Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Realization of Obamacare and liberal hypocrit

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 4:00:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I just had the realization that between the healthcare mandates (ACA), Social Security, and Medicare, that in 2016, over 10% of people's paychecks will be lost to them.

Now, that is whatever, but what I find is hypocritical is that liberals often bemoan the income/wealth disparity. So, these policies strip 10 % of income from people, who then cannot use it when they are younger to build wealth, is somehow not a legitimate factor in the discussion?
My work here is, finally, done.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 5:11:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 4:00:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I just had the realization that between the healthcare mandates (ACA), Social Security, and Medicare, that in 2016, over 10% of people's paychecks will be lost to them.

Now, that is whatever, but what I find is hypocritical is that liberals often bemoan the income/wealth disparity. So, these policies strip 10 % of income from people, who then cannot use it when they are younger to build wealth, is somehow not a legitimate factor in the discussion?

You see, my friend, liberals are all about government dependancy, so to someone who is neither conservative or liberal, it's not as much hypocrisy as it is that liberals have a thinly veiled message of governmental dependency as far as economics go.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 5:45:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 4:00:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I just had the realization that between the healthcare mandates (ACA), Social Security, and Medicare, that in 2016, over 10% of people's paychecks will be lost to them.

Now, that is whatever, but what I find is hypocritical is that liberals often bemoan the income/wealth disparity. So, these policies strip 10 % of income from people, who then cannot use it when they are younger to build wealth, is somehow not a legitimate factor in the discussion?

I feel you are not doing your math right... In Germany, the Liberal paradise for UHC, 15% of their income goes to Healthcare alone (compared to the average 2.5% to 7.9% in the US). Medicare will see it's $500 billion returned after people get down complaining (which is fair, you can't remove that much money from a program that big), and AHC is built so most of it's cost isn't seen in the 1st decade, so it looks cheaper when the CBO does it's decade-cost report of 1.72 trillion. It also ignores that 80-100 million employees will no doubt lose their healthcare coverage in place of the much cheaper $2000 fine (which would save Walmart $4 billion in dropped employees) and Obamacare would end up paying for more than half the nation.

UHC = Us paying $20 to get $10 of Healthcare Coverage, has we know the Government spends more to get less from every program, and many of Obamacare's taxes will last a year before dwindling and the rest tax the medical industry...

Although the idea that Liberal's are doing it with the hopes of making everyone dependent is likely nothing more then conspiracy. Most Liberals believe they are doing what is right for the nation.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 6:50:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 5:11:35 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
You see, my friend, liberals are all about government dependancy, so to someone who is neither conservative or liberal, it's not as much hypocrisy as it is that liberals have a thinly veiled message of governmental dependency as far as economics go.

To answer the question, redistribution gives wealth to the younger through better education and healthcare, for example, which benefits them more than the 10% of their wealth (which is almost always minor when young) is. By contrast, if they were left to their own devices they would have paid more, or even not at all. Moreover, the wealth redistributed back to these individuals in society benefits them massively.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 6:54:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 6:50:50 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/30/2013 5:11:35 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
You see, my friend, liberals are all about government dependancy, so to someone who is neither conservative or liberal, it's not as much hypocrisy as it is that liberals have a thinly veiled message of governmental dependency as far as economics go.

To answer the question, redistribution gives wealth to the younger through better education and healthcare, for example, which benefits them more than the 10% of their wealth (which is almost always minor when young) is. By contrast, if they were left to their own devices they would have paid more, or even not at all. Moreover, the wealth redistributed back to these individuals in society benefits them massively.

You are assuming that I should care what happens to other people around me or that I am obligated to assist the bottom 90%. If I am obligated, why do you think I should be obligated?
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 9:16:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 6:54:29 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/30/2013 6:50:50 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/30/2013 5:11:35 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
You see, my friend, liberals are all about government dependancy, so to someone who is neither conservative or liberal, it's not as much hypocrisy as it is that liberals have a thinly veiled message of governmental dependency as far as economics go.

To answer the question, redistribution gives wealth to the younger through better education and healthcare, for example, which benefits them more than the 10% of their wealth (which is almost always minor when young) is. By contrast, if they were left to their own devices they would have paid more, or even not at all. Moreover, the wealth redistributed back to these individuals in society benefits them massively.

You are assuming that I should care what happens to other people around me or that I am obligated to assist the bottom 90%. If I am obligated, why do you think I should be obligated?

Transcendental utilitarian ethics?

If you don't, we have no reason to help you if the same thing happens to you?

Because, ultimately, any ethical distinguishment between yourself and others is arbitrary, and therefore there is no good, objective reason that they should matter less than yourself?
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 9:17:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 6:54:29 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/30/2013 6:50:50 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/30/2013 5:11:35 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
You see, my friend, liberals are all about government dependancy, so to someone who is neither conservative or liberal, it's not as much hypocrisy as it is that liberals have a thinly veiled message of governmental dependency as far as economics go.

To answer the question, redistribution gives wealth to the younger through better education and healthcare, for example, which benefits them more than the 10% of their wealth (which is almost always minor when young) is. By contrast, if they were left to their own devices they would have paid more, or even not at all. Moreover, the wealth redistributed back to these individuals in society benefits them massively.

You are assuming that I should care what happens to other people around me or that I am obligated to assist the bottom 90%. If I am obligated, why do you think I should be obligated?

Also: You aren't a total sociopath?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 10:03:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 5:45:51 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2013 4:00:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I just had the realization that between the healthcare mandates (ACA), Social Security, and Medicare, that in 2016, over 10% of people's paychecks will be lost to them.

Now, that is whatever, but what I find is hypocritical is that liberals often bemoan the income/wealth disparity. So, these policies strip 10 % of income from people, who then cannot use it when they are younger to build wealth, is somehow not a legitimate factor in the discussion?

