Christian Dems take on debt ceiling in new ads

[lordbt]

I DO PUT MY MONEY WHERE MY MOUTH IS:

1. I have in the past voted for tax increases on myself for increased funding to public schools. I don't even have children.

2. I have worked with a grassroots organization that would get single payer healthcare in California knowing full well it would increase my taxes!

What more do I need to do?

I live up to my rhetoric.

Do you own a house? Dont take the mortgage interest deduction.

 

[Umaro]

Because we want them to succeed

They're already the most successful companies in the history of the planet, why should we give them additional benefits that other companies don't get? That's like allowing the fastest horse at the races steroids because "we want him to do well."

Also, if that's the logic you go by wants the problem with giving out things like unemployment? Don't we want them to succeed too? To quote a pig, "All animals are equal, some are more equal."

What kind of perks?

10 Giant Loopholes That Businesses Use To Dodge Taxes

They are making the same sacrifice they have for years, which is bearing the greater share of the tax burden.

But in a time when people are being asked to take on additional burdens, such as giving up their pensions, why are no additional burdens being asked on those that can most afford it, especially at a time when the group you're increasing burdens on has been getting poorer while the one you refuse to ask more of is getting richer?

I posted this in another thread, which I believe was locked. Obama wants to make sure that the half of Americans who pay no taxes don't have to bear the tax burden of the other half that doesn't pay their fair share.

Every American pays taxes. If you look at the actual numbers, we're only slightly progressive on our tax system, hardly the "sink the rich" people make it out to be. I don't know why so many people decide to not count non-federal taxes toward your total tax rate.

Total taxes paid by income decile; U.S. average - Auburn Journal

You're also ignoring that those at the top pay less as a percentage too. The 400 richest in the country pay around 18%, which is about half of what their secretaries pay as a percentage while making ~60k a year.

Bush came into office with a rising unemployment rate. He moved immediately to lower taxes to stimulate job growth and was successful. For the larger part of his tenure, we had what was considered full employment. You can't have a lot of job growth when you have full employment. So when you average his job growth record, it does not look very good based on the fact that we had full employment plus the economy collapsed when the housing market crashed after Democrats failld to move on Bush's calls to head the downturn

Then why was the debt skyrocketing? If we had full employment why was debt increasing faster than under previous rates? It's not like you're going to get "more taxpayers" from the system, and apart from Medicare part D I'm not aware of any major spending changes outside of the tax cuts and the wars. Full employment would also mean few people using unemployment and welfare benefits. Why was the debt still exploding after we cut the rates?

And why did everyone else get poorer? Even if we did have "full employment" like you claim, everyone that isn't in the top few percents was worse off even before the crash than they were before the tax cuts.
Bush tax cuts 10th anniversary: They've been a failure in every conceivable way. - By Annie Lowrey - Slate Magazine

I pointed out that the people are being overruled by the courts. That's the rationale. the only way to stop a tyranny by the courts would be a Constitutional amendment.

People have never been able to vote for discrimination against a minority. There's a reason we didn't take a vote to end slavery.

 

[new_wine]

I find it ironic that some folk want people to pull their share when it comes to work.

But then want to shirk their own load on tax.

 

[lordbt]

People have never been able to vote for discrimination against a minority. There's a reason we didn't take a vote to end slavery.

The 'rich' are a minority. They make up between 5%-10% of the population depending upon how you define them. That doesnt stop you from arguing for a tax policy that discriminates against them. Or voting such a discriminatory policy into law. If I advocated raising taxes on blacks, would that be discrimination? How about gays? Hispanics? Catholics? Muslims? Women? Red-heads? Trekkies? Seniors? The Irish? Yet somehow you have allowed yourself a discriminatory exception based upon what a person has in his wallet. Perhaps you ought to familiarize yourself with the concept of 'equal protection under the law.' Either that or join me in my crusade of raising taxes each of the above minorities--none of which apply to me, coincidentally.

