• 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!

The 2 percent rich can absorb a higher tax, the other 98 percent can't

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Every dollar devoted to the middle class causes the economy to grow three times faster than a dollar for the rich, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The reason why is the 98 percent spend 95 percent of what they earn.

ricksfolly
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,904
Reaction score
32,560
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
what do you mean by "devoted to" ??? I would like to see this study, and the assumptions that the CBO were ordered to use in their calculations.



however, to answer your point; of course small business owners can absorb increased taxes.

they will do so by reducing their investment and employment.

who can't absorb the higher taxes, are those who are laid off or never hired because of them.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
49,786
Reaction score
31,596
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
what do you mean by "devoted to" ??? I would like to see this study, and the assumptions that the CBO were ordered to use in their calculations.



however, to answer your point; of course small business owners can absorb increased taxes.

they will do so by reducing their investment and employment.

who can't absorb the higher taxes, are those who are laid off or never hired because of them.
more foolish "thinking"

why would a business owner deprive himself of profits only because he would have to pay a greater portion of those earned profits as taxes

if the employee is laid off it is because the employee's incremental cost to the company is not exceeded by his profitability to the organization. in laying him off, management is ignoring the profits that employee would otherwise gain for the firm by his efforts and thus, abandons those potential profits when they also abandon the employee

investment is made to generate profits. if the company is even nominally profitable, then paying higher taxes will still cause that enterprise to yield a profit
withholding of investment is not due to the prospect of higher taxes but is likely instead due to the uncertainty of continued profitability. that has very little to do with taxes because, to the owner, taxes are nothing other than another business expense
 

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
what do you mean by "devoted to" ??? I would like to see this study, and the assumptions that the CBO were ordered to use in their calculations.



however, to answer your point; of course small business owners can absorb increased taxes.

they will do so by reducing their investment and employment.

who can't absorb the higher taxes, are those who are laid off or never hired because of them.
Useless to respond to anything you're SO sure of, I can't get through your brainwashing.

ricksfolly
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
244,291
Reaction score
73,435
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Useless to respond to anything you're SO sure of, I can't get through your brainwashing.

ricksfolly
another lib who spends so much time trying to justify the government taking more wealth from those who earned it.

If the 98% cannot afford more taxes they shouldn't engage in behavior that costs so much government spending. The top 2% already pay far far more in taxes than they use and they sure don't get any additional governmental benefits for carrying over half the tax burden.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
244,291
Reaction score
73,435
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
more foolish "thinking"

why would a business owner deprive himself of profits only because he would have to pay a greater portion of those earned profits as taxes

if the employee is laid off it is because the employee's incremental cost to the company is not exceeded by his profitability to the organization. in laying him off, management is ignoring the profits that employee would otherwise gain for the firm by his efforts and thus, abandons those potential profits when they also abandon the employee

investment is made to generate profits. if the company is even nominally profitable, then paying higher taxes will still cause that enterprise to yield a profit
withholding of investment is not due to the prospect of higher taxes but is likely instead due to the uncertainty of continued profitability. that has very little to do with taxes because, to the owner, taxes are nothing other than another business expense
why should those who already pay more than they use have to pay even more to make those who use more than they pay have to pay even less?

what have you done for the top 2% that justifies you demanding they carry more of your share of the cost of government?
 

winston53660

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
29,265
Reaction score
10,128
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
why should those who already pay more than they use have to pay even more to make those who use more than they pay have to pay even less?

what have you done for the top 2% that justifies you demanding they carry more of your share of the cost of government?

You are penny wise and pound foolish turtle dude. How much is the person going to spend in the staples a guy who gets a 100k tax break vs a guy who gets a 5 dollar tax break. I'm putting my money on the guy who will buy and extra bar of soap an extra tube of tooth paste or maybe a little bit more hot water. And this is what this economy is based on the cheap stuff not million dollar homes or the Ferraris but the nickle and dimes.The affordable diapers with crap in them.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You are penny wise and pound foolish turtle dude. How much is the person going to spend in the staples a guy who gets a 100k tax break vs a guy who gets a 5 dollar tax break. I'm putting my money on the guy who will buy and extra bar of soap an extra tube of tooth paste or maybe a little bit more hot water. And this is what this economy is based on the cheap stuff not million dollar homes or the Ferraris but the nickle and dimes.The affordable diapers with crap in them.
An excellent explanation of why trickle down economics is a myth.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
244,291
Reaction score
73,435
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You are penny wise and pound foolish turtle dude. How much is the person going to spend in the staples a guy who gets a 100k tax break vs a guy who gets a 5 dollar tax break. I'm putting my money on the guy who will buy and extra bar of soap an extra tube of tooth paste or maybe a little bit more hot water. And this is what this economy is based on the cheap stuff not million dollar homes or the Ferraris but the nickle and dimes.The affordable diapers with crap in them.
this is nonsense. Using your logic the rich should be taxed and taxed and taxed with no limit. You fail to realize that the guy who keeps getting tax breaks who is not paying for what he uses will never have an incentive to call for the government to stop the madness
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
244,291
Reaction score
73,435
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
An excellent explanation of why trickle down economics is a myth.
MOre proof that your claim of being a libertarian leaves us in stitches. a libertarian who wants higher taxes and more government confiscation of wealth is sort of like a guy who owns a slaughterhouse claiming to be a vegetarian.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
244,291
Reaction score
73,435
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The ability to pay =/= justification for punsihment.
From each according to their ability to each according to their needs.

Its the "libertarian manifesto" according to Guy.
 

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
another lib who spends so much time trying to justify the government taking more wealth from those who earned it.