I feel you are not doing your math right... In Germany, the Liberal paradise for UHC, 15% of their income goes to Healthcare alone (compared to the average 2.5% to 7.9% in the US). Medicare will see it's $500 billion returned after people get down complaining (which is fair, you can't remove that much money from a program that big), and AHC is built so most of it's cost isn't seen in the 1st decade, so it looks cheaper when the CBO does it's decade-cost report of 1.72 trillion. It also ignores that 80-100 million employees will no doubt lose their healthcare coverage in place of the much cheaper $2000 fine (which would save Walmart $4 billion in dropped employees) and Obamacare would end up paying for more than half the nation.

UHC = Us paying $20 to get $10 of Healthcare Coverage, has we know the Government spends more to get less from every program, and many of Obamacare's taxes will last a year before dwindling and the rest tax the medical industry...

Although the idea that Liberal's are doing it with the hopes of making everyone dependent is likely nothing more then conspiracy. Most Liberals believe they are doing what is right for the nation.

No, my math is mostly correct. (I did say paychecks, not income)
6.2% of wages is taxed for social security (up to about $110K)
1.45% of wages is Medicare
2.5% tax of total income over $10K or $20K (individual or family) (or a minimum tax and only up to a certain amount)

Then, there is income taxes and others as well.

Also, I didn't mention the conspiracy. I am simply saying that with such a large portion of pay stripped away, plus living expenses, it is difficult for the middle class to obtain wealth. Since the liberals seem to bemoan the loss of the middle class and/or the income/wealth gap, you'd think they'd be aware of this issue.
My work here is, finally, done.
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 11:33:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 5:11:35 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/30/2013 4:00:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I just had the realization that between the healthcare mandates (ACA), Social Security, and Medicare, that in 2016, over 10% of people's paychecks will be lost to them.

Now, that is whatever, but what I find is hypocritical is that liberals often bemoan the income/wealth disparity. So, these policies strip 10 % of income from people, who then cannot use it when they are younger to build wealth, is somehow not a legitimate factor in the discussion?

You see, my friend, liberals are all about government dependancy, so to someone who is neither conservative or liberal, it's not as much hypocrisy as it is that liberals have a thinly veiled message of governmental dependency as far as economics go.

Liberals are about using the government to try to remedy problems with society dumbf*ck, saying they are all about government dependency is the most retarded thing ive ever heard.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 11:53:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 11:33:47 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/30/2013 5:11:35 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/30/2013 4:00:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I just had the realization that between the healthcare mandates (ACA), Social Security, and Medicare, that in 2016, over 10% of people's paychecks will be lost to them.

Now, that is whatever, but what I find is hypocritical is that liberals often bemoan the income/wealth disparity. So, these policies strip 10 % of income from people, who then cannot use it when they are younger to build wealth, is somehow not a legitimate factor in the discussion?

You see, my friend, liberals are all about government dependancy, so to someone who is neither conservative or liberal, it's not as much hypocrisy as it is that liberals have a thinly veiled message of governmental dependency as far as economics go.

Liberals are about using the government to try to remedy problems with society dumbf*ck, saying they are all about government dependency is the most retarded thing ive ever heard.

But it does have that undesired effect, doesn't it?
If you were single and paid $1,000/month for rent/utilities and made $30K.
You would have $2990 in the above taxes, $12K for shelter, and another $2575 in federal income taxes, plus any state taxes (like state income and sales tax). That is well almost 60% of your income gone, and you still have no healthcare.

It makes it hard to become independant, and thus you rely on the government for retirement (SS) and healthcare (hospitals can't not admit you).
My work here is, finally, done.
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 11:55:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 4:00:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I just had the realization that between the healthcare mandates (ACA), Social Security, and Medicare, that in 2016, over 10% of people's paychecks will be lost to them.

Now, that is whatever, but what I find is hypocritical is that liberals often bemoan the income/wealth disparity. So, these policies strip 10 % of income from people, who then cannot use it when they are younger to build wealth, is somehow not a legitimate factor in the discussion?

1) Liberals bemoan the wealth disparity because the upper 1% hold such a large concentration of the nations wealth that its almost unhealthy for the economic well being. Other reasons liberals hate the income gap ranges. The economic health of a country is strongly linked to the wealth disparity between the 1% and everyone else, the 1% hoard their wealth far more then the middle class does, these super rich cannot be taxed due to the asinine actions of the GOP, the list goes on and on.

2) Its not hypocritical to want to tax the rich more then the middle class and then put taxes on the middle class too.... In case you havent noticed, its hard as sh** to get the rich to pay higher taxes thanks to the GOP basically being a puppet for the rich.

3) Stuff like Medicare and Social Security are enacted to help people when they are at an even bigger economic disadvantage then being Middle Class, like those who are too old to be able to work or pay for medicine which they need to live. Its taking some money from the Middle class and giving it back to them later when they really need it and are often incapable of supporting themselves the way they used to.

So the middle class isnt being taxed with the money going to some third party, it in one way or another finds its way back to the middle class at a time when they are more economically disadvantaged then they were when they were being taxed.

4) Obamacare wont affect your average middle class taxpayer since just about the only thing someone can be taxed over is if they fail to purchase health insurance when they can afford it. Most of the taxes fell on tanning salons, drug companies, etc. Not on the middle class.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 12:06:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 11:55:07 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/30/2013 4:00:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I just had the realization that between the healthcare mandates (ACA), Social Security, and Medicare, that in 2016, over 10% of people's paychecks will be lost to them.

Now, that is whatever, but what I find is hypocritical is that liberals often bemoan the income/wealth disparity. So, these policies strip 10 % of income from people, who then cannot use it when they are younger to build wealth, is somehow not a legitimate factor in the discussion?

1) Liberals bemoan the wealth disparity because the upper 1% hold such a large concentration of the nations wealth that its almost unhealthy for the economic well being. Other reasons liberals hate the income gap ranges. The economic health of a country is strongly linked to the wealth disparity between the 1% and everyone else, the 1% hoard their wealth far more then the middle class does, these super rich cannot be taxed due to the asinine actions of the GOP, the list goes on and on.

The #1 reason the rich keep getting richer is because they have money to spare and so they invest/save it, and in doing so, make even more money. The poor and middle class cannot do this. In part, because 7.65% of my money is taken out of every check that I won't see for 30 years, if ever. With Obamacare, even more money is taxed away for nothing. I can spend thousands to buy health insurance, or pay hundreds to not.

