From a purely strategic perspective his stance is at worst idiotic and at best baffling. Negative Obama ads have been painting him as some rich fat cat who panders to the 1%. So what does the Romney campaign do?
Romney comes out with a a tax plan that cuts taxes for the 5% making over $200K and then increases taxes for the other 95% of americans.
The wealthiest americans ALREADY have lower than average tax rates. What is the point?
Further he wants to repeal the estate tax and wants to continue the preferential tax treatment of capital gains and dividends
Apparently more income inequality is the cornerstone of his tax plan and Romney wants to lose the election before it even starts.
From a purely strategic perspective his stance is at worst idiotic and at best baffling. Negative Obama ads have been painting him as some rich fat cat who panders to the 1%. So what does the Romney campaign do?
Romney comes out with a a tax plan that cuts taxes for the 5% making over $200K and then increases taxes for the other 95% of americans.
The wealthiest americans ALREADY have lower than average tax rates. What is the point?
Further he wants to repeal the estate tax and wants to continue the preferential tax treatment of capital gains and dividends
Apparently more income inequality is the cornerstone of his tax plan and Romney wants to lose the election before it even starts.
in response to this, it seems like the rightwingers say that you can't raise taxes on the people who create jobs. it would seem like the response to that would be, the "job creators" have been the beneficiaries of the bush tax cuts and other loophooles for a while now and unemployment is high. why would we assume that lower or the same taxes for "job creators" would change unemployment for the better if it hasn't seemed to make a difference so far?
in response to this, it seems like the rightwingers say that you can't raise taxes on the people who create jobs. it would seem like the response to that would be, the "job creators" have been the beneficiaries of the bush tax cuts and other loophooles for a while now and unemployment is high. why would we assume that lower or the same taxes for "job creators" would change unemployment for the better if it hasn't seemed to make a difference so far?
From a purely strategic perspective his stance is at worst idiotic and at best baffling. Negative Obama ads have been painting him as some rich fat cat who panders to the 1%. So what does the Romney campaign do?
Romney comes out with a a tax plan that cuts taxes for the 5% making over $200K and then increases taxes for the other 95% of americans.
The wealthiest americans ALREADY have lower than average tax rates. What is the point?
Further he wants to repeal the estate tax and wants to continue the preferential tax treatment of capital gains and dividends
Apparently more income inequality is the cornerstone of his tax plan and Romney wants to lose the election before it even starts.
Didnt you get the memo. rich people create jobs. Imagine all accountants , laywers, investment bankers, lobbiest and the like they employ to keep screwing the middleclass over and over over.
From a purely strategic perspective his stance is at worst idiotic and at best baffling. Negative Obama ads have been painting him as some rich fat cat who panders to the 1%. So what does the Romney campaign do?
Romney comes out with a a tax plan that cuts taxes for the 5% making over $200K and then increases taxes for the other 95% of americans.
The wealthiest americans ALREADY have lower than average tax rates. What is the point?
Further he wants to repeal the estate tax and wants to continue the preferential tax treatment of capital gains and dividends
Apparently more income inequality is the cornerstone of his tax plan and Romney wants to lose the election before it even starts.
Didnt you get the memo. rich people create jobs. Imagine all accountants , laywers, investment bankers, lobbiest and the like they employ to keep screwing the middleclass over and over over.
Time to stop playing the poor against the rich, and the haves vs the have-nots. It is time that we all come to the decision that we need a firm tax code that has zero loopholes, zero room for error.
There are too many ways that the people at the top have to not pay their taxes while guys like us get boned for selling a gun and not claiming the income etc.
The IRS are predatory and only focus on those who can not afford to defend themselves.
Flat graduated Tax, no loopholes, no credits, abolish the IRS, end subsidies, end corporate welfare, and end foreign aid.
Time to stop playing the poor against the rich, and the haves vs the have-nots. It is time that we all come to the decision that we need a firm tax code that has zero loopholes, zero room for error.