 

[Umaro]

The 'rich' are a minority. They make up between 5%-10% of the population depending upon how you define them. That doesnt stop you from arguing for a tax policy that discriminates against them. Or voting such a discriminatory policy into law. If I advocated raising taxes on blacks, would that be discrimination? How about gays? Hispanics? Catholics? Muslims? Women? Red-heads? Trekkies? Seniors? The Irish? Yet somehow you have allowed yourself a discriminatory exception based upon what a person has in his wallet. Perhaps you ought to familiarize yourself with the concept of 'equal protection under the law.' Either that or join me in my crusade of raising taxes each of the above minorities--none of which apply to me, coincidentally.

The rich are taxed in the same system as the rest of us. The first $10,000 that rich person makes is taxed exactly the same as the first $10,000 I make. The second $10,000 he makes is taxed exactly the same as the second $10,000 I make. That's what progressive taxation means. It's not the same as if you decided to charge black people more, since then I wouldn't be under the same system.

 

[MachZer0]

They're already the most successful companies in the history of the planet, why should we give them additional benefits that other companies don't get? That's like allowing the fastest horse at the races steroids because "we want him to do well."

Bad comparison. The reason we want them to do well is because when they do well, we do well. For instance, when oil companies do well, gas is cheaper which benefits everyone. If you raise taxes, then we will all end up paying those taxes in the long run, at the pump.

Also, if that's the logic you go by wants the problem with giving out things like unemployment? Don't we want them to succeed too? To quote a pig, "All animals are equal, some are more equal."

The difference is that unemployment is not a free enterprise. To give unemployment to one person, you have to extract it from another as opposed to a free enterprise where one person voluntarily gives money to another in exchange for something of value.

People have never been able to vote for discrimination against a minority. There's a reason we didn't take a vote to end slavery.

Really? You're whole point here has been to discriminate against the rich by making them pay taxes at a higher rate than others. Don't you vote for that?

10 Giant Loopholes That Businesses Use To Dodge Taxes

If you get really good at those, you could become Obama's jobs czar

But in a time when people are being asked to take on additional burdens, such as giving up their pensions, why are no additional burdens being asked on those that can most afford it, especially at a time when the group you're increasing burdens on has been getting poorer while the one you refuse to ask more of is getting richer?

Why do you want someone else to bear your burdens in the first place? Especially when making them bear your burdens will only increase your burden?

Every American pays taxes. If you look at the actual numbers, we're only slightly progressive on our tax system, hardly the "sink the rich" people make it out to be. I don't know why so many people decide to not count non-federal taxes toward your total tax rate.

Total taxes paid by income decile; U.S. average - Auburn Journal

The higher income taxpayers also pay nonfederal taxes, and more of them too.

You're also ignoring that those at the top pay less as a percentage too. The 400 richest in the country pay around 18%, which is about half of what their secretaries pay as a percentage while making ~60k a year.

I believe that was hedge fund managers that fell into that category. And yet overall, they pay far more taxes than those secretaries

Then why was the debt skyrocketing? If we had full employment why was debt increasing faster than under previous rates? It's not like you're going to get "more taxpayers" from the system, and apart from Medicare part D I'm not aware of any major spending changes outside of the tax cuts and the wars. Full employment would also mean few people using unemployment and welfare benefits. Why was the debt still exploding after we cut the rates?

Whether you're aware of the spending or not,, it went up. Revenue increased, spending increased at a higher rate.

And why did everyone else get poorer? Even if we did have "full employment" like you claim, everyone that isn't in the top few percents was worse off even before the crash than they were before the tax cuts.
Bush tax cuts 10th anniversary: They've been a failure in every conceivable way. - By Annie Lowrey - Slate Magazine

I'm not aware that eery one got poorer. The problem with posting statistics is that they don't account for the fact that people in poorer categories, generally move up to higher income categories. So the people who are listed as getting poorer, aren't the same ones in that category a year or two before. That is do in part to illegal immigrants moving into the lowest categories for instance.