2) Its not hypocritical to want to tax the rich more then the middle class and then put taxes on the middle class too.... In case you havent noticed, its hard as sh** to get the rich to pay higher taxes thanks to the GOP basically being a puppet for the rich.

Keep in mind the poor pay less in taxes thanks to the Bush tax cuts.
But, this isn't about tax revenue per se. It's about the opportunity cost over a lifetime of payroll taxes. I am NOT talking about income taxes.

3) Stuff like Medicare and Social Security are enacted to help people when they are at an even bigger economic disadvantage then being Middle Class, like those who are too old to be able to work or pay for medicine which they need to live. Its taking some money from the Middle class and giving it back to them later when they really need it and are often incapable of supporting themselves the way they used to.

So the middle class isnt being taxed with the money going to some third party, it in one way or another finds its way back to the middle class at a time when they are more economically disadvantaged then they were when they were being taxed.

I never said it did.
But, tell me, what is better for growing wealth? Taxing me 6.2% of my income for 40 years so I have a retirement or letting me keep it so I can invest or buy property to pass on to my children? Keep in mind that at $20K over 20 years, you have put in $24,800 (and your employer did too) into SS, and if you died, your family would get $255.

4) Obamacare wont affect your average middle class taxpayer since just about the only thing someone can be taxed over is if they fail to purchase health insurance when they can afford it. Most of the taxes fell on tanning salons, drug companies, etc. Not on the middle class.
If you fail to purchase health insurance, to my understanding, in 2016 (it is phased in over time) you are taxed the greater of $695 per adult plus $347.50 per child up to $2,085 for a family or 2.5% of total income over $10K for an individual or $20K for a family. That sounds like it will hurt middle america the most, doesn't it? Since the rich can afford it and the poor are exempted.

You are exempted if your cost of health insurance is greater than 8% of income.
I am not sure how the tax credit works, yet, or the subsidies, but my point remains.
My work here is, finally, done.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 5:50:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 4:00:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I just had the realization that between the healthcare mandates (ACA), Social Security, and Medicare, that in 2016, over 10% of people's paychecks will be lost to them.

Actually, it's going to be much worse. The concept of a full time service job is going to be broken by Obamacare, meaning that the actual compensation for a swath of American workers is going to radically decrease because full time jobs are going to be "split" into part time ones. This is how post-LBJ Democrats "create" jobs -not by creating actual value,
but by dividing opportunities among others (which, if that wasn't clear, is to say that they have created nothing at all). So, an American worker who once held a full time service job (like a fast food restaurant manager) will now see his hours cut, and his real compensation cut as such, that his employer may circumvent the new health care law. Let us not forget that even if your employer gets around it, you are still liable to pay the 2,000.00 USD fine if you don't enroll by March (I think it's March, but who knows...).
Tsar of DDO
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 9:20:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 5:50:49 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/30/2013 4:00:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I just had the realization that between the healthcare mandates (ACA), Social Security, and Medicare, that in 2016, over 10% of people's paychecks will be lost to them.

Actually, it's going to be much worse. The concept of a full time service job is going to be broken by Obamacare, meaning that the actual compensation for a swath of American workers is going to radically decrease because full time jobs are going to be "split" into part time ones. This is how post-LBJ Democrats "create" jobs -not by creating actual value,
but by dividing opportunities among others (which, if that wasn't clear, is to say that they have created nothing at all). So, an American worker who once held a full time service job (like a fast food restaurant manager) will now see his hours cut, and his real compensation cut as such, that his employer may circumvent the new health care law. Let us not forget that even if your employer gets around it, you are still liable to pay the 2,000.00 USD fine if you don't enroll by March (I think it's March, but who knows...).

Most Employers pay $4,000-9,000+ on employee Coverage for each employee... They much rather the $2,000 fine. Many think most of the workforce (80-100 million) will be on Obamacare in a few years, greatly increasing the cost far beyond what CBO expected.

Employers won't split up jobs... Too many pricey regulations for each employee... Having the employee is almost as expansive as paying him. They will do what McDonald's does, and start automation.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Brain_crazy
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 10:34:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 11:55:07 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/30/2013 4:00:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I just had the realization that between the healthcare mandates (ACA), Social Security, and Medicare, that in 2016, over 10% of people's paychecks will be lost to them.

Now, that is whatever, but what I find is hypocritical is that liberals often bemoan the income/wealth disparity. So, these policies strip 10 % of income from people, who then cannot use it when they are younger to build wealth, is somehow not a legitimate factor in the discussion?

1) Liberals bemoan the wealth disparity because the upper 1% hold such a large concentration of the nations wealth that its almost unhealthy for the economic well being. Other reasons liberals hate the income gap ranges. The economic health of a country is strongly linked to the wealth disparity between the 1% and everyone else, the 1% hoard their wealth far more then the middle class does, these super rich cannot be taxed due to the asinine actions of the GOP, the list goes on and on.

The last statement is simply not true; Democrats have been just as instrumental in messing up our tax code as Republicans. Giving your supporters breaks has been like a sport for politicians. As for the 1% being bigger hoarders, again seems like a silly statement. Who does the most investing into the US economy? No doubt there's a big issue with income-inequality, but right now under a 2nd term democrat president we have the widest inequality ever in the history of the nation. We have to look carefully at what policies actually help the issue.

2) Its not hypocritical to want to tax the rich more then the middle class and then put taxes on the middle class too.... In case you havent noticed, its hard as sh** to get the rich to pay higher taxes thanks to the GOP basically being a puppet for the rich.

Again not true. The GOP has actually been the one advocating for tax reform, but Obama only wants to go forward with it if he's able to use the extra savings/revenue to spend.

3) Stuff like Medicare and Social Security are enacted to help people when they are at an even bigger economic disadvantage then being Middle Class, like those who are too old to be able to work or pay for medicine which they need to live. Its taking some money from the Middle class and giving it back to them later when they really need it and are often incapable of supporting themselves the way they used to.

