, or they could just shift the money to less taxed venues and revenues could drop again like the old days. Whatev.
Click to expand...

while i'm not against allocating existing tax revenue more effectively, the current rates are not generating sufficient revenue, and the immediate spending cuts necessary to eliminate the deficit would have an extremely negative effect on a struggling economy. in a prolonged recession, cutting spending significantly would result in even more people losing their jobs, and these workers would have to navigate a job market that can't even meet current demands.

the wealthy would not be wealthy without an economy and a pool of consumers. taxes are what they pay to maintain the system which allows them the opportunity to generate wealth. currently, the amount they are paying is not meeting revenue demands, so it needs to increase.

i have absolutely nothing against people getting rich. many of us strive to climb the ladder to get to a higher socioeconomic class, and that's why the system can work. i do, however, have something against only addressing the problem by cutting spending and effectively removing rungs of the ladder, however. in my opinion, that's what has happened. it's in the best interest of everyone to rebuild the ladder.
 
Karl said:
Reduce the deficit.
Click to expand...
Read again. Considering there is no spending reduction and none of the money would be allocated to deficit reduction(meanin real spending cuts) nor would it be used to pay on the principle of the actual debt, rather it would be applied to more reasoning for continued spending. Again, without spending cuts and actual fiscal accountability I ask you: Where is the justification for more taxation? I want the real answer since none of those given are going to happen. What is the actual justification?
 
misterman said:
"Too much" is entirely subjective. Taxes have also been cut, so it's just as easy to say it was from not enough taxation.

Either way, tax increases most certainly would help the problem. Basic math.

Please don't argue by asserting your own assumptions from the start.
Click to expand...
If we were using basic math you would be correct. However as I have stated the only thing government uses revenue for is justification for more spending, which always seems to outpace recievables. Unless and until spending is stopped or made accountable there is no justification for higher taxes. Realistically there is never a reason for a person to pay more than 10% to the federal and no one should ever be required to pay more than 25% total income.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom