DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Xavier_Onassis on September 20, 2012, 12:44:07 PM
-
The Republicans stand for the following:
MORE taxes for the poor, because they are not poor enough. They should have their benefits all cut off to teach them responsibility.
FEWER taxes for the rich, because they are still not rich enough. They should be incentivized by special deals to allow them to grab an even bigger slice of the pie.
The rich and the "people" known as corporations have not hired workers in the past seven years because they want all the Juniorbush tax cuts to be permanent.
Convince workers that they are better off with low paying, non-union jobs and that their interests and the boss's interests are one and the same. Your company is your "family" and you should be loyal to it and your boss's political party in return. Of course, you might be told to pack up your belongings and empty your desk and leave accompanied by security someday if the boss no longer wants or needs you in his "family".
Convince them of how grateful they should be for not having their jobs outsourced or their workplaces looted by vulture capitalists out for a quick buck.
Convince them that the taxes that the poor pay (sales taxes, payroll taxes, state and local taxes, including their landlord's property taxes) are not really taxes at all.
Convince them that the professionals that teach their children, deserve working class wages, and they should be denied unions, collective bargaining and that they are the "elitist" enemies of the workers.
-
What the Democrats ,as represented by President Obama, want, is merely the right of the government to controll your earnings , your behavior and your thoughts, so that they can ensure that you do right and are well cared for , every moment of your life.
-
It's always funny to watch the lunatic left somehow claim that Republicans supporting tax cuts for everyone somehow equals "more taxes for the poor" (noting once again, squat support for the asanine claim to begin with), when at the same time, Obamination care is FACTUALLY going to saddle the middle class with the biggest tax increase this country has ever seen
Up is down, left is right, right is wrong.
-
All governments that have a tax control earnings.
YOU want to control a woman's right to have an abortion.
No one can control your thoughts. You should tell the Voices in your head to knock it off.
The left is right, the right is wrong, you are a shill.
-
All governments that have a tax control earnings.
What did you intend for that sentence to mean?
-
It means I have a low opinion of sirs.
-
So your statement was not to be taken literally?
-
If I earn $100,000 and the government taxes me $10,000, $1000, $100, $10 or 10¢, they have controlled my earnings, haven't they?
They have caused me to have less to spend.
I thought that was obvious.
-
If I earn $100,000 and the government taxes me $10,000, $1000, $100, $10 or 10¢, they have controlled my earnings, haven't they?
They have caused me to have less to spend.
I thought that was obvious.
Then it is a matter of degree?
A little bite is certainly necessacery for maintaining the government .
Increasing the bite to the maximum the economy can survive seems like a mistake to some of us.
-
All governments that have a tax control earnings.
YOU want to control a woman's right to have an abortion.
No one can control your thoughts. You should tell the Voices in your head to knock it off.
The left is right, the right is wrong, you are a shill.
How does this even remotely apparoach trying to back up the asanine claim that supprt for tax cuts aimed at everyone somehow equals "more taxes for the poor"?? In this reality, right is right, left is left, up is up, and Xo is wrong
-
If I earn $100,000 and the government taxes me $10,000, $1000, $100, $10 or 10¢, they have controlled my earnings, haven't they?
They have caused me to have less to spend.
No they control the vig. And affect consumption, which is not the same as earnings.
-
For most Americans it is all the same.
They gave me a contract for $63,000, but I received only $52605, because of the deductions.
My actual salary may have been $63000, or even more, counting employer contributions ot SS, Medicare and other benefits, but all I could spend was what they actually put in my account.
For all practical purposes, my earnings and my income were the same.
-
For most Americans it is all the same.
That doesn't make your statement factual. I just means, sadly, that there are a lot of americans with a woefully inadequate understanding of simple economics.
-
Explain to me how my "misunderstanding" could change anything.
All taxes reduce disposable income. I agree that taxes can be too high and too low as well. There is an optimum tax rate which is neither. This varies between individuals, but from a practical standpoint, all incomes must be dealt with in what seems to be an equitable manner.
-
Explain to me how my "misunderstanding" could change anything.
All taxes reduce disposable income. I agree that taxes can be too high and too low as well. There is an optimum tax rate which is neither. This varies between individuals, but from a practical standpoint, all incomes must be dealt with in what seems to be an equitable manner.
Because you claim that taxes control earnings and then as proof you claim that really what it does is control spending. So which is it. What comes in or what goes out?
-
Again, for most Americans earnings get t5axes deducted from them before the individual gets to do anything with them. Taxes therefore reduce earnings. No9 matter who you are, taxes do not increase real earnings.
-
Again, for most Americans earnings get t5axes deducted from them before the individual gets to do anything with them. Taxes therefore reduce earnings. No9 matter who you are, taxes do not increase real earnings.
That would be true if taxes were before the fact. They aren't. They can't be in a progressive taxation system. Taxes are based on earnings, ergo earnings are first in the sequence. Then taxes are calculated based on those earnings. Taxes do not reduce earnings. They reduce the spending power of the taxed.
-
What is the role ,in the economy, of disposable income?
Is less ever better?
-
What is the role ,in the economy, of disposable income?
Is less ever better?
The better question is why do Democrats hate earners.
-
That is silly, because they clearly don't, except in the tiny minds of talk radio hatemongers.
-
That is silly, because they clearly don't, except in the tiny minds of talk radio hatemongers.
Sure they do. Every time they want to increase spending they want to increase taxes on earners.