True

So the middle class isnt being taxed with the money going to some third party, it in one way or another finds its way back to the middle class at a time when they are more economically disadvantaged then they were when they were being taxed.

Unfortunately not always, that's part of the controversy that many people won't get their return on things like social security.

4) Obamacare wont affect your average middle class taxpayer since just about the only thing someone can be taxed over is if they fail to purchase health insurance when they can afford it. Most of the taxes fell on tanning salons, drug companies, etc. Not on the middle class.
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 11:37:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 11:53:22 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/30/2013 11:33:47 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/30/2013 5:11:35 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/30/2013 4:00:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I just had the realization that between the healthcare mandates (ACA), Social Security, and Medicare, that in 2016, over 10% of people's paychecks will be lost to them.

Now, that is whatever, but what I find is hypocritical is that liberals often bemoan the income/wealth disparity. So, these policies strip 10 % of income from people, who then cannot use it when they are younger to build wealth, is somehow not a legitimate factor in the discussion?

You see, my friend, liberals are all about government dependancy, so to someone who is neither conservative or liberal, it's not as much hypocrisy as it is that liberals have a thinly veiled message of governmental dependency as far as economics go.

Liberals are about using the government to try to remedy problems with society dumbf*ck, saying they are all about government dependency is the most retarded thing ive ever heard.

But it does have that undesired effect, doesn't it?

Yes thats an undesired side-effect, and thats all it is. Youclaimed that that is what Liberals aimed for and are 'all about' in the first place, which is massively retarded.

If you were single and paid $1,000/month for rent/utilities and made $30K.
You would have $2990 in the above taxes, $12K for shelter, and another $2575 in federal income taxes, plus any state taxes (like state income and sales tax). That is well almost 60% of your income gone, and you still have no healthcare.

It makes it hard to become independant, and thus you rely on the government for retirement (SS) and healthcare (hospitals can't not admit you).
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 11:44:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 12:06:34 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/30/2013 11:55:07 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/30/2013 4:00:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I just had the realization that between the healthcare mandates (ACA), Social Security, and Medicare, that in 2016, over 10% of people's paychecks will be lost to them.

Now, that is whatever, but what I find is hypocritical is that liberals often bemoan the income/wealth disparity. So, these policies strip 10 % of income from people, who then cannot use it when they are younger to build wealth, is somehow not a legitimate factor in the discussion?

1) Liberals bemoan the wealth disparity because the upper 1% hold such a large concentration of the nations wealth that its almost unhealthy for the economic well being. Other reasons liberals hate the income gap ranges. The economic health of a country is strongly linked to the wealth disparity between the 1% and everyone else, the 1% hoard their wealth far more then the middle class does, these super rich cannot be taxed due to the asinine actions of the GOP, the list goes on and on.

The #1 reason the rich keep getting richer is because they have money to spare and so they invest/save it, and in doing so, make even more money. The poor and middle class cannot do this. In part, because 7.65% of my money is taken out of every check that I won't see for 30 years, if ever. With Obamacare, even more money is taxed away for nothing. I can spend thousands to buy health insurance, or pay hundreds to not.

I already pointed out that Obamacare wont affect the average middle class tax rate.

2) Its not hypocritical to want to tax the rich more then the middle class and then put taxes on the middle class too.... In case you havent noticed, its hard as sh** to get the rich to pay higher taxes thanks to the GOP basically being a puppet for the rich.

Keep in mind the poor pay less in taxes thanks to the Bush tax cuts. But, this isn't about tax revenue per se. It's about the opportunity cost over a lifetime of payroll taxes. I am NOT talking about income taxes.

3) Stuff like Medicare and Social Security are enacted to help people when they are at an even bigger economic disadvantage then being Middle Class, like those who are too old to be able to work or pay for medicine which they need to live. Its taking some money from the Middle class and giving it back to them later when they really need it and are often incapable of supporting themselves the way they used to.

So the middle class isnt being taxed with the money going to some third party, it in one way or another finds its way back to the middle class at a time when they are more economically disadvantaged then they were when they were being taxed.

I never said it did.
But, tell me, what is better for growing wealth? Taxing me 6.2% of my income for 40 years so I have a retirement or letting me keep it so I can invest or buy property to pass on to my children?

You clearly have no idea how the middle class functions do you?....

When a middle class family has disposable income, a vast majority of them dont dump it into an investment or into another property to grow their wealth. Not every middle class tax payer is a financial genius waiting to break out like youre trying to make it seem.... Middle class families spend any disposable income they do have on new tv's a new car, furniture, vacations, etc. They dont dump it into stocks or new properties.

4) Obamacare wont affect your average middle class taxpayer since just about the only thing someone can be taxed over is if they fail to purchase health insurance when they can afford it. Most of the taxes fell on tanning salons, drug companies, etc. Not on the middle class.

If you fail to purchase health insurance, to my understanding, in 2016 (it is phased in over time) you are taxed the greater of $695 per adult plus $347.50 per child up to $2,085 for a family or 2.5% of total income over $10K for an individual or $20K for a family. That sounds like it will hurt middle america the most, doesn't it?

You seem to forget that the beginning of the sentence includes "IF YOU FAIL TO PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE"..... This isnt something that is going to be imposed on everyone dingus.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 11:49:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 10:34:42 AM, Brain_crazy wrote:
At 9/30/2013 11:55:07 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/30/2013 4:00:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I just had the realization that between the healthcare mandates (ACA), Social Security, and Medicare, that in 2016, over 10% of people's paychecks will be lost to them.

Now, that is whatever, but what I find is hypocritical is that liberals often bemoan the income/wealth disparity. So, these policies strip 10 % of income from people, who then cannot use it when they are younger to build wealth, is somehow not a legitimate factor in the discussion?

1) Liberals bemoan the wealth disparity because the upper 1% hold such a large concentration of the nations wealth that its almost unhealthy for the economic well being. Other reasons liberals hate the income gap ranges. The economic health of a country is strongly linked to the wealth disparity between the 1% and everyone else, the 1% hoard their wealth far more then the middle class does, these super rich cannot be taxed due to the asinine actions of the GOP, the list goes on and on.