 

[KarateCowboy]

The rich are taxed in the same system as the rest of us. The first $10,000 that rich person makes is taxed exactly the same as the first $10,000 I make. The second $10,000 he makes is taxed exactly the same as the second $10,000 I make. That's what progressive taxation means. It's not the same as if you decided to charge black people more, since then I wouldn't be under the same system.

That's not true at all. If that were true then the first month your income taxes would be a small percentage. Then go up the next month. And so on. But that is not the case. Your taxes are calculated on your annual salary.

If I make $5000 in the first two weeks of the fiscal year that money is not taxed at at the same rate as someone who makes $5000 in the first month. If what you were saying is true then after two paychecks a greater portion of my check would be deducted. If you took the two paychecks and put them side by side you would see the same amount deducted. But that is not the case.

What you said above is not true. You should support a flat tax rate because it is more fair.

 

[KarateCowboy]

I DO PUT MY MONEY WHERE MY MOUTH IS:

1. I have in the past voted for tax increases on myself for increased funding to public schools. I don't even have children.

2. I have worked with a grassroots organization that would get single payer healthcare in California knowing full well it would increase my taxes!

What more do I need to do?

I live up to my rhetoric.

Did that pass? Did they then take more money from you and give it to schools? Or did they take more money from "the rich" (ie, anyone who makes more than you do)? Would you support a bill where you could overpay your taxes for stuff like that? If so, how much more would you pay? Ten per cent? Fifty? How much of your total income would you give up?

 

[chaz345]

Would you support a bill where you could overpay your taxes for stuff like that? If so, how much more would you pay? Ten per cent? Fifty? How much of your total income would you give up?

MA, one of the more solidly liberal states in the country, tried this with their state income tax. The extra revenue didn't even pay for the costs of changing the tax forms. So much for liberal putting their money where their mouth is.

 

[chaz345]

The rich are taxed in the same system as the rest of us. The first $10,000 that rich person makes is taxed exactly the same as the first $10,000 I make. The second $10,000 he makes is taxed exactly the same as the second $10,000 I make. That's what progressive taxation means. It's not the same as if you decided to charge black people more, since then I wouldn't be under the same system.

No that's not at all how it works. If you make 10,000 per year(using fake numbers to keep it clear) all of your income is taxed at say 10% but if you make 50,000 per year all 50k is taxed at 20%.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Did that pass? Did they then take more money from you and give it to schools?

If I recall it was rejected because the town I lived in had too many senior citizens who apparently thought they'd paid enough when they had kids in the schools.

Remember, I don't have kids and thanks to modern surgical techniques I won't. ERGO this was never going to benefit me directly. But again, I believe in the value of education so I voted for it.

Or did they take more money from "the rich" (ie, anyone who makes more than you do)?

As I clearly stated all the things I've worked for in that post would increase MY taxes. Ergo this question makes no sense as it doesn't relate to the point at hand.

Again, I don't know how much more clear I can be. I know it scares Conservatives to meet someone who lives by their beliefs so I am sad that you all are trying to pick it apart like this. It's pitiful actually.

Would you support a bill where you could overpay your taxes for stuff like that?

Isn't it enough for you that I work to increase my own taxes? HOnestly what more do you guys want? I've established my bona fides in this debate and you guys just can't stop trying to figure out what ELSE I can do.

If so, how much more would you pay? Ten per cent? Fifty? How much of your total income would you give up?

Why do you need to know this? I honestly don't get it.

You guys are faced with someone who lives by their own credo and yet you need more and more and more and more information.

What is your thing? Are you scared? Can you live by the implications of your own philosophy?

 

[lordbt]

If I recall it was rejected because the town I lived in had too many senior citizens who apparently thought they'd paid enough when they had kids in the schools.

Remember, I don't have kids and thanks to modern surgical techniques I won't. ERGO this was never going to benefit me directly. But again, I believe in the value of education so I voted for it.



As I clearly stated all the things I've worked for in that post would increase MY taxes. Ergo this question makes no sense as it doesn't relate to the point at hand.

Again, I don't know how much more clear I can be. I know it scares Conservatives to meet someone who lives by their beliefs so I am sad that you all are trying to pick it apart like this. It's pitiful actually.



Isn't it enough for you that I work to increase my own taxes? HOnestly what more do you guys want? I've established my bona fides in this debate and you guys just can't stop trying to figure out what ELSE I can do.



Why do you need to know this? I honestly don't get it.

You guys are faced with someone who lives by their own credo and yet you need more and more and more and more information.

What is your thing? Are you scared? Can you live by the implications of your own philosophy?

Living, as you say, by the implications of your own philosophy, is accurate if your philosophy is one of self-deception. Perhaps I missed your demands during the Obamacare debate for your taxes to be raised right along with those of 'rich'; or a desire for significantly more to be taken from you to reduce the deficit. That you occasionally vote for a local levy that might cost you a few extra pennies does not compensate for your support of leftist national policies designed to soak the 'rich' in order to grant you some unearned benefit.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Living, as you say, by the implications of your own philosophy, is accurate if your philosophy is one of self-deception. Perhaps I missed your demands during the Obamacare debate for your taxes to be raised right along with those of 'rich'

You don't know me, then. Actually as I clearly stated earlier I volunteered for a grassroots organization in Cali to get "single payer healthcare" (much more than the watered down Obamacarething) which I KNEW would increase costs to me. I ran the numbers and I knew it was going to cost people like me more and I was glad to pay it.

How is that "Self deception"?

; or a desire for significantly more to be taken from you to reduce the deficit.

You mean before or after Bush II wiped out the surplus by giving tax breaks to the wealthy and then getting us involved in a war in Iraq?

That you occasionally vote for a local levy that might cost you a few extra pennies does not compensate for your support

Oh I can see this really gets under you Conservatives' skin! A lefty who has a track record of living by his philosophy of not loving money above all else! So you have to denigrate it repeatedly.

LOL.

 

[KarateCowboy]

If I recall it was rejected because the town I lived in had too many senior citizens who apparently thought they'd paid enough when they had kids in the schools.

Remember, I don't have kids and thanks to modern surgical techniques I won't. ERGO this was never going to benefit me directly. But again, I believe in the value of education so I voted for it.

So nothing came of it. The lesson learned here is: a political opinion is not an acceptable substitute for actual generosity. You say you believe in that. Words are nice, but what actions have you done where you actual had to open your wallet and put your money where your mouth is? It's easy to blame the failure on someone else. If you really wanted to support public education you could have calculated out the extra tax dollars you would have payed. Then you could have made a donation to the school system for textbooks, PTA, etc. Did you do such a thing?

Isn't it enough for you that I work to increase my own taxes? HOnestly what more do you guys want? I've established my bona fides in this debate and you guys just can't stop trying to figure out what ELSE I can do.

The example you mentioned was just you voicing your political opinion about what everyone should be doing. You didn't actually have to make a sacrifice because others don't have the same beliefs as you. Some people are willing to make a sacrifice, but only if everyone else has to also. That way it will not be a net loss, in their minds. That's not really charity; it's a lose/lose attitude. I just want to see if you're one of those, or if you actually believe what you say you do. Whatever our disagreements there is one thing I am sure we can agree on: if you were able to overpay your own taxes for the greater good then your work to increase your own taxes would not be fruitless as in your example.

Why do you need to know this? I honestly don't get it.

The reason why is that you said you believe in making self sacrifice for the greater good and that your preferred method is government taxation. We can see from your example what happens when others do not share that opinion. You should support the ability to over pay your taxes because then you have one less obstacle and it makes it easier for everyone. If you really believe in raising your own taxes then this would enable you to constantly raise your taxes. You could build a billion-dollar business and pay 99% of your income to the greater good. It would be the best of both worlds; communism and capitalism. If you really believe in what you claim then you should be excited about this opportunity and not defensive.

You guys are faced with someone who lives by their own credo and yet you need more and more and more and more information.

