Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - So we are in a fiscal "crisis an d the Right does WHAT?

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - So we are in a fiscal "crisis an d the Right does WHAT? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/98964-so-we-fiscal-crisis-d-right-does-what.html)

my point is that for some of the things that I'm not able to get where I currently sit, I'm willing to move to get it. Those countries you mentioned all have very high taxes levied on the peoples there.

Which is why people came to America in the first place, they thought they could get a better life here. Well, I know I have a good life here, but there are some things here that I do like and others that I don't. Some things I don't care about at all and willing to sacrifice to get some of the other things.

In other words I know that I cannot have my cake and eat it to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

First I started the thread, I am not going to one of the most expensive colleges, nor am I complaining about having to sell a car.

Actually other than my recent medical bills that now stand at $25,000, I am doing quite well for myself. (and I have recieved a 4th phone call telling me if I quit my job I will qualify for aid on my bills, which I have said and continue to say is BS...... why would you not help someone who actually is bettering society, instead of telling them to quit and then get the help needed?)

Just because I am though does not mean that the kids coming up will be.

If you care to take me up on the debate I offered fine.....

As for infant mortality rates we are behind most other comparable countries, we in fact rank with several 3rd world countries..... Evidence I have posted and reposted on several threads.

As for our life exdpectency, again it is behind most othe comparable other countries again... Evidence I have posted and reposted on several threads.

Both go by per capita and percentages not based on how many people live in the country.

Name some companies that pay $50,000 jobs that train people, who start at the ground level without a college degree.

I posted a challenge of a debate, you are more than welcome to take me up on it.

I just believe as I have stated,

if you want to cut social spending.... then prove it needs done and is beneficial to the nation and do it..... we probably could cut pork.

If you want to cut taxes on the rich.... then prove it is needed and will help the nation and do it

But it is suicidal to the country's economy, the welfare of the middle and lower classes and is just showing greed when you do both. It's not justifiable in any way.

I can also prove, that I who make $12,000 roughly pay more of a percentage of my income in taxes than the rich...... yet they cry that they pay too much? AND I make too little to qualify for any healtchcare or education programs (except student loans).

I have no problem paying taxes, IF the money is going to advance the future of this nation..... by cutting education, healthcare and social benefits then cutting the taxes for the rich.... it's not helping the future of the country.

Sorry confused you with Willtravel.

I agree that we should be number 1 at everything, but we are not. But I did not say life expectancy, infant mortality was the best in the world. We both know there are many factors other than tax dollars spent that impact the results.

I know many people making 50k or more, who don't have college degrees, started at the bottom and worked their way up the ladder. Happens everyday. I worked in HR for a company with 15,000+ people, most did not have degrees and the average person was making about 40k at the time I left in '97, not including benefits. Start a survey, prove it to yourself.

How do we debate, I did not see the offer. But I would love to.

Bush "cut taxes", however, tax receipts are up. He cut tax rates, not taxes. Rich people are paying more, not less. If tax rates are high, rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, ask the Kennedy's about it, they are experts.

People will help people and do it more effeciently than government. Government entitlement programs actually prevent people from being in control of their own lives. There is a big difference between providing a real safety net as compared to what we have today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

In many other countries there are Non Government Organizations that are filing in the gaps because even in those countries the costs are skyrocketing. The NGOs are getting sponsorships from businesses who are getting tax credits for helping out local communities.

As far as how much you earn vs. paying in taxes, I'd happily give you DIRECTLY what I've paid in taxes equal to your income since I pay almost double that already and that's just my salary, there's still my wife's.

But as a percentage of income who pays more.... that's the point. I just see that the poor are paying more of what they cannot afford in taxes while the rich pay less and Bush cuts so they'll pay less..... and those cuts get passed onto states where their tax systems (sales taxes, property taxes, etc), and taxes on phones and other items where the poor end up paying more of a percentage.

It's wrong. The everyone should pay the same percentage.

In my perfect world we'd cut all "hidden and visible taxes" set a solid percentage rate on the income of every business and worker and tax that solely, with no deductions or loopholes... unless the worker or company make under a certain amout of money.

I think that would give the freedom the right claim they want and I believe if the right percentage was found it would alleviate the deficit within a short amount of time.

The cry that this would make people want to make less is B.S. I can't think of anyone that wants to make less money.... that is a hollow and stupid argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

The cry that this would make people want to make less is B.S. I can't think of anyone that wants to make less money.... that is a hollow and stupid argument.

not hollow and not stupid.

my mother in law can only make X dollars a year because otherwise she looses her disability benefits and her social security pay outs.

she monitors carefully to make sure she only makes to the limits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Sorry confused you with Willtravel.

How do we debate, I did not see the offer. But I would love to.

I can live with being confused with Will.... don't know idf he could live with being confused with me.... he may actually just want to use me as a case study in psychology.... :lol: .

Post 19, I offered the debate.

