• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

The RICH should be taxed at 100% - It's the ONLY way!

ernst barkmann; Spacing Compressed by me to debunk Faux substance-by-volume said:
really, after being in politics for 30 years, now, whether it be republican or democrat, you not going to get anything in real spending cuts...that's a dream.
entitlements are driving the debt, do you believe democrats are going to cut into their base, the people that elect them to office.
entitlements, about 1,8 trillion
discretionary spending (military and operations of government) about 1.4 trillion
interest on the debt 360 billion.
this is governments spending
where are the cuts coming from?
The Cuts will be coming mostly from entitlements.. and Unlike the GOP non-plan, defense as well.
Romney had NO plan, just a Giant Tax Cut to be made up for by 'reducing loopholes.'
Yes Reagonomics/Tax-Cuts III. I and II having resulted in Market Crashes (1987/2008)
 
Last edited:
Eliminate the EIC, make employer contributions to retirement and healthcare and life insurance taxable to the employees, and make all income above the current 2012 poverty guidelines taxable and i will join you...

Why do you want to raise taxes on those that spend all they earn? All that tax money will come right out GDP. It is self-defeating to tax the poor.
 
Funny . . . rich people are continually getting screwed . . . but poor folks have it easy. Ahhh . . . I love how actual history is ignored, but make-it-up-as-you-go-along is the truth. The funny thing? It's folks who WANT to get rich that defend the rich. Truth is for people who cannot handle fantasy. Again . . . good luck with that as it relates to a political platform. Where is a Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?
 
Eliminate the EIC, make employer contributions to retirement and healthcare and life insurance taxable to the employees, and make all income above the current 2012 poverty guidelines taxable and i will join you...

So you don't like the baby hatched by the rightwing think tanks and Reagan? Well, well.

It seem conservatives always have to turn on their own ideas.
 
Why do you want to raise taxes on those that spend all they earn? All that tax money will come right out GDP. It is self-defeating to tax the poor.

Taxes come out of GDP--it does not matter where you take it from.
 
Not as silly as saying the wealthy don't have enough money to pay off our debts. They could easily and still be filthy rich.


You are seriously not aware that it is the rich who have the hardest time in America . . . seriously? Poor people are the ones living high on the hog. Farking poor people have no idea how hard they make it for the rich folk.
 
What you are talking about is usury which until only 100 years ago or so meant charging any interest at all and it was punishable by death because it was concidered theft. It still is theft no matter how you want to look at it. IMO if you produce nothing you deserve nothing. Investors are nothing but leeches and no different then those that live off welfare because they don't want to work. if you want to invest in a business get a job in that business and stop living off the labor of others.

Before anyone says it yes I have investments and yes that makes me a hypocrite but I would gladly stop if the laws were changed back. I am no different than anyone else if there is free money I want my cut too, that doesn't make it right.

You are scary. Investors pay for their seat at the table.
 
So you don't like the baby hatched by the rightwing think tanks and Reagan? Well, well.

It seem conservatives always have to turn on their own ideas.

I did not say I was a republican. If it is "fair" to tax the rich, it is "fair" to tax the not so rich. Taking money I pay in and turning around and sending it right back out to someone who makes less is not going to bring the deficit spending under control. Balance the budget and you can spend all the damn money you want anyway you want for all I care. The left's idea of compromise is letting the right choose which way they suffer instead of the left suffering any just isn't going to work.....
 
You are seriously not aware that it is the rich who have the hardest time in America . . . seriously? Poor people are the ones living high on the hog. Farking poor people have no idea how hard they make it for the rich folk.

Someone just discovered sarcasm. Someday you will be good at it.
 
You are scary. Investors pay for their seat at the table.
I think some people actually believe investing is easy. It's not handing over money to someone to simply gain interest, big dollar sums mean you are constantly making calls, sometimes having to get into daily operations to figure out why your nut is drying up, or why the ROI is trending negative. It's not easy, which is why there are less investors than workers.
 
Taxes come out of GDP--it does not matter where you take it from.