Looking at what you said you did and only at those actions then it is logical to conclude that you are willing to make a sacrifice, but only if you can force 'the other guy' to do the same. "I don't mind losing as long as I take you down with me". Another possible conclusion is that you predicted the majority would vote against it and you favored it so you could be sanctimonious.

Hypothetically speaking, how much of your own income would you pay for the greater good if those old farty farts weren't able to inhibit you: 50%? 70%? Would you try to become a millionaire executive and give 99%; a Socialist Superman? This is the best and most potent opportunity for you to raise your own taxes. The idea should excite and tantalize you. Think of all the time you spent volunteering for your expropriation health service group. Now think of all the money you could have earned and then payed in taxes with that time if you were able to overpay for the greater good. "Awesome" should be the word that comes to mind.

What is your thing? Are you scared? Can you live by the implications of your own philosophy?

My thing is playing video games and programming the world's best group coupon software. I also like going to the YMCA and lift weights to become sufficiently pumped. And, I have a boy named Michael in Ecuador whom I support via Children International.

 

[Umaro]

Bad comparison. The reason we want them to do well is because when they do well, we do well. For instance, when oil companies do well, gas is cheaper which benefits everyone. If you raise taxes, then we will all end up paying those taxes in the long run, at the pump.

But they have been doing well, and we haven't. Companies right now are producing record profits, and workers wages have stagnated for 40 years. Why should we continue to give them extra benefits if the workers stay in place and the debt piles up?

The difference is that unemployment is not a free enterprise. To give unemployment to one person, you have to extract it from another as opposed to a free enterprise where one person voluntarily gives money to another in exchange for something of value.

Giving someone a tax break that others don't get is still a redistribution of wealth. If we need $100 this month for police service, but the government says "Well, normally I'd tax you both $50, but I want Umaro to succeed, so I'll tax him $35 and tax Mach $50. The rest we can just chalk up to the debt." I'm getting a discount you don't, and it's harming you in the long run.

Why do you want someone else to bear your burdens in the first place? Especially when making them bear your burdens will only increase your burden?

I'm asking them to bear their burden. A teacher and a business exec are standing side by side. You walk up to the teacher and say "give up your pension for the debt." Then you walk up to the exec and say "nothing will change for you." The teacher raising an objection is not asking the exec to carry her burden, merely to chip in as well.

The higher income taxpayers also pay nonfederal taxes, and more of them too.

That graph includes nonfederal taxes and federal taxes for everyone. We have a very slightly progressive system.

I believe that was hedge fund managers that fell into that category. And yet overall, they pay far more taxes than those secretaries

But less as a percentage. I thought the right was all about a "flat tax." Even if you don't agree with the idea of progressive taxation, you'd think they'd at least pay an even percentage of their income as their secretaries.

I'm not aware that eery one got poorer. The problem with posting statistics is that they don't account for the fact that people in poorer categories, generally move up to higher income categories. So the people who are listed as getting poorer, aren't the same ones in that category a year or two before. That is do in part to illegal immigrants moving into the lowest categories for instance.

The statistics follow the job wage, not the individual filling the job. In short, if you worked for an average fast food company today you're making less when adjusted for inflation than you would working for that same company in the position in 1980. Additionally, the average CEO today is making about 6x what the exact same job in the exact same company paid in 1980.

 

[Umaro]

That's not true at all. If that were true then the first month your income taxes would be a small percentage. Then go up the next month. And so on. But that is not the case. Your taxes are calculated on your annual salary.

If I make $5000 in the first two weeks of the fiscal year that money is not taxed at at the same rate as someone who makes $5000 in the first month. If what you were saying is true then after two paychecks a greater portion of my check would be deducted. If you took the two paychecks and put them side by side you would see the same amount deducted. But that is not the case.

What you said above is not true. You should support a flat tax rate because it is more fair.

No that's not at all how it works. If you make 10,000 per year(using fake numbers to keep it clear) all of your income is taxed at say 10% but if you make 50,000 per year all 50k is taxed at 20%.

