On September 18 2012 23:17 DeepElemBlues wrote: Barack Obama can talk shit on the half of the country that does pay taxes and it's all cool. He can talk shit on gun owners and the religious and who cares. Mitt Romney can state the obvious - huge numbers of people have an entitlement mentality, most of them don't pay taxes - and it's just a shocking insult to the American people. In two weeks no one will remember Romney's "insult."
And when Romney wins it's gonna be funny as all hell.
Republicans were the ones who brought the abortion debate back to the table, along with God, not the Democrats. Democrats have merely been fighting back.
Democrats didn't bring abortion back into the forefront of national politics by the HHS mandate? It was Republicans who brought abortion back?
Sorry, but hahahaha you're either ignorant or deliberately pushing a false timeline.
Do we have to remind you of the blatant divisive nature of Republicans in the House or will you walk across that bridge you're trying to sell on your own two feet?
You gonna walk your own bridge there?
Do we have to remind you of the blatant divisive nature of the Democratic Party from 2000 to today? The disgraceful accusations of racism ad nauseum? "The rich"? Bitter clingers with their guns and religion? Corporations corporations corporations David Koch?
Goodbye Romney, may you and the divisive, racial, horrible ideology you apparently believe be washed away for a generation. This video is a reminder to progressives that we can't just beat Romney, we need to crush him and this political movement that says that some people don't count, that it's a good life to be poor, that it's minorities who have the advantages, and that the path to prosperity is by putting more weight on the ankles of those struggling to get by.
Run up the score.
Yeah, people like you descend into self-caricature territory with hilarious swiftness.
Romney will run up the score, and you can cry with your ridiculous fantasies. For claiming to care about everyone oh so much, the middle class has been decimated on your watch. The poor have gotten so much poorer - on your watch. Minorities have been hit hardest - on your watch. More weight has been put on the ankles of those struggling to get by than in 80 years - on your watch. George Bush hasn't been president for 3 and a half years. Your impassioned certainty of moral superiority sure hasn't translated into results. Maybe you just don't care? Path to prosperity? What good is that, being wealthy is wrong, remember?
We have to decimate the class warfare, religious division, impoverishing economics, character assassination and total lack of care for anything but their own self-satisfaction of progressives if we have any hope of turning the middle class around, or ending racial division, or having everyone actually count. It's funny how everything you say applies far more aptly to your own politics than to the Right's. It's classic projection.
Read the news today, Romney is a gift that keeps on giving........
On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote: The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can.
Lol...the scary thing is that so many Americans think like this guy. U actually think the rich give a damn about u? Or that the CEO's making millions are whats making society work? Nah its not engineers, doctors, teachers, firefighters, etc making society work. Its the wall street guys making it rain millions, oil tycoons and celebrities. I feel bad for your mindstate....keep waiting for that wealth to trickle down you'll be waiting a while tho
I'm not waiting for wealth to trickle down to me from anyone. If you want wealth go f'ing earn it. Go invent something, go start a business, go make goods and services people enjoy.
On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote: The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can.
Do you really think it's just when someone who has inherited a fortune and gets a thousandfold of an income compared to someone working in a lower position pays an about equal amount of taxes? After this speech, I wondered how anybody without the income of the top 10% would vote for this guy, but it seems the Hollywood money-makes-good-people movies had much effect on some. Or is it this naive way of thinking 'the Democrats are giving all our money away, economy will spiral down and this will effect my own income negatively'?
THEY DON'T PAY AN EQUAL AMOUNT. THEY DON'T HAVE EQUAL TAX RATES.
THEY PAY EQUAL EFFECTIVE RATES.
Romney has payed more in taxes in the past two years than I will probably make in my entire lifetime. Stop saying incorrect and misleading phrases.
The release of a recording of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney at a private fundraiser in May telling donors that “there are 47 percent of the people…who are dependent on government, who believe that they are the victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them…I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives” is the latest body blow for a campaign that can’t seem to get out of its own way of late.
Consider what has happened to Romney since the Democrats concluded their convention in Charlotte earlier this month:
* The release of a Romney polling memo that seemed decidedly defensive over the idea of a convention bounce for the incumbent.
* A too-quick statement regarding the tumult in Libya that polling suggests was not looked on favorably by the voting public.
