THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

[Woodruff]

Lowering taxes worked for Reagan because at the time we were doing pretty well and 70% tax - which is what the rich were paying then - was too much of a burden. So, Reagan lowered tax rates - but he also took away some business deductions when he lowered the rates - realized he'd made them TOO LOW, and raised them back up a couple notches.

Obama's plan to raise taxes back to Reagan rates because they can afford it is FAIR for the country. They had years of lower rates because everyone else was able to take up the slack. Everyone else is not currently able to take up the slack.

"The rich" (to 10%) currently pay 45% of the tax burden in the United States? How is that fair?

Do the rich have 45% of the money in the United States? I honestly don't know the answer to that, but if so, that seems perfectly fair. It seems like math too.

Do you know the answer to that?

[Phatscotty]

If someone believes in equality, that means they should believe that everyone should be treated equally. No discrimination, and that goes for tax rates too.

People who pretend to be for equality, but then change their principles when it affects them, are just phonies hiding behind their insatiable greed to get other peoples money that they did not earn themselves, which de facto means they think they are better than or have more power or more rights than other people.

"Well, yeah, but he doesn't need all that money, so that doesn't apply!"
"Well, yeah, but he was born rich, so that doesn't apply because he did not earn it"
"Well, yeah, but there are injustices in the past that need to be corrected, so we have to make special exceptions..."

And the kicker, my fav....

"We treat people unequally in order to make things more equal"

[thegreekdog]

Warped viewpoint. Sorry, but it is. Incentivizing didn't cause the problem. What caused the problem was unethical lenders who encouraged people to take out bigger loans than they had originally planned to take out when the incentives would help them buy a home - because they made more money on bigger loans.

I didn't fall prey to it, but they sure as heck tried to get me into a home that was 6x a larger mortgage than the shack I settled on. If it hadn't been for the incentives, I wouldn't have been able to get the home I have. If I'd fallen for the unethical strong-arming "Look look you can qualify for a mansion and your payment will only be $25 more for years, and before that rate goes up, you can refinance or sell the place for profit! Don't miss out!" I would've lost this home when I lost my job... which I lost because too many production/manufacturing jobs were being shipped overseas.

Right, here's the thing. What happened is that people did buy houses they couldn't afford because the government incentivized them and the lenders to do so. You can say "warped viewpoint" and yell it from the rooftops, but it's not a warped viewpoint. It's the correct viewpoint held by almost all, if not all, economists from both sides of the aisle. I know you are a banker, but I'll trust their opinions over your opinions.

I do agree that our financial institutions shouldn't fail, but, "Socialist" as this may appear, I do believe bailouts should come with strings attached like happened with the GM bailout. I may not like all the particular strings that came with the GM bailout, but at least the people who are putting up the bailout money in GM's case are "technically" represented (by the government) and "technically" have a sayso. The banking bailouts that occurred didn't come with the power-strings attached which just throws more money at those who've already shown they won't handle money issues with Patriotic responsibility. Their ONLY concerns are with their own and stockholders' pockets. And that's just not good for our country.

Would it surprise you to learn that I do think our financial institutions should have failed? This is the same thing as above, but in reverse. While we didn't incentivize financial institutions to fail, we certainly made sure their failures had no negative financial repurcussions for those companies. That doesn't disincentive them from making the same mistakes again. If I don't punish my child for doing something bad, why wouldn't he do it again? There are reasons why these companies were bailed out, but I think the biggest reason was the political pull the financial companies had over both Republicans and Democrats.

Romney doesn't want to regulate the financial industry, doesn't want to regulate industry generally, and I've already explained that that means we trust folks who do NOT have our nation's best interest, or the general people's best interest, at heart; and that's my problem with neo-Republican plans. Unlike Reagan's plans, which DID have our nations' best interests at heart, the neo-Republican plans twist what Reagan intended, to the detriment of our nation.

Okay, but rhetoric aside, no one has demonstrated to me that the Democrats are any different, especially in light of the shitshow that is Dodd-Frank.