There are too many ways that the people at the top have to not pay their taxes while guys like us get boned for selling a gun and not claiming the income etc.
The IRS are predatory and only focus on those who can not afford to defend themselves.
Flat graduated Tax, no loopholes, no credits, abolish the IRS, end subsidies, end corporate welfare, and end foreign aid.
rick, i posted a link a while back which showed that revenue has decreased and spending has increased by an equal percentage of GDP. assuming that's true , and no one indicated it wasn't, what's the argument that we don't have a spending and a revenue problem?
i did a quick search,. this isn't the same article but it discusses the same issue. everyone talks about our spending problem, and we sure do have one, but a lot of people don't want to talk about the revenue problem. i wonder if tits the old rightwing mentality- the only legitimate lawsuit is my own, cut all the subsidies/welfare but mine, cut spending on all the worthless programs except the ones that benefit me, and so on.
here's an excerpt.
Federal spending ("outlays" in budget jargon) is expected to equal
24.1 percent of the nation's gross domestic product in the current
fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. The figure was 25 percent in fiscal
year 2009, highest since 1945.
On the other hand, federal revenues are expected to drop to 14.8
percent of GDP this year, lower even than the 14.9 percent attained in
both 2009 and 2010. There has been only one year since World War II when
revenues have been as low as in any of these years: 1950, when the
figure was 14.4 percent.
These historically high rates of spending and low rates of taxation
have combined to produce a chain of deficits that are also the highest
since WWII. The deficit was 10.0 percent of GDP in fiscal 2009. It
declined to 8.9 percent last year as the economy started to recover, but
is projected to go up to over 9 percent this year. Each of these
deficits is larger than in any year since 1945, measured as a percentage
of GDP.
rick, i posted a link a while back which showed that revenue has decreased and spending has increased by an equal percentage of GDP. assuming that's true , and no one indicated it wasn't, what's the argument that we don't have a spending and a revenue problem?
i did a quick search,. this isn't the same article but it discusses the same issue. everyone talks about our spending problem, and we sure do have one, but a lot of people don't want to talk about the revenue problem. i wonder if tits the old rightwing mentality- the only legitimate lawsuit is my own, cut all the subsidies/welfare but mine, cut spending on all the worthless programs except the ones that benefit me, and so on.
here's an excerpt.
Federal spending ("outlays" in budget jargon) is expected to equal
24.1 percent of the nation's gross domestic product in the current
fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. The figure was 25 percent in fiscal
year 2009, highest since 1945.
On the other hand, federal revenues are expected to drop to 14.8
percent of GDP this year, lower even than the 14.9 percent attained in
both 2009 and 2010. There has been only one year since World War II when
revenues have been as low as in any of these years: 1950, when the
figure was 14.4 percent.
These historically high rates of spending and low rates of taxation
have combined to produce a chain of deficits that are also the highest
since WWII. The deficit was 10.0 percent of GDP in fiscal 2009. It
declined to 8.9 percent last year as the economy started to recover, but
is projected to go up to over 9 percent this year. Each of these
deficits is larger than in any year since 1945, measured as a percentage
of GDP.
republicans have quite the conundrum. they want to be deficit hawks, tax freezers or reducers and have no solution for the medicare/medicaid issue, the ss problem and their love of big defense spending is sacrosanct...
republicans have quite the conundrum. they want to be deficit hawks, tax freezers or reducers and have no solution for the medicare/medicaid issue, the ss problem and their love of big defense spending is sacrosanct...
Cradle to Grave Welfare, and World Policing are inconsistent with balanced budgets, and low taxes.
Both issues have to be addressed.
But, if our govt. has shown a complete disregard for sustainability, and an outright hatred of balanced budgets and limited foreign involvement, why on earth would one think that funneling greater amounts of money to these spending maniacs would result in a change.
It is mathematically impossible to confiscate enough wealth to balance the budget.
I think what we are focusing on here is different means to similar ends. I believe that taxes should be lowered, and drastic changes need to be made in spending. Confiscation at gunpoint will not solve our problems, and indeed lead to a greater exodus of capital to less regulated waters IE London.