* A Politico story laying bare strife within the campaign that hit Sunday night.
And now comes this video tape featuring Romney offering a blunt assessment of his economic worldview to a group of wealthy donors — an assessment that is more candid, more calculating and more conservative than the GOP nominee has been in public.
Taken individually, none of the incidents referenced above are that big a deal in the constant swirl of politics. Taken together, they paint an image of a campaign in disarray and a candidate not ready for primetime. Context always matters in politics and the context in which this videotape has landed is just plain awful for Romney’s campaign.
Before we get too much further, it’s worth taking a step back to say that there is little evidence that missteps — whether minor or major — have an obvious and immediate impact on polling in this race.
Thanks to our friend John Sides at the Monkey Cage Blog, we have evidence of that lack of movement here:
So, it’s worth taking the immediate analysis of what it all means for Romney — including this one — cum grano salis.
Caveats dispatched, we do think there are at least two real impacts of Romney’s brutal past two weeks — even if they are not evident in polling.
The first — and most important — is that this story will serve as a major distraction for a Romney campaign who just today announced its plans to re-boot itself by offering more specifics on what he would do on the economy if elected president.
“We do think the timing is right to reinforce more specifics about the Romney plan for a strong middle class,” senior Romney adviser Ed Gillespie told reporters on a conference call Monday morning that now seems like a millenium ago.
Whether or not you believe Romney offered a window into his true feelings about the election (and the electorate) in the leaked video from the fundraiser (and we will leave that up to others to decide), it’s impossible to see how Romney’s comments don’t dominate the political conversation for the next 48-72 hours — and maybe longer.
That reality virtually ensures a second straight week lost to off-message stories that are far afield from the economic focus that the Romney campaign is hoping to lean on in the final weeks of the race. Mitt Romney isn’t going to win this race on foreign policy and he certainly isn’t going to win it on too-candid comments about his view of the economic realities present in the electorate. Any one — Republican, Democrat or Independent — who tells you differently is just wrong.
Wasting two weeks when there are only seven weeks left in a race that even the most loyal Republicans acknowledge they are currently losing — albeit it narrowly — is a major problem for Romney.
The second way the leaked video impacts the race is that it fuels the “gang who can’t shoot straight” narrative that Politico began with its story and that the Romney campaign was hoping to quickly extinguish with its conference call Monday morning. If donors and other political professionals were skittish about where the race generally — and Romney’s bid specifically — stood on Monday morning, you can imagine they will be worked up into a full lather by Tuesday morning.
The video will fuel the growing sentiment within the Republican chattering class that Romney is in the process of losing a winnable race. That means the second-guessing that goes on privately in every campaign will go more public. And the more public it becomes, the longer it takes Romney and his team to move beyond unhelpful process stories focused on whether his own party thinks he’s blowing it.
To be clear: Declaring the race over — as some people will do in the next 48 hours — is a mistake. Seven weeks remain before voters vote and what looks determinative to the outcome now might look very different come November 1.
But, anyone who thinks that Romney isn’t weathering his darkest days as a candidate right now would be sorely mistaken.
The convention bounce was definitely negligible, it is now 48-45, where as pre-DNC it was 47-46. A too-quick statement in Libya? How about Obama being too quick to apologize to the muslims for our freedom of speech?
On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote: The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can.
Do you really think it's just when someone who has inherited a fortune and gets a thousandfold of an income compared to someone working in a lower position pays an about equal amount of taxes? After this speech, I wondered how anybody without the income of the top 10% would vote for this guy, but it seems the Hollywood money-makes-good-people movies had much effect on some. Or is it this naive way of thinking 'the Democrats are giving all our money away, economy will spiral down and this will effect my own income negatively'?
THEY DON'T PAY AN EQUAL AMOUNT. THEY DON'T HAVE EQUAL TAX RATES.
THEY PAY EQUAL EFFECTIVE RATES.
Romney has payed more in taxes in the past two years than I will probably make in my entire lifetime. Stop saying incorrect and misleading phrases.
The reason why the rich pays most of the taxes is because income inequality has grown to epic proportions, despite the fact that taxes are currently at the lowest rate of in about 50 years.
On September 18 2012 18:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote: The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can.
It's funny that against all evidences in the world, people still believe in old good trickle down economics...
