GOP may OK tax increase that Obama hopes to block

  • 67 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for ShadowMoses900
ShadowMoses900

17081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 48

User Lists: 0

#51 ShadowMoses900
Member since 2010 • 17081 Posts

Taxes should definitely be increased, but they need to start with the rich first, not the working class. The policy helps 46% of Americans, so letting it expire would hurt those people. How many Americans do the Bush tax cuts help? I think it's 2% (correct me if I'm wrong, but I know it's definitely nowhere near 46%). stanleycup98

The Bush tax cuts were just a bunch of BS. It only helped like the top 5% or something like that... But the problem with raising the income tax is that rich people don't pay it because they have loop holes, so the lower income people have to foot the bill. The only way to get rich people to pay taxes is to create a whole new tax system.

I do agree that the Bush tax cuts were bad but raising taxes isn't going to solve the issue.

Avatar image for deactivated-583e460ca986b
deactivated-583e460ca986b

7240

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#52 deactivated-583e460ca986b
Member since 2004 • 7240 Posts
It seems as if all Obama has to do at this point is turn all of his policies into the opposite of what he wants. The GOP is just opposing Obama to oppose him now. If he said he was against subsidized health care then the GOP would be screaming for it all of a sudden. This stuff needs to stop. Either raise the taxes or lower them. Cut spending or don't. But lets stop acting like children and start acting like there is a country to govern.
Avatar image for horgen
horgen

127526

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#53 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 127526 Posts

Anyways the Income tax already is hurting poor people so it obviously is doing the thing you are against. And I don't understand the whole "poor people spend more" argument, can you please explain?

If I have 100$ and someone else has 10$ than who is going to buy more stuff? Obviously the person with 100$. i don't understand the argument that poor people spend more, is there something I'm not understanding?

ShadowMoses900
The poor use a bigger portion of their paycheck on necessities than rich people do.
Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23053

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#54 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23053 Posts
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Agreed 100%.

I believe if we took away the income tax and implemented a 10% value added sales tax on all goods (besides essentials like food, medicine ect..) this would force everyone to pay their fair share in taxes. Rich people don't pay income tax because they put their money in Switzerland banks and investment firms, which you cannont tax. They also have personal accountants who know how to hide money. Alot of people are under the impression that rich people get a paycheck in the mail like the rest of us, but they don't.

Rich people still buy things though, and this tax solution would close loopholes.

You and I may have discussed this in a prior conversation. I don't remember, so forgive me if I retread old ground.

The "fair tax" benefits the wealthy because they spend a smaller proportion of their income than those in lower income levels.

Indeed we did, but I was being a bit of a jackass in that thread so I deleted my post. I will try and be more civil and politeon here.

Anyways the Income tax already is hurting poor people so it obviously is doing the thing you are against. And I don't understand the whole "poor people spend more" argument, can you please explain?

If I have 100$ and someone else has 10$ than who is going to buy more stuff? Obviously the person with 100$. i don't understand the argument that poor people spend more, is there something I'm not understanding?

It's a percentage thing. If you compare someone making an income of $50,000 (Net) to someone making a comparatively high income of $1,000,000, then the spending and saving habits of each will likely vary widely. The person making $50,000 may spend 90% of their income and saves/invests 10%. Under the "fair tax" scenario, 90% of his income ($45,000) would be taxed. However, say the person making $1,000,000 spends 50% of his income and saves/invests 50%. 50% of his income ($500,000) would be taxed. While the higher income would contribute more tax dollars, his tax burden would be significantly less.
Avatar image for coolbeans90
coolbeans90

21305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#55 coolbeans90
Member since 2009 • 21305 Posts

This seems irreconcilable with not allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23053

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#56 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23053 Posts

This seems irreconcilable with not allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire.

coolbeans90
I tend to agree. But I've also noticed that a lot of voters don't establish timelines and argument consistency with these types of things. Perhaps they're just counting on enough people not paying attention? Although, even given that, it seems like it goes against the rhetoric they've been using lately (such as during the debt ceiling fiasco). Honestly, this decision perplexes me from a GOP standpoint.
Avatar image for ShadowMoses900
ShadowMoses900

17081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 48

User Lists: 0

#57 ShadowMoses900
Member since 2010 • 17081 Posts

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Anyways the Income tax already is hurting poor people so it obviously is doing the thing you are against. And I don't understand the whole "poor people spend more" argument, can you please explain?

If I have 100$ and someone else has 10$ than who is going to buy more stuff? Obviously the person with 100$. i don't understand the argument that poor people spend more, is there something I'm not understanding?

horgen123

The poor use a bigger portion of their paycheck on necessities than rich people do.

lol rich people buy yacths and mansions and stuff, I'm pretty sure that stuff is worth FAR more than anything a common person would buy. Poor people are already hurting so let's try something different, and the nesseccities would lower in price because they wouldn't be taxed. Food, medicine ect... wouldn't be taxed at all and since there would be no income tax farmers wouldn't have to worry about marking the price of food up and could sell them at a lower cost then they are now.