Cradle to Grave Welfare, and World Policing are inconsistent with balanced budgets, and low taxes.
Both issues have to be addressed.
But, if our govt. has shown a complete disregard for sustainability, and an outright hatred of balanced budgets and limited foreign involvement, why on earth would one think that funneling greater amounts of money to these spending maniacs would result in a change.
It is mathematically impossible to confiscate enough wealth to balance the budget.
I think what we are focusing on here is different means to similar ends. I believe that taxes should be lowered, and drastic changes need to be made in spending. Confiscation at gunpoint will not solve our problems, and indeed lead to a greater exodus of capital to less regulated waters IE London.
Adding piecemeal to our entitlement system has been a nightmare. It has lead to massive bureaucracies that work independently to run up costs. It also leads to massive doubling of efforts, and obfuscation of coverage etc.
Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare need to be trashed, and a single new entitlement system needs to emerge.
Adding piecemeal to our entitlement system has been a nightmare. It has lead to massive bureaucracies that work independently to run up costs. It also leads to massive doubling of efforts, and obfuscation of coverage etc.
Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare need to be trashed, and a single new entitlement system needs to emerge.
the teabaggers were supposed to be deficit hawks yet look how they voted to raise the debt ceiling at the first opportunity.
boehner talks a big game about cutting spending on shit we don't need (as long as we're not cutting pet projects for the companies that own him).
republicans are as big government, wasteful spending politicians as democrats, if not worse. but it's ok when the money goes to companies in their districts and "job creators" as opposed to brown people.
the teabaggers were supposed to be deficit hawks yet look how they voted to raise the debt ceiling at the first opportunity.
boehner talks a big game about cutting spending on shit we don't need (as long as we're not cutting pet projects for the companies that own him).
republicans are as big government, wasteful spending politicians as democrats, if not worse. but it's ok when the money goes to companies in their districts and "job creators" as opposed to brown people.
we need to cut some programs, freeze any new programs AS IN NO NEW PROGRAMS, ear mark revenue increases specifically to slashing debt. run this for 10 years and get us out of debt.
we need to cut some programs, freeze any new programs AS IN NO NEW PROGRAMS, ear mark revenue increases specifically to slashing debt. run this for 10 years and get us out of debt.
From a purely strategic perspective his stance is at worst idiotic and at best baffling. Negative Obama ads have been painting him as some rich fat cat who panders to the 1%. So what does the Romney campaign do?
Romney comes out with a a tax plan that cuts taxes for the 5% making over $200K and then increases taxes for the other 95% of americans.
The wealthiest americans ALREADY have lower than average tax rates. What is the point?
Further he wants to repeal the estate tax and wants to continue the preferential tax treatment of capital gains and dividends
Apparently more income inequality is the cornerstone of his tax plan and Romney wants to lose the election before it even starts.
Where exactly does he say he is going to increase taxes on the bottom 95%?
From a purely strategic perspective his stance is at worst idiotic and at best baffling. Negative Obama ads have been painting him as some rich fat cat who panders to the 1%. So what does the Romney campaign do?
Romney comes out with a a tax plan that cuts taxes for the 5% making over $200K and then increases taxes for the other 95% of americans.
The wealthiest americans ALREADY have lower than average tax rates. What is the point?
Further he wants to repeal the estate tax and wants to continue the preferential tax treatment of capital gains and dividends
Apparently more income inequality is the cornerstone of his tax plan and Romney wants to lose the election before it even starts.
Where exactly does he say he is going to increase taxes on the bottom 95%?
Further he wants to repeal the estate tax and wants to continue the preferential tax treatment of capital gains and dividends
And what is wrong with this?
we already have massive income inequality in this country. these measures only serve to exacerbate this problem further. there is absolutely no reason why someone making over $200K should be paying a smaller % in taxes than those making less than $200K. it benefits the few with much and costs the many with little.
earning a paycheck should somehow be taxed at a higher rate than earning a living of stock market investments? explain that to me.
