| Author: |
[Politics] Topic: Romney's Tax Plan - Baffling |
|
AustinHoopDream |
 View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Banned
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 8408
Location: Illinois |
#1 Posted: 8/9/2012 12:58:34 PM
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.
|
|
quote |
|
ClubDirt |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
MVP
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 16556
Location: United States |
#2 Posted: 8/9/2012 1:12:14 PM
|
|
quote |
|
AustinHoopDream |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Banned
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 8408
Location: Illinois |
#3 Posted: 8/9/2012 1:19:41 PM
|
|
quote |
|
Mikael99 |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: bet365 | |
Hall of Fame
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 27906
Location: Denmark |
#4 Posted: 8/9/2012 1:19:57 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by AustinHoopDream: 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.
Job creators i tell you ...  |
|
quote |
|
rick3117 |
RSI  |
All-Star
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 11952
Location: West Virginia |
#5 Posted: 8/9/2012 1:30:04 PM
FY11 = Individual tax collection $1,366,241,000,000 Corporate: 395,536,000,000
Link
Anyone else feel like an enabler to a serious addiction that could compromise the entire country? |
|
quote |
|
|
|
rick3117 |
RSI |
All-Star
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 11952
Location: West Virginia |
#6 Posted: 8/9/2012 1:34:23 PM
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.
Boom.... Country Fixed.
You're welcome America.  |
|
quote |
|
rick3117 |
RSI |
All-Star
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 11952
Location: West Virginia |
#7 Posted: 8/9/2012 1:35:26 PM |
|
quote |
|
ClubDirt |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
MVP
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 16556
Location: United States |
#8 Posted: 8/9/2012 1:44:20 PM
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.
|
|
quote |
|
AustinHoopDream |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Banned
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 8408
Location: Illinois |
#9 Posted: 8/9/2012 1:50:45 PM
|
|
quote |
|
rick3117 |
RSI |
All-Star
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 11952
Location: West Virginia |
#10 Posted: 8/9/2012 1:57:18 PM
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.
|
|
quote |
|
rick3117 |
RSI |
All-Star
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 11952
Location: West Virginia |
#11 Posted: 8/9/2012 2:01:00 PM
Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare need to be trashed, and a single new entitlement system needs to emerge.
|
|
quote |
|
ClubDirt |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
MVP
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 16556
Location: United States |
#12 Posted: 8/9/2012 2:03:55 PM
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 garbage 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.
|
|
quote |
|
rick3117 |
RSI |
All-Star
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 11952
Location: West Virginia |
#13 Posted: 8/9/2012 2:07:51 PM
I fail to see the logic. |
|
quote |
|
ClubDirt |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
MVP
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 16556
Location: United States |
#14 Posted: 8/9/2012 2:11:33 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by rick3117: So, they are corrupt liars, but we should send them more money?
I fail to see the logic.
i wish i had an answer to that.
the only return on investment anyone gets from sending money to the government these days is from buying politicians.
|
|
quote |
|
AustinHoopDream |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Banned
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 8408
Location: Illinois |
#15 Posted: 8/9/2012 2:16:08 PM |
|
quote |
|
canovsp |
RSI  |
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2915
Location: United States |
#16 Posted: 8/9/2012 2:45:04 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by AustinHoopDream: 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%? |
|
quote |
|
ClubDirt |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
MVP
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 16556
Location: United States |
#17 Posted: 8/9/2012 2:53:09 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by canovsp:
Where exactly does he say he is going to increase taxes on the bottom 95%?
here
|
|
quote |
|
lbcake |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: Pinnacle Sports | |
Hall of Fame
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 24398
Location: United Kingdom |
#18 Posted: 8/9/2012 2:57:43 PM
And what is wrong with this? |
|
quote |
|
AustinHoopDream |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Banned
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 8408
Location: Illinois |
#19 Posted: 8/9/2012 3:02:57 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by lbcake: 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.
|
|
quote |
|
lbcake |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: Pinnacle Sports | |
Hall of Fame
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 24398
Location: United Kingdom |
#20 Posted: 8/9/2012 3:30:54 PM |
|
quote |
|
rick3117 |
RSI |
All-Star
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 11952
Location: West Virginia |
#21 Posted: 8/9/2012 3:40:20 PM
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. |
|
quote |
|
rick3117 |
RSI |
All-Star
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 11952
Location: West Virginia |
#22 Posted: 8/9/2012 3:44:15 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by lbcake:
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. |
|
quote |
|
wallstreetcappers |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Covers Linesmen
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 47614
Location: United States |
#23 Posted: 8/9/2012 4:01:50 PM
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. |
|
quote |
|
Ktrain |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
Captain
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 5211
Location: California |
#24 Posted: 8/9/2012 4:07:14 PM
|
|
quote |
|
canovsp |
RSI |
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2915
Location: United States |
#25 Posted: 8/9/2012 4:12:50 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
here
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. |
|
quote |