The last statement is simply not true; Democrats have been just as instrumental in messing up our tax code as Republicans.

Hey retard, we're talking about taxing the ultra rich 1%, not tax reform in general. Try to stay on topic.

Giving your supporters breaks has been like a sport for politicians. As for the 1% being bigger hoarders, again seems like a silly statement. Who does the most investing into the US economy?

The same group who hoard far more then the Middle class does....

No doubt there's a big issue with income-inequality, but right now under a 2nd term democrat president we have the widest inequality ever in the history of the nation.

correlation =/= causation.

2) Its not hypocritical to want to tax the rich more then the middle class and then put taxes on the middle class too.... In case you havent noticed, its hard as sh** to get the rich to pay higher taxes thanks to the GOP basically being a puppet for the rich.

Again not true. The GOP has actually been the one advocating for tax reform, but Obama only wants to go forward with it if he's able to use the extra savings/revenue to spend.

Again, we're talking about taxing the top 1% at a higher rate not tax reform in general..... Look anywhere on the internet on efforts to tax the highest 1% and you will always see that Dems are the ones advocating for it while the GOP fights against it since they are the puppet for the mega rich.

So the middle class isnt being taxed with the money going to some third party, it in one way or another finds its way back to the middle class at a time when they are more economically disadvantaged then they were when they were being taxed.

Unfortunately not always, that's part of the controversy that many people won't get their return on things like social security.

Many wont, but a vast majority of those who pay into the system and live long enough to qualify to receive those benefits will
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Brain_crazy
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 12:11:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 11:49:15 AM, imabench wrote:
At 10/1/2013 10:34:42 AM, Brain_crazy wrote:
At 9/30/2013 11:55:07 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/30/2013 4:00:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I just had the realization that between the healthcare mandates (ACA), Social Security, and Medicare, that in 2016, over 10% of people's paychecks will be lost to them.

Now, that is whatever, but what I find is hypocritical is that liberals often bemoan the income/wealth disparity. So, these policies strip 10 % of income from people, who then cannot use it when they are younger to build wealth, is somehow not a legitimate factor in the discussion?

1) Liberals bemoan the wealth disparity because the upper 1% hold such a large concentration of the nations wealth that its almost unhealthy for the economic well being. Other reasons liberals hate the income gap ranges. The economic health of a country is strongly linked to the wealth disparity between the 1% and everyone else, the 1% hoard their wealth far more then the middle class does, these super rich cannot be taxed due to the asinine actions of the GOP, the list goes on and on.

The last statement is simply not true; Democrats have been just as instrumental in messing up our tax code as Republicans.

Hey retard, we're talking about taxing the ultra rich 1%, not tax reform in general. Try to stay on topic.

Lol. Imabench the reason for why the rich are able to get away without having to pay their due % is because of how messed up the tax code is. The tax rates are set higher for the rich, the ultra rich however, can pay third-parties to weasel them around it.

Giving your supporters breaks has been like a sport for politicians. As for the 1% being bigger hoarders, again seems like a silly statement. Who does the most investing into the US economy?

The same group who hoard far more then the Middle class does....

You would expect if you have a larger income you will have more in savings. With that said, there certainly are rich who do despicable things, but to pretend that they do nothing for the economy isn't accurate.

No doubt there's a big issue with income-inequality, but right now under a 2nd term democrat president we have the widest inequality ever in the history of the nation.

correlation =/= causation.

True, but it at least suggests we should look into what polices are actually working instead of just the intentions of policies.

2) Its not hypocritical to want to tax the rich more then the middle class and then put taxes on the middle class too.... In case you havent noticed, its hard as sh** to get the rich to pay higher taxes thanks to the GOP basically being a puppet for the rich.

Again not true. The GOP has actually been the one advocating for tax reform, but Obama only wants to go forward with it if he's able to use the extra savings/revenue to spend.

Again, we're talking about taxing the top 1% at a higher rate not tax reform in general..... Look anywhere on the internet on efforts to tax the highest 1% and you will always see that Dems are the ones advocating for it while the GOP fights against it since they are the puppet for the mega rich.

Imabench the rich are officially taxed at a higher rate, again they often are able to get away without having to pay that rate because of the holes in our tax code. For instance, Bill gates pays at a much higher percentage of his income than the middle class.

So the middle class isnt being taxed with the money going to some third party, it in one way or another finds its way back to the middle class at a time when they are more economically disadvantaged then they were when they were being taxed.

Unfortunately not always, that's part of the controversy that many people won't get their return on things like social security.

Many wont, but a vast majority of those who pay into the system and live long enough to qualify to receive those benefits will

Ok cool.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 12:14:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 9:16:33 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 9/30/2013 6:54:29 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/30/2013 6:50:50 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/30/2013 5:11:35 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
You see, my friend, liberals are all about government dependancy, so to someone who is neither conservative or liberal, it's not as much hypocrisy as it is that liberals have a thinly veiled message of governmental dependency as far as economics go.

To answer the question, redistribution gives wealth to the younger through better education and healthcare, for example, which benefits them more than the 10% of their wealth (which is almost always minor when young) is. By contrast, if they were left to their own devices they would have paid more, or even not at all. Moreover, the wealth redistributed back to these individuals in society benefits them massively.

You are assuming that I should care what happens to other people around me or that I am obligated to assist the bottom 90%. If I am obligated, why do you think I should be obligated?

Transcendental utilitarian ethics?

If you don't, we have no reason to help you if the same thing happens to you?

When did I ask for you to help me? I should have put a fund aside in case such an emergency occurred. Why would I expect you to help me, and why would you expect me to help you?

Because, ultimately, any ethical distinguishment between yourself and others is arbitrary, and therefore there is no good, objective reason that they should matter less than yourself?

No one matters more or less than me based on ethics, which is why I do not expect help from people, but since they are no better than me they have not earned any of my hard earned currency either.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 12:15:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 9:17:24 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 9/30/2013 6:54:29 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/30/2013 6:50:50 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/30/2013 5:11:35 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
You see, my friend, liberals are all about government dependancy, so to someone who is neither conservative or liberal, it's not as much hypocrisy as it is that liberals have a thinly veiled message of governmental dependency as far as economics go.