Newsflash: GE got big because someone on "one side" of the government subsidized its early industry.
Pratt got big because someone on "one side" of the government subsidized its early industry.
Colt and other firearms makers got big because someone on "one side" of the government subsidized its early industry.
Tang, Spam, and other food products got big because someone on "one side" of the government subsidized their early industry.
Velcro got invented because someone on "one side" of the government subsidized..

Getting the point? It's always happened. What's changed is that some businesses have gotten big and powerful enough to no longer need the government subsidies, and have moved their allegiance from their country to their stockholders.

So your point is that because it's always happened it should always happen? That's the worst argument for anything.

I never subscribe to "rhetoric," thank you very much. Critical thinking about the history of the United States may make certain ideas that are spouted be more palatable to me than other ideas, but I don't share the ideas just because some neo group or other shouts louder.

I think you need to reread your first post. It was fully of rhetoric. I expected Joe Biden to quote directly from it during the debate.

Oh, not really true - YOU are buying into rhetoric.

Repayment of school loans, educational expense, is a tax deduction. Small business owners reinvest most of their money back into the business, which means they're putting their profit into deductible expenses. They can also form different types of corporations to separate their home and personal food money from their business revenue to lessen the burden further.Obama's plans do not intend to kill any of that. Finally, their expenses for hiring folks such as payroll expenses are not part of their profits, and Obama's plan was to give them a higher deduction for hiring folks (but that was killed by Republicans.)

Meanwhile, Romney's latest idea is to not increase taxes on the wealthy, but instead, to minimize or eliminate these sorts of deductions for all - which potentially has a worse impact on the 100-hour-week lawyer and on mom and pop trying to make a success of a small business.

You and I are reading completely different tax plans.

True. But look at why, rather than assuming I'm looking at rhetoric.

1) One of the most notorious "favoritisms" is the Democratic plan to hurt the petroleum industry. We are too dependent on foreign oil because we are overall too dependent on oil; our nation has realized it for years, and the oil we could produce within or just off our own shores will not last forever, Estimates differ, some say a decade, some say longer, but the point is, it's not inexhaustible. But changing to something else isn't going to happen without incentive. It would be nice if the change could be painless, but it isn't now, and will never be painless UNLESS we have something else just as lucrative to replace it. Hence, Obama's favoring "green energy" sources, in hopes we make another brilliant technical breakthrough not unlike the one that brought us the efficient petroleum combustion engines we are so comfortable with now (but have been around for only about one century).

2) Another "favoritism" hurts the coal industry. Both plans are schemes to address two ongoing American problems.
We signed treaties to reduce pollutions of various types, but have reneged on those treaties because it's too hard and too costly to put in the "scrubbers" needed to enable us to burn coal more cleanly. We should either officially "unsign" those treaties or bite the bullet to try to adhere to the treaties. Un-signing the treaties might collapse our standing i the world, and cause the entire world to renege on their sides of treaties with us. Further, emphasizing "clean" and "green" could help spur tangential technological breakthroughs that could help us with the first issue I mentioned here.

Your assumption here is that the only path away from oil or towards cleaner energy is through government subsidies. And you assume this because it's how it's always worked. Why don't investors risk their money in green energy instead of having the government take my money against my will to invest in green energy? (Ironically, I have invested in green energy privately). There are many other examples of special dispensations for certain industries and countries. The auto bailouts are one (why the two auto manufacturers and not other companies that were in trouble). The exemptions from the Affordable Care Act for certain companies and not others. We can always find "good" reasons for these things, but we need to make the playing field level and these sorts of things don't do that.

Ultimately, greekdog, I'm extremely conservative, and I don't buy into rhetoric.

It's just that, emotions aside, Republicans want to repeat old mistakes rather than try new things that might make our country stronger in the long run while (some) Democrats are trying to spur changes that, if they work, would put us back on top.

I agree that the Republicans are not the ones to fix the problems with this country. However, nothing in the past four years have indicated to me that the Demcorats are better. The Democrats did not make any tax reforms; they passed an extremely expensive health insurance law that was merely a boondoggle for health insurance companies; they passed multiple ineffective bailouts that cost multiple billions of dolllars; they almost bankrupted the country; and they passed a pretend financial fix that was really just a boondoggle to financial institutions and is completely misunderstood by the general public.