By the way, considering how low taxes are for the richest compared to 30 years ago, i guess we should live in some kind of paradise right now. And the Bush years should have been an incredible moment of weakth happiness and prosperity since giving more to the wealthiest have basically been all his economic program.
Anyway, IF money saved by the richest was all invested in real companies that treat properly their employees, trickle down economics could at least superficially make sense. But since most of the capital goes into speculation today, it just doesn't match with reality one little bit. Or you explain me how speculating on sugar, or gold, or oil, or financial products, helps anybody belonging to the middle class....
Last thing: the gap between poors and rich increases at an exponential speed since the introduction of neoliberal policies, where will it stops? When 0,01% of the people own 99,9% of the wealth? We are getting there, thanks to the billionaire that conduct the GOP and average joes that vote again and again and again and again against their most elementary interests
If you think that GOP's core concept is to empower the rich, then you really have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm sincerly puzzled that anybody could ever think otherwise. They don't even try to hide it!
I'm voting for Mitt Romney and I am unemployed, broke, struggling to find decent work (contractor work here and there) and surviving off of my girlfriends tips while she bartends just to help my mom pay the rent in our small house of 7 people and buy us food and gas.
On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote: The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can.
Do you really think it's just when someone who has inherited a fortune and gets a thousandfold of an income compared to someone working in a lower position pays an about equal amount of taxes? After this speech, I wondered how anybody without the income of the top 10% would vote for this guy, but it seems the Hollywood money-makes-good-people movies had much effect on some. Or is it this naive way of thinking 'the Democrats are giving all our money away, economy will spiral down and this will effect my own income negatively'?
THEY DON'T PAY AN EQUAL AMOUNT. THEY DON'T HAVE EQUAL TAX RATES.
THEY PAY EQUAL EFFECTIVE RATES.
Romney has payed more in taxes in the past two years than I will probably make in my entire lifetime. Stop saying incorrect and misleading phrases.
The reason why the rich pays most of the taxes is because income inequality has grown to epic proportions, despite the fact that taxes are currently at the lowest rate of in about 50 years.
Correct. But this doesn't mean he "doesn't pay his fair share". He pays his share.
On September 19 2012 01:38 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 19 2012 01:34 BluePanther wrote:
On September 18 2012 18:18 KuKri wrote:
On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote: The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can.
Do you really think it's just when someone who has inherited a fortune and gets a thousandfold of an income compared to someone working in a lower position pays an about equal amount of taxes? After this speech, I wondered how anybody without the income of the top 10% would vote for this guy, but it seems the Hollywood money-makes-good-people movies had much effect on some. Or is it this naive way of thinking 'the Democrats are giving all our money away, economy will spiral down and this will effect my own income negatively'?
THEY DON'T PAY AN EQUAL AMOUNT. THEY DON'T HAVE EQUAL TAX RATES.
THEY PAY EQUAL EFFECTIVE RATES.
Romney has payed more in taxes in the past two years than I will probably make in my entire lifetime. Stop saying incorrect and misleading phrases.
The reason why the rich pays most of the taxes is because income inequality has grown to epic proportions, despite the fact that taxes are currently at the lowest rate of in about 50 years.
Correct. But this doesn't mean he "doesn't pay his fair share". He pays his share.
These are two distinct issues.
You gotta love it when people call not raising the tax on the rich a "tax credit".
On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote: The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can.
Do you really think it's just when someone who has inherited a fortune and gets a thousandfold of an income compared to someone working in a lower position pays an about equal amount of taxes? After this speech, I wondered how anybody without the income of the top 10% would vote for this guy, but it seems the Hollywood money-makes-good-people movies had much effect on some. Or is it this naive way of thinking 'the Democrats are giving all our money away, economy will spiral down and this will effect my own income negatively'?
THEY DON'T PAY AN EQUAL AMOUNT. THEY DON'T HAVE EQUAL TAX RATES.
THEY PAY EQUAL EFFECTIVE RATES.
Romney has payed more in taxes in the past two years than I will probably make in my entire lifetime. Stop saying incorrect and misleading phrases.
Of course they don't pay equal amounts of taxes, and they shouldn't. This was obviously pointed towards the example Zaqwert pointed out. He made it sound like Romney had a right to not increase taxes because he has already spent much more than the average payer.