To answer the question, redistribution gives wealth to the younger through better education and healthcare, for example, which benefits them more than the 10% of their wealth (which is almost always minor when young) is. By contrast, if they were left to their own devices they would have paid more, or even not at all. Moreover, the wealth redistributed back to these individuals in society benefits them massively.

You are assuming that I should care what happens to other people around me or that I am obligated to assist the bottom 90%. If I am obligated, why do you think I should be obligated?

Also: You aren't a total sociopath?

I don't like to see people suffer, I am just apathetic to your suffering if you have to put a gun to my head so I will help you alleviate it.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 12:17:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 11:33:47 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/30/2013 5:11:35 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/30/2013 4:00:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I just had the realization that between the healthcare mandates (ACA), Social Security, and Medicare, that in 2016, over 10% of people's paychecks will be lost to them.

Now, that is whatever, but what I find is hypocritical is that liberals often bemoan the income/wealth disparity. So, these policies strip 10 % of income from people, who then cannot use it when they are younger to build wealth, is somehow not a legitimate factor in the discussion?

You see, my friend, liberals are all about government dependancy, so to someone who is neither conservative or liberal, it's not as much hypocrisy as it is that liberals have a thinly veiled message of governmental dependency as far as economics go.

Liberals are about using the government to try to remedy problems with society dumbf*ck, saying they are all about government dependency is the most retarded thing ive ever heard.

I am not a full proponent of respect and proper ettiquiete all of the time, but until you respect me by not calling me derogatory names, I see no reason why I should dignify you with a response.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 3:25:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 11:37:56 AM, imabench wrote:
At 9/30/2013 11:53:22 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/30/2013 11:33:47 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/30/2013 5:11:35 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/30/2013 4:00:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I just had the realization that between the healthcare mandates (ACA), Social Security, and Medicare, that in 2016, over 10% of people's paychecks will be lost to them.

Now, that is whatever, but what I find is hypocritical is that liberals often bemoan the income/wealth disparity. So, these policies strip 10 % of income from people, who then cannot use it when they are younger to build wealth, is somehow not a legitimate factor in the discussion?

You see, my friend, liberals are all about government dependancy, so to someone who is neither conservative or liberal, it's not as much hypocrisy as it is that liberals have a thinly veiled message of governmental dependency as far as economics go.

Liberals are about using the government to try to remedy problems with society dumbf*ck, saying they are all about government dependency is the most retarded thing ive ever heard.

But it does have that undesired effect, doesn't it?

Yes thats an undesired side-effect, and thats all it is. Youclaimed that that is what Liberals aimed for and are 'all about' in the first place, which is massively retarded.

I claimed no such thing.
Did you think this comment was from Conservative American?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 3:33:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 11:44:00 AM, imabench wrote:
At 10/1/2013 12:06:34 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/30/2013 11:55:07 PM, imabench wrote:

1) Liberals bemoan the wealth disparity because the upper 1% hold such a large concentration of the nations wealth that its almost unhealthy for the economic well being. Other reasons liberals hate the income gap ranges. The economic health of a country is strongly linked to the wealth disparity between the 1% and everyone else, the 1% hoard their wealth far more then the middle class does, these super rich cannot be taxed due to the asinine actions of the GOP, the list goes on and on.

The #1 reason the rich keep getting richer is because they have money to spare and so they invest/save it, and in doing so, make even more money. The poor and middle class cannot do this. In part, because 7.65% of my money is taken out of every check that I won't see for 30 years, if ever. With Obamacare, even more money is taxed away for nothing. I can spend thousands to buy health insurance, or pay hundreds to not.

I already pointed out that Obamacare wont affect the average middle class tax rate.

This isn't about tax rates, it is about loss of discretionary spending, which a "flat" rate hurts the poor more than the rich.

3) Stuff like Medicare and Social Security are enacted to help people when they are at an even bigger economic disadvantage then being Middle Class, like those who are too old to be able to work or pay for medicine which they need to live. Its taking some money from the Middle class and giving it back to them later when they really need it and are often incapable of supporting themselves the way they used to.

So the middle class isnt being taxed with the money going to some third party, it in one way or another finds its way back to the middle class at a time when they are more economically disadvantaged then they were when they were being taxed.

I never said it did.
But, tell me, what is better for growing wealth? Taxing me 6.2% of my income for 40 years so I have a retirement or letting me keep it so I can invest or buy property to pass on to my children?

You clearly have no idea how the middle class functions do you?....

I am aware that most people spend their money foolishly and frivolously, yes.

When a middle class family has disposable income, a vast majority of them dont dump it into an investment or into another property to grow their wealth. Not every middle class tax payer is a financial genius waiting to break out like youre trying to make it seem.... Middle class families spend any disposable income they do have on new tv's a new car, furniture, vacations, etc. They dont dump it into stocks or new properties.

I didn't say they did.
But, tell me, do these possession they buy have resale value?
Do they not put anything into savings?
Do these purchases not contribute to their debt, which means they have even less money? (i.e. more money in the first place means less money borrowed)


4) Obamacare wont affect your average middle class taxpayer since just about the only thing someone can be taxed over is if they fail to purchase health insurance when they can afford it. Most of the taxes fell on tanning salons, drug companies, etc. Not on the middle class.

If you fail to purchase health insurance, to my understanding, in 2016 (it is phased in over time) you are taxed the greater of $695 per adult plus $347.50 per child up to $2,085 for a family or 2.5% of total income over $10K for an individual or $20K for a family. That sounds like it will hurt middle america the most, doesn't it?

You seem to forget that the beginning of the sentence includes "IF YOU FAIL TO PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE"..... This isnt something that is going to be imposed on everyone dingus.

Ummm, what am I missing here? If I don't buy health insurance I am penalized, yes. IF I MUST BUY HEALTH INSURANCE, THEN I AM FORCED TO SPEND EVEN MORE MONEY on something I might not have bought. Regardless of how the money would have been spent, it is lost to me.