Taxes on the wealthy don't effect GDP, they spend all they want regardless of tax rates. Just ask the CBO.
 
tax rates before bush tax cuts 2000

15% married..... $0 to 43,850

28%

31%

36%

39.6%

tax rates after bush tax cuts 2010

10% ..... married $0 to 16,750

15%

25%

28%

33%

35%

Yep. The thing is, only a certain percentage of your income is subject to FICA while all of your income under ~108k is subject to SS. Yes, Bush reduced rates on taxable income. But what constitutes taxable income? Remember you first have to remove all exceptions. Sure, the rates went down... but when everything was all said and done, the bottom quintuple of tax payers only received a 26$ tax cut.

Here's how the Bush Tax rates affected EFFECTIVE tax rate for each quintuple of wage earners.
00-20%: -0.3%
20-40%: -1.8%
40-60%: -1.8%
60-80%: -2.0%
80-99%: -2.6%
99-100%:-3.1%

So unless you're making more than 80% of Americans, that 2% SS tax break was as large if not larger than the Bush Tax Cuts.
 
Taxes on the wealthy don't effect GDP, they spend all they want regardless of tax rates. Just ask the CBO.
Oh how wrong you are. Everything "the wealthy" don't have money to buy is one less job, if the wealth comes from what's left after tax from the business it means jobs have to be cut from the lowest levels, this means less contributive taxes and less buying power from those lower levels. Investment dollars taxed from the wealthy which go to government come out of the economy.
 
So your entire claim was false then, since the EIC make up the largest part of the 47% rightwing mythos. The rest are students, retirees, military men in combat.

So what are you complaining about exactly? This isn't a welfare queen meme is it? If so, tell us, how many people are on welfare and what is their average age?


post by me....

#7 ...my contention is we are not going to get there at all.

obama wants to raise taxes, but spending needs to be cut, entitlements driving our debt, because its over 50%.......transfers of wealth are about 1.8 trillion dollars.

obama is going to promise...again promise<--- cuts in government spending in the FUTURE, but it will never happen, because government has promised in the past, several times, and when it gets time to cut, the government does not do it.

the more money you give government, the more they will spend.



#8 ....would you please show me were you got this info.

the last calculation of the entire wealth of the u.s. is 60 trillion.....


#12...i would still like the see the info, where these figures come from.

60 trillion is every last thing under America,.... land, government, wealth of people.

1 trillion is 1000 billion.


#13.... when was the last time democrats cuts tax rates.........again rates?....................JOHN F. KENNEDY was president

when have the democrats opposed cutting entitlements?......to cut entitlements is to cut into the base of their power, the people who vote for them.

their are not ever going to cut entitlements..never, or any part of government that also supports, who they are...IE dept of education, for example.



#28....so you saying the the poor, who had their tax rate go from 15 to 10%, of the bush tax cuts .....was not as good as the SS reduction.

well you may be right,.... since only 2.97 % of people making 33,000 or less ......pay any federal taxes.

why are you giving obama only credit for the cut in SS, since he and congress and he came together in Dec of 2010 ...it was not a one sided affair.


#31 how many of you who posted to this section, actually believe by government increasing taxes, is going to use the money to pay down the debt?

if you do, say ...yes,...if you don't say no!

no......... from me.

government in its welfare state is liberalism, and it does not work, it functions as long as you have money, when the money is gone, liberalism will is gone.

if taxes are raised, government will spend it, just like obama care ,it will continue to cost more and more money...economically the end is already in sight.

40 trillion dollars is 40,000 billion..................Forbes richest 400 total........ 1.57 trillion




what have i been saying in this post...my message is simple:

obama wants tax raises, and he will call for spending cuts in the future, which will not happen.

i asked for the info OF who has this 40 trillion is wealth, which i believe is false.

i explained how much 40 trillion is.

i stated democrats do not cut tax rates, meaning income, and that they are not going to call for spending cuts in entitlements,...because that is their base......they are not going to mess with their base.

someone made the comment the SS reduction was better than the bush tax cut, which i stated you might be right, because lower income people don't pay that much federal income tax anyway.

then again i asked who believes government is going to pay down the debt, with thees tax increases....with a yes or no.

and last i stated the welfare state is liberalism, and it takes money for it to funtion, without money it is finished, then i posted, that the 400 richest in Forbes only is 1.57 trillion...... thats far from 40 trillion.



SO how do we get to the EIC, WELFARE QUEENS, AGES, and the rest of your off base conversation here?????????

did i lead with EIC, WELFARE AGE GROUPS, or 47%.....NO.....!