On September 19 2012 01:38 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 19 2012 01:34 BluePanther wrote:
On September 18 2012 18:18 KuKri wrote:
On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote: The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can.
Do you really think it's just when someone who has inherited a fortune and gets a thousandfold of an income compared to someone working in a lower position pays an about equal amount of taxes? After this speech, I wondered how anybody without the income of the top 10% would vote for this guy, but it seems the Hollywood money-makes-good-people movies had much effect on some. Or is it this naive way of thinking 'the Democrats are giving all our money away, economy will spiral down and this will effect my own income negatively'?
THEY DON'T PAY AN EQUAL AMOUNT. THEY DON'T HAVE EQUAL TAX RATES.
THEY PAY EQUAL EFFECTIVE RATES.
Romney has payed more in taxes in the past two years than I will probably make in my entire lifetime. Stop saying incorrect and misleading phrases.
The reason why the rich pays most of the taxes is because income inequality has grown to epic proportions, despite the fact that taxes are currently at the lowest rate of in about 50 years.
Correct. But this doesn't mean he "doesn't pay his fair share". He pays his share.
These are two distinct issues.
"Fair" is quite open to interpretation... Even if he's paying more taxes in one year than what I will pay in my lifetime I don't think it means that he should be able to pay a lower effective tax rate than what I'm paying.
On September 18 2012 23:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 18 2012 19:48 jellyjello wrote:
On September 18 2012 18:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote: The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can.
It's funny that against all evidences in the world, people still believe in old good trickle down economics...
By the way, considering how low taxes are for the richest compared to 30 years ago, i guess we should live in some kind of paradise right now. And the Bush years should have been an incredible moment of weakth happiness and prosperity since giving more to the wealthiest have basically been all his economic program.
Anyway, IF money saved by the richest was all invested in real companies that treat properly their employees, trickle down economics could at least superficially make sense. But since most of the capital goes into speculation today, it just doesn't match with reality one little bit. Or you explain me how speculating on sugar, or gold, or oil, or financial products, helps anybody belonging to the middle class....
Last thing: the gap between poors and rich increases at an exponential speed since the introduction of neoliberal policies, where will it stops? When 0,01% of the people own 99,9% of the wealth? We are getting there, thanks to the billionaire that conduct the GOP and average joes that vote again and again and again and again against their most elementary interests
If you think that GOP's core concept is to empower the rich, then you really have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm sincerly puzzled that anybody could ever think otherwise. They don't even try to hide it!
I'm voting for Mitt Romney and I am unemployed, broke, struggling to find decent work (contractor work here and there) and surviving off of my girlfriends tips while she bartends just to help my mom pay the rent in our small house of 7 people and buy us food and gas.
So you're voting because of an ideological stance based on individualism? But if you were to vote for Obama then according to Romney it wouldn't be because you could have an ideological stance regarding what you think society should be like, it'd just be because you were lazy and wanted free money. The Romney "Obama supporters are irresponsible, lazy and entitled" just lowers the whole debate to name calling and devalues the intellectual struggle between differing ideologies.
On September 18 2012 23:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 18 2012 19:48 jellyjello wrote:
On September 18 2012 18:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote: The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can.
It's funny that against all evidences in the world, people still believe in old good trickle down economics...
By the way, considering how low taxes are for the richest compared to 30 years ago, i guess we should live in some kind of paradise right now. And the Bush years should have been an incredible moment of weakth happiness and prosperity since giving more to the wealthiest have basically been all his economic program.
Anyway, IF money saved by the richest was all invested in real companies that treat properly their employees, trickle down economics could at least superficially make sense. But since most of the capital goes into speculation today, it just doesn't match with reality one little bit. Or you explain me how speculating on sugar, or gold, or oil, or financial products, helps anybody belonging to the middle class....
Last thing: the gap between poors and rich increases at an exponential speed since the introduction of neoliberal policies, where will it stops? When 0,01% of the people own 99,9% of the wealth? We are getting there, thanks to the billionaire that conduct the GOP and average joes that vote again and again and again and again against their most elementary interests
If you think that GOP's core concept is to empower the rich, then you really have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm sincerly puzzled that anybody could ever think otherwise. They don't even try to hide it!