I refuse to believe you are this thick imabench.
Take a step back and look at what I am saying: the fact that people lose discretiionary money, which hinders one's ability to amass wealth, is the biggest factor in the income gap. So, to champion these causes and bemoan the result, is hypocritical.

I am not saying there is a grand conspiracy to enslave everyone to the corporate/government masters. I am saying it is hypocritical. That is all.
My work here is, finally, done.
lannan13
Posts: 23,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 3:35:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 4:00:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I just had the realization that between the healthcare mandates (ACA), Social Security, and Medicare, that in 2016, over 10% of people's paychecks will be lost to them.

Now, that is whatever, but what I find is hypocritical is that liberals often bemoan the income/wealth disparity. So, these policies strip 10 % of income from people, who then cannot use it when they are younger to build wealth, is somehow not a legitimate factor in the discussion?

What people don't understand is that our problems today will be paed for by the youth of tomorrow.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 6:15:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 12:14:22 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/30/2013 9:16:33 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 9/30/2013 6:54:29 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/30/2013 6:50:50 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/30/2013 5:11:35 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
You see, my friend, liberals are all about government dependancy, so to someone who is neither conservative or liberal, it's not as much hypocrisy as it is that liberals have a thinly veiled message of governmental dependency as far as economics go.

To answer the question, redistribution gives wealth to the younger through better education and healthcare, for example, which benefits them more than the 10% of their wealth (which is almost always minor when young) is. By contrast, if they were left to their own devices they would have paid more, or even not at all. Moreover, the wealth redistributed back to these individuals in society benefits them massively.

You are assuming that I should care what happens to other people around me or that I am obligated to assist the bottom 90%. If I am obligated, why do you think I should be obligated?

Transcendental utilitarian ethics?

If you don't, we have no reason to help you if the same thing happens to you?

When did I ask for you to help me? I should have put a fund aside in case such an emergency occurred. Why would I expect you to help me, and why would you expect me to help you?

It's not a matter of expect. It's a matter of want. If a catastrophe made your funds useless, would you or would you not want to die shelterless?

Because, ultimately, any ethical distinguishment between yourself and others is arbitrary, and therefore there is no good, objective reason that they should matter less than yourself?

No one matters more or less than me based on ethics, which is why I do not expect help from people, but since they are no better than me they have not earned any of my hard earned currency either.

Tell me, which is more important:

1. Money
2. Life

If you say two, then, if you believe everyone is worth the same, you are obligated to pay money to save someone's life. Otherwise your money is more important than their life.
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 1:09:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 3:33:54 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/1/2013 11:44:00 AM, imabench wrote:
At 10/1/2013 12:06:34 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/30/2013 11:55:07 PM, imabench wrote:

1) Liberals bemoan the wealth disparity because the upper 1% hold such a large concentration of the nations wealth that its almost unhealthy for the economic well being. Other reasons liberals hate the income gap ranges. The economic health of a country is strongly linked to the wealth disparity between the 1% and everyone else, the 1% hoard their wealth far more then the middle class does, these super rich cannot be taxed due to the asinine actions of the GOP, the list goes on and on.

The #1 reason the rich keep getting richer is because they have money to spare and so they invest/save it, and in doing so, make even more money. The poor and middle class cannot do this. In part, because 7.65% of my money is taken out of every check that I won't see for 30 years, if ever. With Obamacare, even more money is taxed away for nothing. I can spend thousands to buy health insurance, or pay hundreds to not.

I already pointed out that Obamacare wont affect the average middle class tax rate.

This isn't about tax rates, it is about loss of discretionary spending, which a "flat" rate hurts the poor more than the rich.

The middle class already spends money on insurance though, you're acting as if nobody spends money on it and that forcing people to pay a fine if they don't have something many already have as an apocalyptic event

3) Stuff like Medicare and Social Security are enacted to help people when they are at an even bigger economic disadvantage then being Middle Class, like those who are too old to be able to work or pay for medicine which they need to live. Its taking some money from the Middle class and giving it back to them later when they really need it and are often incapable of supporting themselves the way they used to.

So the middle class isnt being taxed with the money going to some third party, it in one way or another finds its way back to the middle class at a time when they are more economically disadvantaged then they were when they were being taxed.

I never said it did.
But, tell me, what is better for growing wealth? Taxing me 6.2% of my income for 40 years so I have a retirement or letting me keep it so I can invest or buy property to pass on to my children?

You clearly have no idea how the middle class functions do you?....

I am aware that most people spend their money foolishly and frivolously, yes.

When a middle class family has disposable income, a vast majority of them dont dump it into an investment or into another property to grow their wealth. Not every middle class tax payer is a financial genius waiting to break out like youre trying to make it seem.... Middle class families spend any disposable income they do have on new tv's a new car, furniture, vacations, etc. They dont dump it into stocks or new properties.

I didn't say they did.

Then you see the error of your statement then

But, tell me, do these possession they buy have resale value?

Some, but not a lot. Hell it drops down to just about nothing after 3-4 years

Do they not put anything into savings?

Not nearly as much as they should, want to, or would if given more money

Do these purchases not contribute to their debt, which means they have even less money? (i.e. more money in the first place means less money borrowed)

English please

4) Obamacare wont affect your average middle class taxpayer since just about the only thing someone can be taxed over is if they fail to purchase health insurance when they can afford it. Most of the taxes fell on tanning salons, drug companies, etc. Not on the middle class.

If you fail to purchase health insurance, to my understanding, in 2016 (it is phased in over time) you are taxed the greater of $695 per adult plus $347.50 per child up to $2,085 for a family or 2.5% of total income over $10K for an individual or $20K for a family. That sounds like it will hurt middle america the most, doesn't it?

You seem to forget that the beginning of the sentence includes "IF YOU FAIL TO PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE"..... This isnt something that is going to be imposed on everyone dingus.

Ummm, what am I missing here? If I don't buy health insurance I am penalized, yes. IF I MUST BUY HEALTH INSURANCE, THEN I AM FORCED TO SPEND EVEN MORE MONEY on something I might not have bought. Regardless of how the money would have been spent, it is lost to me.

