Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill
But yet I did. (Hint: there's a scroll bar on the code box. Try using it next time before making unfounded accusations.) Yes, really. Although "rescinded" was the wrong word to use. I should have said "restricted". "President Barack Obama will announce today that he’s imposing a cap of $500,000 on the compensation of top executives at companies that receive significant federal assistance in the future, responding to a public outcry over Wall Street excess.
Any additional compensation will be in restricted stock that won’t vest until taxpayers have been paid back. . ." Why do you refuse to acknowledge that this investment in our economy was critical to avoid a complete collapse into a full on Depression?
Were you this angry when Ronald Reagan bailed out the failed Savings and Loans in the '80s that ultimately cost the taxpayers over $124 BILLION that was never repaid by the banks (or weren't you alive to remember that bloody fiasco?) I see that as you find yourself losing ground in a debate, you resort to anger and personal attacks. Trust me, you'll never get anywhere with me with that tack. I find it comical that you are so demanding for cites, when you ignore requests for you to provide cites for your own claims. Let me remind you: Yet, still no cite. Why is that? You fail to understand how debate works. You make a claim, it is incumbent upon you to back it up. Your debate partner is not responsible for refuting your claims.
But I'll tell you what; I'll humor you just this once on behalf of friend Fair&Balanced. IMF and Romania tackle flat tax failure
"Yet more evidence that flat taxes do not deliver. The government of Romania, which adopted the idea of flat taxes in 2005, has called in the International Monetary Fund to provide a €20 billion rescue package to stem a massive deficit in its public finances. The government is now in discussion with IMF officials and others to consider radical tax reform. Amongst the measures under discussion is abandoning flat tax and restoring progressive taxes on personal income and corporate profits." The Flat Tax Is Flat-Lining
"Posted Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 4:09pm
Over the last decade, Eastern European countries became darlings of the far right by instituting free-market economic policies designed to break convincingly from their Communist past. The so-called Baltic Tigers—Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia—garnered worldwide plaudits for a number of free-market reforms, led by the imposition of a flat-rate income tax, especially from the American right. "The flat tax is making a comeback," trumpeted the conservative National Review. The three nations are "leading a global tax reform revolution," said the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.
The idea behind a flat tax is deliciously simple: Charge one uniform rate of income tax for all payers, regardless of their relative wealth. That, say its advocates, will end tax cheating and bring in higher revenues than the usual graduated tax system used in the United States and most other countries. Before the Eastern European "revolution," the loudest proponent of the flat tax was Steve Forbes, a former Republican presidential candidate and the editor-in-chief of Forbes. Of course, thus far American policymakers have not shown much more appetite for the flat tax than American voters did for Steve Forbes' candidacy, which is why the right was so excited that the idea took hold abroad.
Too bad for them that it hasn't worked out. Latvia, which has a flat tax of 25 percent, and Lithuania and Estonia, which have 21 percent tax rates, are all in deep economic trouble. . ." So, there are your cites. I trust this meets satisfactorily with your demands. |
I was aware of the former eastern bloc countries but was too lazy to look last night, knowing The Mercenary would just ignore it any way (much as he ignored the fact that the fact that the
Unearned Income Medicare Contributions Tax was not on all tax payers...claiming the text of the law I cited was biased
)
Germany and France also considered a flat tax but rejected it because they couldnt justify the potential loss of tax revenue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigV
... mercy, please understand I don't intend this to be a criticism of you personally. I think this is important enough to be enshrined in a (to-be-created,-but-probably-won't-and-even-if-it-does-it-will-be-ignored-and-mocked-shut-up-never-mind-the-contradiction) Cellar Rules of Debate thread....
|
I second this as well, although it shouldnt be necessary.
Reasonable discussion and debate have certain standards of supporting one's position rather than demanding the other side to prove a negative.