I'm voting for Mitt Romney and I am unemployed, broke, struggling to find decent work (contractor work here and there) and surviving off of my girlfriends tips while she bartends just to help my mom pay the rent in our small house of 7 people and buy us food and gas.
But according to Romney your kind always vote Obama O.o
Also, what do you think of him saying that people like you (that don't pay income tax) are acting entitled and victimized? Or do you think his statement didn't apply to you?
On September 19 2012 01:38 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 19 2012 01:34 BluePanther wrote:
On September 18 2012 18:18 KuKri wrote:
On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote: The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can.
Do you really think it's just when someone who has inherited a fortune and gets a thousandfold of an income compared to someone working in a lower position pays an about equal amount of taxes? After this speech, I wondered how anybody without the income of the top 10% would vote for this guy, but it seems the Hollywood money-makes-good-people movies had much effect on some. Or is it this naive way of thinking 'the Democrats are giving all our money away, economy will spiral down and this will effect my own income negatively'?
THEY DON'T PAY AN EQUAL AMOUNT. THEY DON'T HAVE EQUAL TAX RATES.
THEY PAY EQUAL EFFECTIVE RATES.
Romney has payed more in taxes in the past two years than I will probably make in my entire lifetime. Stop saying incorrect and misleading phrases.
The reason why the rich pays most of the taxes is because income inequality has grown to epic proportions, despite the fact that taxes are currently at the lowest rate of in about 50 years.
Correct. But this doesn't mean he "doesn't pay his fair share". He pays his share.
These are two distinct issues.
The fair share argument is stupid. What's a fair share? Define fair share. It's so ambiguous as to be a completely meaningless arguement.
There are more useful ways to look at the issue, such as the fact that tax rates have been much much higher historically, from a top marginal rate of around 90% near the end of WW2 to around 35% now. If you think the deficit is a problem, the solution isn't to blow it up with $5T of tax cuts for the rich, but instead to increase taxes on the rich. Alternatively, giving tax cuts to the rich will increase inequality. Another perspective is that raising taxes on the rich is less contractionary that raising taxes on the middle class to pay for taxes on the rich (which is what the Romney plan must do according to the TPC and Martin Feldstein, conservative economist), because middle class people spend a greater proportion of their income than the rich, etc. Yet another perspective is that trickle-down economics doesn't work. And so on.
All of these are good arguments to raise taxes on the rich, not to cut them. The "fair share" argument is so vague as to be completely meaningless. But it's what politicians must resort to, in order to persuade a populace with little economic literacy.
On September 19 2012 01:38 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 19 2012 01:34 BluePanther wrote:
On September 18 2012 18:18 KuKri wrote:
On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote: The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can.
Do you really think it's just when someone who has inherited a fortune and gets a thousandfold of an income compared to someone working in a lower position pays an about equal amount of taxes? After this speech, I wondered how anybody without the income of the top 10% would vote for this guy, but it seems the Hollywood money-makes-good-people movies had much effect on some. Or is it this naive way of thinking 'the Democrats are giving all our money away, economy will spiral down and this will effect my own income negatively'?
THEY DON'T PAY AN EQUAL AMOUNT. THEY DON'T HAVE EQUAL TAX RATES.
THEY PAY EQUAL EFFECTIVE RATES.
Romney has payed more in taxes in the past two years than I will probably make in my entire lifetime. Stop saying incorrect and misleading phrases.
The reason why the rich pays most of the taxes is because income inequality has grown to epic proportions, despite the fact that taxes are currently at the lowest rate of in about 50 years.
Correct. But this doesn't mean he "doesn't pay his fair share". He pays his share.
These are two distinct issues.
"Fair" is quite open to interpretation... Even if he's paying more taxes in one year than what I will pay in my lifetime I don't think it means that he should be able to pay a lower effective tax rate than what I'm paying.
Then argue that you want to remove deductions from the tax code. Or that you want to make a more progressive income tax code. Don't argue that he doesn't pay his share. He pays what he owes according to our laws.
And you may not like that he pays lower effective rates, but at somewhere along the line your Democrats (when they controlled everything a few years ago) thought that these deductions were worth it for the public good. So its not Mitt's fault, and it's not even the "dirty Republicans" fault. It's the Democrats "fault". I put fault in quotes because the deductions probably are a good deal for the public, and the fact that Mitt pays a lower rate due to certain types of investments probably means he puts more of his capital to the public good than the average person of his wealth.