Most people have health insurance already or could afford it

I refuse to believe you are this thick imabench.
Take a step back and look at what I am saying: the fact that people lose discretiionary money, which hinders one's ability to amass wealth, is the biggest factor in the income gap. So, to champion these causes and bemoan the result, is hypocritical.

And I'm telling you that's retarded because

1) The middle class don't take every buck they earn and try to use it to increase their income by investing. You give a middle class family more money, they spend it on NORMAL SH*T like a new TV, a new car, furniture and stuff, which you don't seem to understand

And 2) half of the reason we have an income gap is because the rich have so much f*cking money they can exploit loopholes in the tax code to hold on to all of it and horse it which middle class families can't do

I am not saying there is a grand conspiracy to enslave everyone to the corporate/government masters. I am saying it is hypocritical. That is all.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 2:59:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 5:11:35 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
You see, my friend, liberals are all about government dependancy, so to someone who is neither conservative or liberal, it's not as much hypocrisy as it is that liberals have a thinly veiled message of governmental dependency as far as economics go.

Someone's been watching Fox News.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 3:05:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 10:03:07 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Also, I didn't mention the conspiracy. I am simply saying that with such a large portion of pay stripped away, plus living expenses, it is difficult for the middle class to obtain wealth. Since the liberals seem to bemoan the loss of the middle class and/or the income/wealth gap, you'd think they'd be aware of this issue.

They are aware of the issue. Why do you think they wanted to raise income taxes on only the top 2%?
Brain_crazy
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 9:28:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2013 1:09:09 AM, imabench wrote:
At 10/1/2013 3:33:54 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/1/2013 11:44:00 AM, imabench wrote:
At 10/1/2013 12:06:34 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/30/2013 11:55:07 PM, imabench wrote:

1) Liberals bemoan the wealth disparity because the upper 1% hold such a large concentration of the nations wealth that its almost unhealthy for the economic well being. Other reasons liberals hate the income gap ranges. The economic health of a country is strongly linked to the wealth disparity between the 1% and everyone else, the 1% hoard their wealth far more then the middle class does, these super rich cannot be taxed due to the asinine actions of the GOP, the list goes on and on.

The #1 reason the rich keep getting richer is because they have money to spare and so they invest/save it, and in doing so, make even more money. The poor and middle class cannot do this. In part, because 7.65% of my money is taken out of every check that I won't see for 30 years, if ever. With Obamacare, even more money is taxed away for nothing. I can spend thousands to buy health insurance, or pay hundreds to not.

I already pointed out that Obamacare wont affect the average middle class tax rate.

This isn't about tax rates, it is about loss of discretionary spending, which a "flat" rate hurts the poor more than the rich.

The middle class already spends money on insurance though, you're acting as if nobody spends money on it and that forcing people to pay a fine if they don't have something many already have as an apocalyptic event

3) Stuff like Medicare and Social Security are enacted to help people when they are at an even bigger economic disadvantage then being Middle Class, like those who are too old to be able to work or pay for medicine which they need to live. Its taking some money from the Middle class and giving it back to them later when they really need it and are often incapable of supporting themselves the way they used to.

So the middle class isnt being taxed with the money going to some third party, it in one way or another finds its way back to the middle class at a time when they are more economically disadvantaged then they were when they were being taxed.

I never said it did.
But, tell me, what is better for growing wealth? Taxing me 6.2% of my income for 40 years so I have a retirement or letting me keep it so I can invest or buy property to pass on to my children?

You clearly have no idea how the middle class functions do you?....

I am aware that most people spend their money foolishly and frivolously, yes.

When a middle class family has disposable income, a vast majority of them dont dump it into an investment or into another property to grow their wealth. Not every middle class tax payer is a financial genius waiting to break out like youre trying to make it seem.... Middle class families spend any disposable income they do have on new tv's a new car, furniture, vacations, etc. They dont dump it into stocks or new properties.

I didn't say they did.

Then you see the error of your statement then

But, tell me, do these possession they buy have resale value?

Some, but not a lot. Hell it drops down to just about nothing after 3-4 years

Do they not put anything into savings?

Not nearly as much as they should, want to, or would if given more money

Do these purchases not contribute to their debt, which means they have even less money? (i.e. more money in the first place means less money borrowed)

English please

4) Obamacare wont affect your average middle class taxpayer since just about the only thing someone can be taxed over is if they fail to purchase health insurance when they can afford it. Most of the taxes fell on tanning salons, drug companies, etc. Not on the middle class.

If you fail to purchase health insurance, to my understanding, in 2016 (it is phased in over time) you are taxed the greater of $695 per adult plus $347.50 per child up to $2,085 for a family or 2.5% of total income over $10K for an individual or $20K for a family. That sounds like it will hurt middle america the most, doesn't it?

You seem to forget that the beginning of the sentence includes "IF YOU FAIL TO PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE"..... This isnt something that is going to be imposed on everyone dingus.

Ummm, what am I missing here? If I don't buy health insurance I am penalized, yes. IF I MUST BUY HEALTH INSURANCE, THEN I AM FORCED TO SPEND EVEN MORE MONEY on something I might not have bought. Regardless of how the money would have been spent, it is lost to me.

Most people have health insurance already or could afford it

I refuse to believe you are this thick imabench.
Take a step back and look at what I am saying: the fact that people lose discretiionary money, which hinders one's ability to amass wealth, is the biggest factor in the income gap. So, to champion these causes and bemoan the result, is hypocritical.

And I'm telling you that's retarded because

1) The middle class don't take every buck they earn and try to use it to increase their income by investing. You give a middle class family more money, they spend it on NORMAL SH*T like a new TV, a new car, furniture and stuff, which you don't seem to understand

And 2) half of the reason we have an income gap is because the rich have so much f*cking money they can exploit loopholes in the tax code to hold on to all of it and horse it which middle class families can't do

hehe imabench learned something

I am not saying there is a grand conspiracy to enslave everyone to the corporate/government masters. I am saying it is hypocritical. That is all.