Are you guys kidding me? You've been here this long decrying high taxes, and you don't even properly understand how our tax system works? Only the income that is above the rate line will be taxed at that rate.

To take an example, suppose your taxable income (after deductions and exemptions) was exactly $100,000 in 2008 and your status was Married filing separately; then your tax would be calculated like this:

($8,025 minus 0 ) x .10 : $802.50
(32,550 minus 8,025 ) x .15 : 3,678.75
(65,725 minus 32,550 ) x .25 : 8,293.75
(100,000 minus 65,725 ) x .28 : 9,597.00
Total: $ 22,372.00

This puts you in the 28% tax bracket, since that's the highest rate applied to any of your income; but as a percentage of the whole $100,000, your tax is about 22.37%.

Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2011

 

[MachZer0]

But they have been doing well, and we haven't. Companies right now are producing record profits, and workers wages have stagnated for 40 years. Why should we continue to give them extra benefits if the workers stay in place and the debt piles up?

Some companies have done OK and others haven't. If you penalize them now, the penalty will spread to the workers as well

Giving someone a tax break that others don't get is still a redistribution of wealth. If we need $100 this month for police service, but the government says "Well, normally I'd tax you both $50, but I want Umaro to succeed, so I'll tax him $35 and tax Mach $50. The rest we can just chalk up to the debt." I'm getting a discount you don't, and it's harming you in the long run.

That's absolutely false. You can't redistribute someone's own wealth to them

I'm asking them to bear their burden. A teacher and a business exec are standing side by side. You walk up to the teacher and say "give up your pension for the debt." Then you walk up to the exec and say "nothing will change for you." The teacher raising an objection is not asking the exec to carry her burden, merely to chip in as well.

So what you're really saying is that you don't want the half of Americans who pay no taxes to bear the burden of the other half who in your opinion don't pay their fair share.

That graph includes nonfederal taxes and federal taxes for everyone. We have a very slightly progressive system.

And still the wealthier Americans bear the largest share of the burden

But less as a percentage.

Only certain people, and yet the rich still bear the heaviest burden for the taxes

I thought the right was all about a "flat tax."

Then you were wrong as is the case usually with broad brushing

Even if you don't agree with the idea of progressive taxation, you'd think they'd at least pay an even percentage of their income as their secretaries.

Again, that was only hedge fund managers, and remember, the hedge fund manager is the one taking the risk.

The statistics follow the job wage, not the individual filling the job. In short, if you worked for an average fast food company today you're making less when adjusted for inflation than you would working for that same company in the position in 1980. Additionally, the average CEO today is making about 6x what the exact same job in the exact same company paid in 1980.

So they aren't actually making less money. Got it.

 

[thaumaturgy]

So what you're really saying is that you don't want the half of Americans who pay no taxes ...

Can someone PLEASE tell me where these people who pay "no taxes" swipe the "no tax" card while buy gas or other goods at the store? Can you please show me where they check off on their W4 that they don't want any Social Security taxes deducted from their paycheck.

Please! I'd LOVE to see this!

 

[thaumaturgy]

So nothing came of it. The lesson learned here is:

The lesson apparently learned here is that it simply galls conservatives that a liberal who is making a middle-class living and believes in paying for the services that make this country good actually lives by his or her own philosophy and votes in ways that would impact themselves first and foremost.

It simply galls them. So they have to find some "loophole" or something that the liberal didn't do or find some way to further denigrate that.

I like seeing that because it tells me how conservatives view the world. They feel that only virtue and strength of will can come from their side and when they see a liberal who not only talks the talk of their philosophy but walks the walk they have to find something they can use to ignore it.

 

[MachZer0]

Can someone PLEASE tell me where these people who pay "no taxes" swipe the "no tax" card while buy gas or other goods at the store? Can you please show me where they check off on their W4 that they don't want any Social Security taxes deducted from their paycheck.

Please! I'd LOVE to see this!

We're talking about federal income taxes. Please see the OP