This argument about tax rates is a red herring. It's political theatre at its best, and it blows my mind how many people just eat it up. They'd rather make false accusations than actually talk about the real issues.
On September 19 2012 01:38 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 19 2012 01:34 BluePanther wrote:
On September 18 2012 18:18 KuKri wrote:
On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote: The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can.
Do you really think it's just when someone who has inherited a fortune and gets a thousandfold of an income compared to someone working in a lower position pays an about equal amount of taxes? After this speech, I wondered how anybody without the income of the top 10% would vote for this guy, but it seems the Hollywood money-makes-good-people movies had much effect on some. Or is it this naive way of thinking 'the Democrats are giving all our money away, economy will spiral down and this will effect my own income negatively'?
THEY DON'T PAY AN EQUAL AMOUNT. THEY DON'T HAVE EQUAL TAX RATES.
THEY PAY EQUAL EFFECTIVE RATES.
Romney has payed more in taxes in the past two years than I will probably make in my entire lifetime. Stop saying incorrect and misleading phrases.
The reason why the rich pays most of the taxes is because income inequality has grown to epic proportions, despite the fact that taxes are currently at the lowest rate of in about 50 years.
Correct. But this doesn't mean he "doesn't pay his fair share". He pays his share.
These are two distinct issues.
"Fair" is quite open to interpretation... Even if he's paying more taxes in one year than what I will pay in my lifetime I don't think it means that he should be able to pay a lower effective tax rate than what I'm paying.
Then argue that you want to remove deductions from the tax code. Or that you want to make a more progressive income tax code. Don't argue that he doesn't pay his share. He pays what he owes according to our laws.
And you may not like that he pays lower effective rates, but at somewhere along the line your Democrats (when they controlled everything a few years ago) thought that these deductions were worth it for the public good. So its not Mitt's fault, and it's not even the "dirty Republicans" fault. It's the Democrats "fault". I put fault in quotes because the deductions probably are a good deal for the public, and the fact that Mitt pays a lower rate due to certain types of investments probably means he puts more of his capital to the public good than the average person of his wealth.
This argument about tax rates is a red herring. It's political theatre at its best, and it blows my mind how many people just eat it up. They'd rather make false accusations than actually talk about the real issues.
Public good? Last I checked, Mitt parked his wealth in the Cayman Islands.
On September 18 2012 23:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 18 2012 19:48 jellyjello wrote:
On September 18 2012 18:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote: The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can.
It's funny that against all evidences in the world, people still believe in old good trickle down economics...
By the way, considering how low taxes are for the richest compared to 30 years ago, i guess we should live in some kind of paradise right now. And the Bush years should have been an incredible moment of weakth happiness and prosperity since giving more to the wealthiest have basically been all his economic program.
Anyway, IF money saved by the richest was all invested in real companies that treat properly their employees, trickle down economics could at least superficially make sense. But since most of the capital goes into speculation today, it just doesn't match with reality one little bit. Or you explain me how speculating on sugar, or gold, or oil, or financial products, helps anybody belonging to the middle class....
Last thing: the gap between poors and rich increases at an exponential speed since the introduction of neoliberal policies, where will it stops? When 0,01% of the people own 99,9% of the wealth? We are getting there, thanks to the billionaire that conduct the GOP and average joes that vote again and again and again and again against their most elementary interests
If you think that GOP's core concept is to empower the rich, then you really have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm sincerly puzzled that anybody could ever think otherwise. They don't even try to hide it!
I'm voting for Mitt Romney and I am unemployed, broke, struggling to find decent work (contractor work here and there) and surviving off of my girlfriends tips while she bartends just to help my mom pay the rent in our small house of 7 people and buy us food and gas.
But according to Romney your kind always vote Obama O.o
Also, what do you think of him saying that people like you (that don't pay income tax) are acting entitled and victimized? Or do you think his statement didn't apply to you?
I know plenty of conservatives in Kentucky and Northern Tennessee where my family lives that fall in to that "don't pay income tax" that will just shrug this off as Romney talking about somebody else. These people believe that out there somewhere is a huge proportion of people that literally sit around, and use tax money, and have no plans, desires, etc. to do anything with their life but live off the government.