If you agree to the rules (back up everything with reliable sourced information and no personal attacks and/or belittling the other's intelligence) we'll do it. We'll find a truly neutral Moderator and then we'll agree to format.

We can have straight post for post, or make opening statements and then have the mod ask a question to which both of us get a chance to reply to... up to you, you decide the format.

I've done it with others on here and it truly makes for better politics threads than the norm... at least for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Not that, Cyn again I appologize. I'm talking the Limbaugh argument that the rich will want to make less and there would be no incentive of advancenment for the middle class.

The disability thing I know first hand also. It is a double edged sword, it helps in some ways but is very destructive in others.

aah gotcha.

actually I do recall a point in time where I would earn up to the edge of the tax bracket because it cut too deep because I wasn't deep enough into it that I actually took home LESS money.

I turned down many jobs in my youth for that reason.

What I do know now is that I should have stretched myself as much as I could have as the pain would have only been for a short period and then I'd slowly grow further into the tax bracket.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Post 19, I offered the debate.

I am not clear on what the topic would be. For example, do want? Bush tax cuts have harmed the economy. You take pro and I take con?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am not clear on what the topic would be. For example, do want? Bush tax cuts have harmed the economy. You take pro and I take con?

If you really want to here's what we'll do.... just Bush's Economic Plan Good or Bad......

You defend your side, I'll defend mine.

Plain and simple.

It may not persuade many on here, but in the past the true debates I have had with others on here has given me a better understanding of their views and I learned a few things on both sides.

I propose that you gents take that to a dedicated thread, and open it with some words about this being a closed debate between two people. It would be interesting to make some rules--like, after three days a poll will be added to the thread where people can vote for who won.

It'd also be interesting to have the poll to include a "this thread changed my mind" value for the poll, so we might get a view of the flexibility of opinion on this matter. My suspicion is that opinions aren't very flexible around here. Not pointing any fingers; I'm as guilty as anyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

No it would be a thread all to itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I can live with being confused with Will.... don't know idf he could live with being confused with me....

I consider it a great accedental compliment.

What I was suggesting is that government LOAN programs are actually an investment, as I had to pay back my all loans plus interest. In other words, both sides benifited from my loans. I was able to finish and get my B.A., and the government recieved back more than it lent out, much like a credit card. It's arguable that cutting governemtnt loans for education will help the government to lose money in the long run. It also helped to build my credit. The student loan program is mutually belificial for both sides, and cutting it because of irresponsible spending on a war that fewer and fewer people are tolerating is absolutely and completly wrong. We should be withdrawing our troops from every military base outside of the US, like a real republican wants. We should cut military spending overseas to ZERO (which would put at least $100 billion back in our budget, which could help save the nation from hyperinflation or bankruptcy. This is not unreasonable since the annual military budget has grown by over $100 billion from 2000 to 2003; a figure which does not include war costs in the Middle East.), and increase spending on defence. We should stop using our military to enforce our "free market" corporations who want in to Iraq. We should let a real free market let corporations compete over Iraq, and let the Corporation most willing to give to Iraq win. That would help the reconstruction a lot more than thousands of US soldiers. The war on Iraq reminds me of the producers. "We can make even more money if the war is a flop!!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

not to mention you increased your income and then pay more in income taxes. it also means you have more funds to buy more goods which means increased sales tax and hidden taxes within the price of goods.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

The topic is too big for a real debate. Even if we focused on specific components of his plan; like defense spending, education, social security, prescription drugs, etc there going to be more than we can reasonably address. But, I am willing. You can pick one.

Another possibility is: The Bush economic plan unjustly benefits the oil industry. I think this is a common belief of those on the left.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Another possibility is: The Bush economic plan unjustly benefits the oil industry. I think this is a common belief of those on the left.

Unjustly is a carefully chosen word... how about the Bush economic plan subsidises the oil industry at the expense of other forms of energy.

(though I would argue it isn't just Bush and the conservatives that are guilty of this... rather it is a problem in all the West and is bipartisan in nature).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I actually agree with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Why not make it fair we each pick one?

We'll find a mod that is acceptable to both of us and we'll each have

an opening statement post...... no rebuttals just what you plan to discuss

a discussion post

a rebuttal post

a questioning post where we'll have the mod ask 3 questions and we each reply

and closing post

overall 5 maybe 6 posts (on each topic)

I think we can negotiate this, the problem maybe finding a mod that we can agree upon that will want to do it.

PS.... the mod does not necessarily have to be a TFP Mod/Admin he/she can be any member agreed upon by us.

If you accept the challenge we'll each make a list of possible mods and see if we have anyone on both our lists.

The moderator doen't matter to me. The rest is o.k. with me.

I will pick Bush's social security privatization plan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The moderator doen't matter to me. The rest is o.k. with me.

I will pick Bush's social security privatization plan.

I'll take education.

Any volunteers to mod?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

The conservative movement is committed to bankrupting America.