I will say my message again, government wants tax increases, and they are not going to do any real cuts to government, they will PROMISE too....but will never deliver!
 
Last edited:
the cuts will be coming mostly from entitlements.. And unlike the gop non-plan, defense as well.
Romney had no plan, just a giant tax cut to be made up for by 'reducing loopholes.'
yes reagonomics/tax-cuts iii. I and ii having resulted in market crashes (1987/2008)

i will believe entitlement cuts when i see then happen....
 
Obama has offered a mostly spending cut formula.

Indeed, Romney criticized HIM for Cutting Medicare. (!)

Most of the posts here are so partisan/blind they are Irrational.

Obama has not offered spending cuts. The Medicare case you cite was exposed as mere sleight of hand to make it appear as though ObamaCare could be made to work.

I agree with your last statement, although probably not in the way you intended it.
 
most of the whine about the rich rants are based on envy or the idea that taxes should be based on how much OTHER people should pay.

Bingo! :peace
 
Taxes on the wealthy don't effect GDP, they spend all they want regardless of tax rates. Just ask the CBO.

What doesn't get spent directly, gets invested or deposited which allows banks to loan money, which causes growth in the stock market values in which people invest their 401(k)'s. If GDP is you exclusive measure, why have welfare--people sitting on their butts spending money our grandchildren have to repay produce ZERO in direct goods and services because they no workie at anything....
 
What doesn't get spent directly, gets invested or deposited which allows banks to loan money, which causes growth in the stock market values in which people invest their 401(k)'s. If GDP is you exclusive measure, why have welfare--people sitting on their butts spending money our grandchildren have to repay produce ZERO in direct goods and services because they no workie at anything....

You're right. What the rich don't spend gets invested. If the rich don't invest enough then businesses won't have the capital to expand and they won't be able to produce enough goods to satisfy consumer demand. This will cause an inflationary cycle in a stagnant economy, or stagflation. The best recourse for this problem is supply side economics.

The problem is that this isn't our problem. Our problem isn't a lack of investment, it's too much. Businesses are sitting on trillions of dollars because there's no reason to expand for a stagnant consumer base. In addition, the glut of investment dollars and lack of investments creates excess demand for investments.... increasing the traded value of investments far above their physical worth.. creating cycles of bubble and bust.

Supply side economics is a great solution to a specific problem. But it isn't the solution to every problem. It's like a boat, add too much weight and it'll sink. Too little ballast, and it'll capsize in the first storm. Stability requires balance.
 
You're right. What the rich don't spend gets invested. If the rich don't invest enough then businesses won't have the capital to expand and they won't be able to produce enough goods to satisfy consumer demand. This will cause an inflationary cycle in a stagnant economy, or stagflation. The best recourse for this problem is supply side economics.

The problem is that this isn't our problem. Our problem isn't a lack of investment, it's too much. Businesses are sitting on trillions of dollars because there's no reason to expand for a stagnant consumer base. In addition, the glut of investment dollars and lack of investments creates excess demand for investments.... increasing the traded value of investments far above their physical worth.. creating cycles of bubble and bust.

Supply side economics is a great solution to a specific problem. But it isn't the solution to every problem. It's like a boat, add too much weight and it'll sink. Too little ballast, and it'll capsize in the first storm. Stability requires balance.

Publicly traded companies have to sit on tons of cash these days to be able to fight off a raid of their equity from the corporate raiders/venture capitalists. In a revenue driven market, equity is cat-nip.....
 
Not as silly as saying the wealthy don't have enough money to pay off our debts. They could easily and still be filthy rich.

So you expect the wealthy to pay for your debts.

That's actually pretty sad to read.
 
So you expect the wealthy to pay for your debts.

That's actually pretty sad to read.

Hey kids, look at conservative talking points trying to twist the meaning of words.

If your claim that the wealthy aren't Americans and hence the national debt isn't theirs, then just say so. This meme won't work otherwise.
 
Taxes on the wealthy don't effect GDP, they spend all they want regardless of tax rates. Just ask the CBO.

BINGO.

A central critical fact wasted on conservative talking points. The idea that Bill Gates is waiting around for a tax cut to buy his next DVD player, or won't buy one if he has to pay more taxes, is as absurd as Mitt Romney lashing his dog to the top of his car.

Conservatives -- total intellectual bankruptcy.
 
Back
Top Bottom