Even my Grandma falls in to this no income tax bracket since she is retired, and she even has medicare despite her large bank accounts, but I'm sure she doesn't think this has anything to do with her. She probably actually believes 47% of the country is talking about the magical 47% of the country using up her resources.
On September 18 2012 23:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 18 2012 19:48 jellyjello wrote:
On September 18 2012 18:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote: The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can.
It's funny that against all evidences in the world, people still believe in old good trickle down economics...
By the way, considering how low taxes are for the richest compared to 30 years ago, i guess we should live in some kind of paradise right now. And the Bush years should have been an incredible moment of weakth happiness and prosperity since giving more to the wealthiest have basically been all his economic program.
Anyway, IF money saved by the richest was all invested in real companies that treat properly their employees, trickle down economics could at least superficially make sense. But since most of the capital goes into speculation today, it just doesn't match with reality one little bit. Or you explain me how speculating on sugar, or gold, or oil, or financial products, helps anybody belonging to the middle class....
Last thing: the gap between poors and rich increases at an exponential speed since the introduction of neoliberal policies, where will it stops? When 0,01% of the people own 99,9% of the wealth? We are getting there, thanks to the billionaire that conduct the GOP and average joes that vote again and again and again and again against their most elementary interests
If you think that GOP's core concept is to empower the rich, then you really have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm sincerly puzzled that anybody could ever think otherwise. They don't even try to hide it!
I'm voting for Mitt Romney and I am unemployed, broke, struggling to find decent work (contractor work here and there) and surviving off of my girlfriends tips while she bartends just to help my mom pay the rent in our small house of 7 people and buy us food and gas.
But according to Romney your kind always vote Obama O.o
Also, what do you think of him saying that people like you (that don't pay income tax) are acting entitled and victimized? Or do you think his statement didn't apply to you?
I know plenty of conservatives in Kentucky and Northern Tennessee where my family lives that fall in to that "don't pay income tax" that will just shrug this off as Romney talking about somebody else. These people believe that out there somewhere is a huge proportion of people that literally sit around, and use tax money, and have no plans, desires, etc. to do anything with their life but live off the government.
Even my Grandma falls in to this no income tax bracket since she is retired, and she even has medicare despite her large bank accounts, but I'm sure she doesn't think this has anything to do with her. She probably actually believes 47% of the country is talking about the magical 47% of the country using up her resources.
On September 19 2012 02:19 BluePanther wrote: Then argue that you want to remove deductions from the tax code. Or that you want to make a more progressive income tax code. Don't argue that he doesn't pay his share. He pays what he owes according to our laws.
And you may not like that he pays lower effective rates, but at somewhere along the line your Democrats (when they controlled everything a few years ago) thought that these deductions were worth it for the public good. So its not Mitt's fault, and it's not even the "dirty Republicans" fault. It's the Democrats "fault". I put fault in quotes because the deductions probably are a good deal for the public, and the fact that Mitt pays a lower rate due to certain types of investments probably means he puts more of his capital to the public good than the average person of his wealth.
This argument about tax rates is a red herring. It's political theatre at its best, and it blows my mind how many people just eat it up. They'd rather make false accusations than actually talk about the real issues.
I agree with the overall point of this post.
However, I'm not sure about the bolded part. Even though I believe in some policy goals of economic progressives, I largely trust the market system to provide efficient allocation of goods, and price signals are a key to how this works. Some of these deductions represent huge market distortions. HMID has made it easier to own a home, which is nice, but it's also incentivized people to move out of our cities and into the suburbs/exurbs (due to renting vs owning) which means greater land usage and greater gas consumption as these people end up commuting into the cities to work. Effectively discounting loans on overpriced homes may have also contributed to the housing bubble. Or look at another widely used deduction, health care/insurance. Again a market full of inefficiencies and overpricing. And consumers aren't feeling the full price of health care due to it being deductible from the tax code. I even wonder if differentiating between income from capital gains vs income from salary has played a part in the general trend of stock market bubbles, as wealthy people may try to push more of their income into stock rather than salary.
If I could rewrite the tax code, I'd get rid of all itemized deductions and just give everyone a larger standard deduction (then lower rates some as well, depending on how much this ends up broadening the tax base). At least see how that works for a few years...
EPT