Also if someone is in poverty they could get a voucher or something that would allow them to get things at reduced price or for free.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#58 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

[QUOTE="horgen123"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Anyways the Income tax already is hurting poor people so it obviously is doing the thing you are against. And I don't understand the whole "poor people spend more" argument, can you please explain?

If I have 100$ and someone else has 10$ than who is going to buy more stuff? Obviously the person with 100$. i don't understand the argument that poor people spend more, is there something I'm not understanding?

ShadowMoses900

The poor use a bigger portion of their paycheck on necessities than rich people do.

lol rich people buy yacths and mansions and stuff, I'm pretty sure that stuff is worth FAR more than anything a common person would buy. Poor people are already hurting so let's try something different, and the nesseccities would lower in price because they wouldn't be taxed. Food, medicine ect... wouldn't be taxed at all and since there would be no income tax farmers wouldn't have to worry about marking the price of food up and could sell them at a lower cost then they are now.

Also if someone is in poverty they could get a voucher or something that would allow them to get things at reduced price or for free.

You mean like the voucher idea that was put forward to replace senior care that was grossly underfunded and gave them far less money to survive off of? Mansions and yachts are all optional things.. The thing the poor spend on are things that need to get buy.. If you are seriously making that comparison, than you don't even understand the argument to begin with.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#59 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178872 Posts

[QUOTE="horgen123"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Anyways the Income tax already is hurting poor people so it obviously is doing the thing you are against. And I don't understand the whole "poor people spend more" argument, can you please explain?

If I have 100$ and someone else has 10$ than who is going to buy more stuff? Obviously the person with 100$. i don't understand the argument that poor people spend more, is there something I'm not understanding?

ShadowMoses900

The poor use a bigger portion of their paycheck on necessities than rich people do.

lol rich people buy yacths and mansions and stuff, I'm pretty sure that stuff is worth FAR more than anything a common person would buy. Poor people are already hurting so let's try something different, and the nesseccities would lower in price because they wouldn't be taxed. Food, medicine ect... wouldn't be taxed at all and since there would be no income tax farmers wouldn't have to worry about marking the price of food up and could sell them at a lower cost then they are now.

Also if someone is in poverty they could get a voucher or something that would allow them to get things at reduced price or for free.

It's harder to struggle with providing necessities for a family than it is to buy a yacht or mansion. Those latter options are discretionary. Food and shelter are not.
Avatar image for shakmaster13
shakmaster13

7138

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#60 shakmaster13
Member since 2007 • 7138 Posts

It would be ok but the bottom 50 percent of americans didn't own only 2.5% of the nations wealth.

Watch http://www.hulu.com/watch/269517/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-thu-aug-18-2011#s-p1-so-i0

GS won't let me link for whatever reason.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#61 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14724 Posts
Taxing people who make under 20K a year more won't add up to anything meaningful in revenue. The Bush tax cuts on the other hand are largely responsible for our expanding debt. It really has me puzzled.
Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#62 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts
Lol this further proves that republicans decisions are based on how to be anti-democrat not based on reason, not based on what's good for the US and not even based on their ideology. This is the biggest joke of a political party on this planet.
Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36047

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#63 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36047 Posts

Of course we have already seen Republicans vote against extending the Bush tax cuts on the lower and middle class before simply because the bill didn't make mention of the top tax bracket. They were going to vote on the top tax bracket in a separate bill after that.

Boehner famously referred to that bill as "Chicken Crap".

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/1202/House-votes-to-keep-tax-cut-for-middle-class-only.-Republicans-fume

Avatar image for M4Ntan
M4Ntan

1438

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#64 M4Ntan
Member since 2009 • 1438 Posts

Obama is a master of reverse pyschology lol. The GOP doesn't hate taxes, they just hate every thing Obama is for. ****ING SMART

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#65 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

Obama is a master of reverse pyschology lol. The GOP doesn't hate taxes, they just hate every thing Obama is for. ****ING SMART

M4Ntan

"These are not the tax cuts you are looking for"

Avatar image for deactivated-5e7f8a21de9dd
deactivated-5e7f8a21de9dd

4403

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 144

User Lists: 1

#66 deactivated-5e7f8a21de9dd
Member since 2008 • 4403 Posts

:roll:

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23053

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#67 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23053 Posts
Referencing why he supported the extension of the Bush tax cuts but not this tax cut, Representative Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) had this to say:

"It's always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn, but not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again."