If the 98% cannot afford more taxes they shouldn't engage in behavior that costs so much government spending. The top 2% already pay far far more in taxes than they use and they sure don't get any additional governmental benefits for carrying over half the tax burden.
Amazing how fast conventional thinking changes. Ten years ago it was soak the rich, now it's kiss their butts.

ricksfolly
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
244,291
Reaction score
73,435
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Amazing how fast conventional thinking changes. Ten years ago it was soak the rich, now it's kiss their butts.

ricksfolly
speak for yourself. for you its always been soak the rich I suspect. neither thought is sound.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
MOre proof that your claim of being a libertarian leaves us in stitches. a libertarian who wants higher taxes and more government confiscation of wealth is sort of like a guy who owns a slaughterhouse claiming to be a vegetarian.
I'm a libertarian who doesn't lie about the pseudo-capitalist system in place today somehow benefitting the poor by "trickle down" theory. Shocking, I know.

I can see why you wouldn't want me calling myself a libertarian. My lack of hypocrisy must shame you constantly.
 
Last edited:

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
so the 2% rich can absorb a higher tax.... I can absorb a ****ing punch to the jaw, doesn't make it a good idea for me to take one.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
244,291
Reaction score
73,435
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I'm a libertarian who doesn't lie about the pseudo-capitalist system in place today somehow benefits the poor by "trickle down" theory. Shocking, I know.

I can see why you wouldn't want me calling myself a libertarian. My lack of hypocrisy must shame you constantly.
Being a socialist and a libertarian is like being a steak eating vegetarian.

you confuse economic concepts. libertarians oppose extra constitutional governmental power such as the power congress gets by buying the votes of people like you by promising tax hikes on people like me

then we have your claims that your support the second amendment-but wait-you don't believe the second amendment applies to individuals and you also believe that the militia is no longer a valid organ so you essentially don't believe the right to keep and bear arms exists

another interesting theory from a "libertarian"
 

ksu_aviator

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
6,969
Reaction score
2,592
Location
Fort Worth Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Alright, this is for the Wealth Redistributioners out there:

Let's say we take all of the money in the world, divide evenly between all adults over 18 and start a new. What would happen from an economics stand point? How would the world be affected?
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Alright, this is for the Wealth Redistributioners out there:

Let's say we take all of the money in the world, divide evenly between all adults over 18 and start a new. What would happen from an economics stand point? How would the world be affected?
That's not what anyone really wants. What is desired is to stop rampant profiteering at the expense of those who cannot afford it. It's certainly reasonable for doctors to make more money than librarians, but no one should want for their basic needs. Nor should anyone be denied the opportunity to pursue any career or position due to the circumstances of their birth.
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
here is my view on wealth redistribution, from 2 Thessalonians 3:10

For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Nor should anyone be denied the opportunity to pursue any career or position due to the circumstances of their birth.
but should they fail to pursue these opportunities, to hell with them
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
244,291
Reaction score
73,435
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
That's not what anyone really wants. What is desired is to stop rampant profiteering at the expense of those who cannot afford it. It's certainly reasonable for doctors to make more money than librarians, but no one should want for their basic needs. Nor should anyone be denied the opportunity to pursue any career or position due to the circumstances of their birth.
why do I have a duty to pay for your basic needs if you are not willing to do that yourself.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
244,291
Reaction score
73,435
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
That's not what anyone really wants. What is desired is to stop rampant profiteering at the expense of those who cannot afford it. It's certainly reasonable for doctors to make more money than librarians, but no one should want for their basic needs. Nor should anyone be denied the opportunity to pursue any career or position due to the circumstances of their birth.
that's silly, I could not pursue being the olympic 100 meter champion due to circumstances of birth. I am mostly northern european in ethnicity which means I am doomed to never break 10 seconds in the 100 meter run. I also am only 6-1 and had-at best a 23" vertical jump meaning my dreams of being an NBA center were doomed at birth as well. sure I could pursue either career but neither was reachable at any time in my life.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
That's not what anyone really wants. What is desired is to stop rampant profiteering at the expense of those who cannot afford it. It's certainly reasonable for doctors to make more money than librarians, but no one should want for their basic needs. Nor should anyone be denied the opportunity to pursue any career or position due to the circumstances of their birth.
Who is denied an opportunity to pursue the career of their choosing due to circumstances of their birth?

Oh, wait; you mean "opportunity" in the sense that someone else has to pay for it. Not the actual definition of "opportunity," meaning the freedom to do it.
 

Technocrat

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
113
Reaction score
31
Location
Dail -up Hell
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
more foolish "thinking"

why would a business owner deprive himself of profits only because he would have to pay a greater portion of those earned profits as taxes

if the employee is laid off it is because the employee's incremental cost to the company is not exceeded by his profitability to the organization. in laying him off, management is ignoring the profits that employee would otherwise gain for the firm by his efforts and thus, abandons those potential profits when they also abandon the employee

investment is made to generate profits. if the company is even nominally profitable, then paying higher taxes will still cause that enterprise to yield a profit
withholding of investment is not due to the prospect of higher taxes but is likely instead due to the uncertainty of continued profitability. that has very little to do with taxes because, to the owner, taxes are nothing other than another business expense
Who said he is denying himself? A small business man will do one of three things with his profits. He will reinvest it, either in his business or someone else's or he will spend it. If that profit is reduced by extra taxes, ha cannot reinvest for growth or spend it on products from other businesses. If his margin is thin enough (and many are), he may be forced to reduce costs, like employee salaries, just to pay the tax.

What I do not understand is, what part of "It's not your money" do you not understand? The left always talks like not taking money from producers in our society is no different from cutting them a check.
 
Top Bottom