It's been talked about in many conservative publications. It's been mentioned many times by the Bush administration. It was first devised as a doctrine of the Reagan adminstration. It's referred to as "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast">Starving</a> the <a href="http://www.wordspy.com/words/starvethebeast.asp">Beast</a>".

The notion is that conservatives can use trade deficit and federal debt, and the resulting lack of federal funds, to force the termiation of social spending. Once they've run the American economy well and truly into the ground, they'll finally have the small, unobstrusive government they've always wanted. In this, as in every other conservative plan, the ends absolutely justify the means.

Bush's legacy will be a black hole where our economy used to be. This is NOT an accident on his part or a result of mismanagement. It is a deliberate political move designed to further the conservative agenda.

If you intend to make the point that cutting taxes ruins the US economy, you might not want to mention Reagan in the same breath, since he was the architect of the greatest economic boom this country has had (at least up to his time in office).

Oh, and before you dredge up "deficit spending," I will let you know that I am ready to post the CBO figures that prove seven of his eight proposed budgets were balanced. Until Congress got to them.

If Congress had been able to limit increases (something ustwo explained in regard to the difference between limits and "cuts") to 5% annually, at least seven of his budgets would have been balanced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I just don't get it, every other comparable country out there is spending more on educating their youth, helping their elderly and healthcare and run far less deficits than we do, have better infant mortality rates, standard of living, less families in debt, less of a trade deficit and less poverty.

Yet, here we are supposedly the greatest nation in the world and we are in pathetic shape and getting worse.

It's like the people in power now and who argue to cut all these things PLUS give out tax cuts are saying to the youth, "We got ours fuck you."

Amazing that with the sorry shape we're in, that people still sneak in by the millions. How can they stand to leave that ideal Mexican health care?

I can see I'm going to have to post this a lot.

Link

Quote:

A few weeks ago, the Internal Revenue Service released data on tax year 2003. They show that the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and the top quarter of taxpayers paid 83.9 percent.

Not only are these data interesting on their own, but looking at them over time shows that the share of total income taxes paid by the wealthy has risen even as statutory tax rates have fallen sharply. A growing body of international data shows the same trend.

On the first point, we see that in 1980, when the top statutory income tax rate went up to 70 percent, the share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers was just 19.3 percent. After Ronald Reagan's tax cut of 1981, which reduced the top rate to 50 percent -- a massive give-away to the wealthy according to those on the left -- the percentage of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose steadily.

By 1986, the top 1 percent's share of all federal income taxes rose to 25.7 percent. That year, the top statutory tax rate was further cut to 28 percent -- another huge-give-away, we were told. Yet the share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent continued to rise. By 1992, it was up to 27.5 percent.

Of course, it would be a mistake to conclude that tax increases will not raise the wealthy's tax share or that tax rate cuts always will. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers almost doubled during a time when the top income tax rate fell by half.

A common liberal retort to these data is that they exclude payroll taxes, which are assumed to be largely paid by the poor. However, it turns out that when one includes payroll taxes in the calculations, it has far less impact on the distribution of the tax burden than most people would assume, because the wealthy also pay a lot of those taxes, too.

In a 2004 paper presented to the American Statistical Association, IRS economists Michael Strudler and Tom Petska calculated percentiles data that included both income taxes and Social Security taxes. In 1999, the top 1 percent paid 23.3 percent of combined payroll and income taxes, the top 10 percent paid 52.2 percent, and the top 20 percent paid 68.2 percent.

In recent years, a number of foreign countries have also started publishing tax shares data. They show the same trend of higher and higher burdens on the wealthy even when tax rates are cut sharply.

For example, according to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, the share of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers was 11 percent in the United Kingdom in 1979, when the top income tax rate was 83 percent. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher cut that rate to 60 percent, and by 1987 the share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent had risen to 14 percent. The top rate was cut again to 40 percent, where it still stands, and the share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent continued rising to a current level of 21 percent.

Statistics Canada recently released a study looking at tax shares in that country. It shows that the share of federal income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of taxpayers reached 52.6 percent in 2002 -- almost exactly the same as is paid by the top 10 percent in the United Kingdom. However, the top income tax rate in Canada is just 29 percent. (Provincial tax rates in Canada are very substantially higher than among U.S. states.)

Finally, we now have data for Australia from the Australian Taxation Office. In 2003, they show the top 5 percent of taxpayers paying 30.2 percent of all income taxes, the top 10 percent paying 41.8 percent, and the top 25 percent paying 63.8 percent. But the top income tax rate in Australia is 47 percent. Thus we see that the country with the highest top rate also brings in the least amount of total income tax revenue from its richest citizens in percentage terms.

At some point, those on the left must decide what really matters to them -- the appearance of soaking the rich by imposing high statutory tax rates that may cause actual tax payments by the wealthy to fall, or lower rates that may bring in more revenue that can pay for government programs to aid the poor? Sadly, the left nearly always votes for appearances over reality, favoring high rates that bring in little revenue even when lower rates would bring in more.

Copyright © 2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.