• 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!

What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?


Context is everything. Unfortunately when you jump into a discussion of which you know nothing about the history, you miss all that. When Turtledude made the statement that he valued money more than some people, we were discussing taxes, not emergency relief. Not that I am opposed to providing emergency relief with tax dollars. However, Turtledude would be opposed, as he considers his money far too valuable to be taxed to help people in need.

Now if you wish to change goal posts and talk about personal contributions for relief efforts around the globe we can do so.
 
Last edited:

as usual you try to change what others have said.

and you make the specious assertion that taxation is helping people in need at this point
 
They get paid in salary and benefits, what more do you want? You think they were working for free or what? Working people can also become capitalists.
 
Last edited:
American said:
They get paid in salary and benefits, what more do you want?
Click to expand...

It all comes down to some people are mad about the market's going rate for the worth of their skills and they think they should be paid more. Nothing more, nothing less
 
TurtleDude said:
It all comes down to some people are mad about the market's going rate for the worth of their skills and they think they should be paid more. Nothing more, nothing less
Click to expand...
That's why they don't like capitalism.
 
TurtleDude said:
It all comes down to some people are mad about the market's going rate for the worth of their skills and they think they should be paid more. Nothing more, nothing less
Click to expand...

What makes you think your skills are any more valuable then a person who digs a ditch? Can you dig a ditch? Can you fix a car, can you change a tire or program a controller? What is so special about you that you think you are any more valuable to society then any one else is?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So did your hero Reagan. He was the one that started all this "massive spending"...
Click to expand...
It was not President Reagan that started the massive spending. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress then. Congress controls the spending. They are responsible, not President Reagan.
 
IT's the uncertainity of it all. They hesitate to invest in these financially shaky times.
 

You picked the wrong 3 Presidents. John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush all knew that cutting taxes would stimulate the economy and actually result in higher revenue for the government.
 
President Obama is causing the down slide.
 

so you think the government ought to set wages based on what you think is right?

most smart people get minimum wage jobs out of the way at an early age and get the proper education so they don't have to dig ditches. The market pays Ivy league law school honors graduates a lot more than ditch diggers. obviously society values us more.

Sorry to rain some truth down on you but that is a fact. Just like society values more a guy who can consistently hit 25 foot jumpers with a couple 250 pound giants hanging on his jock when he tries to shoot over a car mechanic.
 
Yes, taxes are necessary to fund the government.
If the majority of society agrees taxes are necessary, do you believe it is ethically sound to tax a citizen who does not have enough money to pay the most humble of living expenses, i.e. clothing, food and shelter? Why or why not?
Click to expand...
No. But, these people should not have a say in the spending of tax moneys.
Do you think that equal opportunity is ethical? Why or why not?
Click to expand...
Equality of opportunity, yes. Most libs want equality of outcome, which is impossible.
Once you have answered these questions, I may have some idea s to whether or not you will be able to understand the concept of progressive taxation and I can continue explaining it to you.
Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
you have no right to a job. a job is a way a corporation obtains labor. If no corporations need labor you don't get a job
Click to expand...

If American workers have no right to a job from American corporations, then American corporations has no right for money from the American consumer. nor money for investments from the American consumers.

When product sales slide profits slide when profits slide investors leave. that happens the boys on Wall street start to sweat and get nervous.eace
 

This is correct. Very good! No corporation has to provide you with a job; therefore, it is not your right to have that job. Second, corporations do not have a right that you buy their products. The deal is that a corporation manufactures or provides a service that enough someones need or want the product or service to make the business profitable. If they don't make the appropriate products or service or consumers don't want to buy, the corporation will go out of existence. That happens virtually every day of the year. I think you get the idea of how free enterprise works. I congratulate you as many don't quite understand that.
 

Oh I can take it a step farther , actually two steps.
1 The more people that have jobs the more consumers you have.
2 This is a global market based on a capitalism, in a capitalist market it's dog eat dog or who ever has the most consumers makes the most money.eace
 

Number 1 is correct. Very good.
Number 2 is not accurate. Actually, a company can have tons of customers and lose money, where a smaller company can make money if they manage their business correctly.

If what you mean by "dog eat dog," you mean that companies need to continually improve their products or services, expand their line, or manage their business better so that consumers will continue to want their products or services, then you would be correct. That makes "dog eat dog" a good thing.
 

Well, I must add that it's important to remember that what's good for the company is not always good for the rest of the society it operates within. What about when a company decides to dump its waste into a river to cut costs & reduce the price of it's product to make it more competitive? What about when a company outsources 20,000 American jobs to China? Yes, the overall society and market might benefit in the long run, but don't we want to protect what's in our best interests as Americans? It's tough to define the word "good" because it means something different to all of the players involved.

That's the problem (and will always be one of the main problems) - companies aren't loyal to any specific country. They go where the deals are and where they can make themselves more profitable.
 
TurtleDude said:
as usual you try to change what others have said.
Click to expand...

Not a bit, you said, you value money more than some people. Why, are you embarrassed you said that now?


and you make the specious assertion that taxation is helping people in need at this point.
Click to expand...

Taxation and the government it provides are why we don't resemble Somalia. Although, for libertarians, there is no country on the planet that embodies more of the libertarian ideals than Somalia.
 

I would think that the very few companies who actually dump waste into rivers should be heavily fined and probably made to pay for the clean up.

As for the 20,000 jobs in China, some times it is due to a company having a large Asian market. It is often best to be closest to the market one serves. On the other hand, maybe the company that has gone to China, not only has business in Asia, but also does business in the U.S. from the Chinese location. Maybe we should look at the taxation and regulation policies of the U.S. with regards to businesses. Maybe we force them to flee the U.S. so they can simply stay profitable rather than spending their income on taxes, the cost of complying with taxes, and the cost of complying with regulations. We are far too over-regulated. Companies are far over-taxed. Correct those two things and do some other things and maybe companies would more often stay in the U.S.
 
gmeyers1944 said:
It was not President Reagan that started the massive spending. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress then. Congress controls the spending. They are responsible, not President Reagan.
Click to expand...

Correction: Republicans controlled both houses of congress for the first 2 years, and they controlled the Senate for the first 6 years, when most of the spending occurred. Congress actually reduced the spending levels that were requested by Reagan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…