-
They have only proposed a 4% increase on the highest bracket.
That does not mean that they hate anyone.
Has sirs bitten you? You seem to have become infected with sir-ossis.
-
Are the highest bracket folks earners?
Picking out one group to punish or reward is not the role of any government of the people, by the people and for the people.
-
They have only proposed a 4% increase on the highest bracket.
And what exactly does that accomplish?? Not only is it grossly unfair to hit those who ALREADY pay the highest taxes, to hit those who faciltate the greatest amount of job creation with even higher taxes, the math doesn't add up. That paltry amount of increased revenue, doesn't even start denting the debt, while the repercussions are an even worsening job market & stagnating economy
So what is the purpose, if not done to spite & punish those who have been successful??
-
It accomplishes more revenue for a government that fought two unfunded wars, that benefitted their social class more than all the others put together.
Taxes do not have the purpose of punishing people. Fines are what does that.
-
The amount of revenue it accomplishes is no more than a fraction of the deficit, while spending under Obama is set to put us another trillion in debt. In other words, the math doesn't add up, all the while the folks that do the bulk of hiring the unemployed, are getting hit the hardest with even higher taxes
Call it what you want, it's punishing them for their apparent success, which incidentally you've made very clear your disdain for "the rich"
-
Romney's figures come even less likely to add up.
If he abolishes the home mortgage interest deduction, he will depress the housing industry for a decade.
It is probably a sane thing to do, in the long run, in my opinion.
Suppose he abolishes the IRA and Roth IRA deductions: I see that as a far worse thing to do, if he wants people to be responsible for themselves. If one abolishes tax deductions, then goodbye IRAs.
We do not know what he and Lyin' Ryan are planning, because they refuse to say.
Obama has a plan, they have a hidden agenda. They are selling a pig and a poke.Perhaps the pig has lipstick on, perhaps not: but it is surely a pig.
-
Obama's plan has little appeal to me.
There is no room to speculate that it will releive the debt in any signifigant way, and what increase in revenue it might do, disappears into Obamacare, which still leaves many thousands of us totally uninsured.
If I were angry at wealthy people for being wealthy , I think that Obama would appeal to me more.
-
It accomplishes more revenue for a government that fought two unfunded wars, that benefitted their social class more than all the others put together.
Taxes do not have the purpose of punishing people. Fines are what does that.
Raising taxes on everyone would accomplish even more revenues for the government. So why not do that? If the purpose is raising revenues.
-
I am not opposed to that, either. But at the present moment, taxing the majority would lower the amount spent by consumers in a consumer-driven economy, or so they say.
Romney's plan could not possibly work. You cannot reduce revenues. increase spending and eliminate the debt. There are not enough tax deductions to abolish to make up the difference.
Ryan and Romney should divulge their plan and try to sell it to the people. It is the only fair thing to do.
-
I am not opposed to that, either. But at the present moment, taxing the majority would lower the amount spent by consumers in a consumer-driven economy, or so they say.
Again you speak of two separate actions. Raising revenues for the feds via taxation by raising taxes for all, is the the fair way to do it.
But then you attempt to protect all but the top quintile by saying doing just that will lower consumption. So which is more important, consumption, which i believe benefits the states or raising income tax which would benefit the feds.
Your arguments lately seem to lack focus.
-
But then you attempt to protect all but the top quintile by saying doing just that will lower consumption. So which is more important, consumption, which i believe benefits the states or raising income tax which would benefit the feds.
Your arguments lately seem to lack focus.
==============================================
It is not my argument that lower taxes for the people on the bottom will reduce consumption, it is what I have heard. The argument is that people in the lower brackets spend nearly all their money on consumer items, and people in the top bracket do not, because all their needs are met with a smaller percentage of their income.
The fatcat argument is that people in the top bracket create jobs. But if they buy stock in many companies, they are not creating jobs: they are simply buying stock from othe3r shareholders. If I buy 100 shares of Apple, the money I pay for them does not go to Apple, not a penny of it. Jobs are not created when the NYSE is churned.
That seems focused to me.
-
It is not my argument that lower taxes for the people on the bottom will reduce consumption, it is what I have heard. The argument is that people in the lower brackets spend nearly all their money on consumer items, and people in the top bracket do not, because all their needs are met with a smaller percentage of their income.
OK you are simply repeating an argument.
So which is more important to the economy, consumption that benefits businesses and the states, or taxation on income that primarily benefits the federal government?
-
Both are important, of course.
A 4% raise in the top tax bracket would probably benefit the government more. It would have less impact on consumer spending.
-
That 4% means nothing if spending is going up quadruple, and we fall further into a black-hole of Greece-like debt. That math doesn't add up. And in the mean time, you've managed to squelch, even more so, those who help create jobs & could MAYBE start to heal the economy...less people employed...less people consume, outside of those uber-rich that can afford it
So, what does that punishing the top bracket, actually accomplish again?
-
It keeps you and Mrs sirs from starting a business and hiring a hundred workers or so.
-
So, to answer the question that Bt posed, you could care less about the economy, its taxation you want, and screw the consequences. gotcha
-
Go create some jobs and shut up, sirs. You are really boring.
-
For someone so "boring", not only do you respond frequently, its rarely to debate, & most often to demean and slur, with the occasional outlandish/wreckess accusation, proven to be wrong. I suppose why I can see how easily bored you can get, being so wrong, over and over and over and over again