And, no offense, but you're not conservative. You want more government control over the economy without understanding that corporate cronyism is what drives the US political system. That's a Democrat, maybe not a liberal Democrat, but a Democrat.

[Woodruff]

Lowering taxes worked for Reagan because at the time we were doing pretty well and 70% tax - which is what the rich were paying then - was too much of a burden. So, Reagan lowered tax rates - but he also took away some business deductions when he lowered the rates - realized he'd made them TOO LOW, and raised them back up a couple notches.

Obama's plan to raise taxes back to Reagan rates because they can afford it is FAIR for the country. They had years of lower rates because everyone else was able to take up the slack. Everyone else is not currently able to take up the slack.

"The rich" (to 10%) currently pay 45% of the tax burden in the United States? How is that fair?

Do the rich have 45% of the money in the United States? I honestly don't know the answer to that, but if so, that seems perfectly fair. It seems like math too.

Do you know the answer to that?

Nobody has the answer to this? Night Strike?

[thegreekdog]

Lowering taxes worked for Reagan because at the time we were doing pretty well and 70% tax - which is what the rich were paying then - was too much of a burden. So, Reagan lowered tax rates - but he also took away some business deductions when he lowered the rates - realized he'd made them TOO LOW, and raised them back up a couple notches.

Obama's plan to raise taxes back to Reagan rates because they can afford it is FAIR for the country. They had years of lower rates because everyone else was able to take up the slack. Everyone else is not currently able to take up the slack.

"The rich" (to 10%) currently pay 45% of the tax burden in the United States? How is that fair?

Do the rich have 45% of the money in the United States? I honestly don't know the answer to that, but if so, that seems perfectly fair. It seems like math too.

Do you know the answer to that?

Nobody has the answer to this? Night Strike?

Top 20% of Americans own 85% of the wealth.

But do not confuse income (money earned per year) with wealth (assets). It's more difficult to tax assets when such assets are not disposed of.

[Woodruff]

Lowering taxes worked for Reagan because at the time we were doing pretty well and 70% tax - which is what the rich were paying then - was too much of a burden. So, Reagan lowered tax rates - but he also took away some business deductions when he lowered the rates - realized he'd made them TOO LOW, and raised them back up a couple notches.

Obama's plan to raise taxes back to Reagan rates because they can afford it is FAIR for the country. They had years of lower rates because everyone else was able to take up the slack. Everyone else is not currently able to take up the slack.

"The rich" (to 10%) currently pay 45% of the tax burden in the United States? How is that fair?

Do the rich have 45% of the money in the United States? I honestly don't know the answer to that, but if so, that seems perfectly fair. It seems like math too.

Do you know the answer to that?

Nobody has the answer to this? Night Strike?

Top 20% of Americans own 85% of the wealth.

But do not confuse income (money earned per year) with wealth (assets). It's more difficult to tax assets when such assets are not disposed of.

Excellent point. I would change my point to be "Do the rich have 45% of the income in the United States?". Do we know that? Is it possible to know that?

[Nobunaga]

Lowering taxes worked for Reagan because at the time we were doing pretty well and 70% tax - which is what the rich were paying then - was too much of a burden. So, Reagan lowered tax rates - but he also took away some business deductions when he lowered the rates - realized he'd made them TOO LOW, and raised them back up a couple notches.

Obama's plan to raise taxes back to Reagan rates because they can afford it is FAIR for the country. They had years of lower rates because everyone else was able to take up the slack. Everyone else is not currently able to take up the slack.

"The rich" (to 10%) currently pay 45% of the tax burden in the United States? How is that fair?

Do the rich have 45% of the money in the United States? I honestly don't know the answer to that, but if so, that seems perfectly fair. It seems like math too.

Do you know the answer to that?

Nobody has the answer to this? Night Strike?

Top 20% of Americans own 85% of the wealth.

...

... Anybody know how this compares to other nations in the west? I know successful Americans pay the largest percentage of actual total taxes paid compared to other nations... but not the percentage of wealth earned.

...