Further he wants to repeal the estate tax and wants to continue the preferential tax treatment of capital gains and dividends
And what is wrong with this?
we already have massive income inequality in this country. these measures only serve to exacerbate this problem further. there is absolutely no reason why someone making over $200K should be paying a smaller % in taxes than those making less than $200K. it benefits the few with much and costs the many with little.
earning a paycheck should somehow be taxed at a higher rate than earning a living of stock market investments? explain that to me.
So you want higher capital gains taxes out of spite?
why not lower income tax to reflect parity with capital gains?
For most working people, their investment money has already been taxed. Then there are fees for investing on top of capital gains. There is no wonder why the poor stay poor.
Everyone would benefit through less taxation on investments.
So you want higher capital gains taxes out of spite?
why not lower income tax to reflect parity with capital gains?
For most working people, their investment money has already been taxed. Then there are fees for investing on top of capital gains. There is no wonder why the poor stay poor.
Everyone would benefit through less taxation on investments.
The tax system needs to be scrapped, B(r)Easy will love to hear this - instead of an income tax there should be a consumption tax.
I tend to think the same thing, yet the poor are disproportionately effected by consumption taxes as well. By spending a higher percentage of their paycheck on food, and immediate needs, they would be subject to a higher percentage of taxation compared to the rich, who have the ability to save more.
I think the only fair way to tax people is somewhere between 10-12%.
No deductions, no loopholes. If you earn it, it is taxed. No filing at the end of the year. No need for the IRS.
The tax system needs to be scrapped, B(r)Easy will love to hear this - instead of an income tax there should be a consumption tax.
I tend to think the same thing, yet the poor are disproportionately effected by consumption taxes as well. By spending a higher percentage of their paycheck on food, and immediate needs, they would be subject to a higher percentage of taxation compared to the rich, who have the ability to save more.
I think the only fair way to tax people is somewhere between 10-12%.
No deductions, no loopholes. If you earn it, it is taxed. No filing at the end of the year. No need for the IRS.
Tossing out generic ideas will never happen and never work.
I consider all the "ideas" and most every one of them hurts the lower income group which is the group who needs the most help.
Want to widen the gap even further? Make a consumption tax, give more breaks to the higher brackets and corporations.
A flat tax is a terrible idea, you cannot wipe the slate of all and any taxes based on a single tax because they will sneak back in and the flat tax would be the low water mark and would probably lead to higher net rates in the future.
Tossing out generic ideas will never happen and never work.
I consider all the "ideas" and most every one of them hurts the lower income group which is the group who needs the most help.
Want to widen the gap even further? Make a consumption tax, give more breaks to the higher brackets and corporations.
A flat tax is a terrible idea, you cannot wipe the slate of all and any taxes based on a single tax because they will sneak back in and the flat tax would be the low water mark and would probably lead to higher net rates in the future.
That independent study is about as unbiased and non-partisan as an independent study on Southern Evangelicals by ClubDirt.
I always quote KOAJ when I say this: Liberals, statists, etc. assume revenue is theirs and whatever people are allowed to keep is a gift from the govt. By that logic if a rich person keeps more of what he/she makes then that is taking away from someplace else (statists assume tax revenues so when the govt gets less the people receiving those benefits are hurt).
People that are paying a certain % of their income isn't going to have to pay a higher %. Their take home pay will be the same if not more.
That independent study is about as unbiased and non-partisan as an independent study on Southern Evangelicals by ClubDirt.
I always quote KOAJ when I say this: Liberals, statists, etc. assume revenue is theirs and whatever people are allowed to keep is a gift from the govt. By that logic if a rich person keeps more of what he/she makes then that is taking away from someplace else (statists assume tax revenues so when the govt gets less the people receiving those benefits are hurt).
People that are paying a certain % of their income isn't going to have to pay a higher %. Their take home pay will be the same if not more.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.