|
|
On September 19 2012 02:19 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 01:54 ZeaL. wrote:On September 19 2012 01:42 BluePanther wrote: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.
You pay 15% on all long term investments (>1 year). He could be investing in businesses that burn down forests and spread diseases, and he would still pay 15% on those investments.
And this argument about tax rates isn't a red herring. It actually points to the larger issue that many (not all or most) rich people in this country get away with paying an effective tax rate that is much lower than we have been led to believe in the past.
|
On September 19 2012 02:19 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 01:54 ZeaL. wrote:On September 19 2012 01:42 BluePanther wrote: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.
Why the douchey, condescending tone? I would like a more progressive tax rate. I would like to see capital gains be taxed at a progressive rate. I would like to see donations to charity aka tithing to the mormon church removed as a deduction. Even if Romney pays what he legally owes in taxes I think its fairly obvious that he has spent a great deal of effort on lowering his taxation rate and that he wouldn't willingly increase taxes on himself as president.
And why should it matter who's "fault" it is? It seems fairly obvious that President Mitt will in all likelihood maintain the status quo while President Obama would not.
|
On September 19 2012 02:19 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 01:54 ZeaL. wrote:On September 19 2012 01:42 BluePanther wrote: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.
This post completely misses the point. Fairness and legality are not the same. Fault and fairness are not the same. Sometimes things can be unfair but legal and nobody/everybody's fault or any other combination of these terms. If people really thought that Romney was paying less than he owed then they would pursue legal action rather than political.
I think that just about the only idea that conservatives push with any place in our future is the connection between taxes and social services. We need to create a list of what people need, track the cost of purchasing it and then subtract that from every family's income. This adjusted value shows who needs help, how much and who should pay for it. After all it is inherently inefficient to tax people into a situation where they need government help.
For a liberal this list would look something like :
housing
food
utilities
transportation
healthcare
dependent costs (children/elderly/sick)
It doesnt take a genius to realize that the adjusted value would put pretty much everybody below mid-middle class at 0 to negative values (with some variation based on circumstance or number of children) and so all the money has to come from the rich or the middle class.
When you have all the money you have to pay all the taxes. Anyways, denying people things they need always costs more in the long run.
|
United States6277 Posts
On September 19 2012 02:42 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:19 BluePanther wrote:On September 19 2012 01:54 ZeaL. wrote:On September 19 2012 01:42 BluePanther wrote: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. You pay 15% on all long term investments (>1 year). He could be investing in businesses that burn down forests and spread diseases, and he would still pay 15% on those investments. And this argument about tax rates isn't a red herring. It actually points to the larger issue that many (not all or most) rich people in this country get away with paying an effective tax rate that is much lower than we have been led to believe in the past.
The businesses that the 15% capital gains tax applies to pay taxes as well.
|
On September 19 2012 02:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:42 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 02:19 BluePanther wrote:On September 19 2012 01:54 ZeaL. wrote:On September 19 2012 01:42 BluePanther wrote: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. You pay 15% on all long term investments (>1 year). He could be investing in businesses that burn down forests and spread diseases, and he would still pay 15% on those investments. And this argument about tax rates isn't a red herring. It actually points to the larger issue that many (not all or most) rich people in this country get away with paying an effective tax rate that is much lower than we have been led to believe in the past. The businesses that the 15% capital gains tax applies to pay taxes as well.
Do they? You can make that assumption if you'd like, but it's definitely not true all the time. The business itself could run profit-less and still pay key employees in a way that the only tax cost is the 15% the employee makes. The way corporate taxes work, profits are what is considered taxable. Employee compensation comes in before profits, and that compensation can be deferred, put into a fund that counts as a company expense, and then paid to the recipient years later at capital gains rates.
|
On September 19 2012 03:09 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 02:42 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 02:19 BluePanther wrote:On September 19 2012 01:54 ZeaL. wrote:On September 19 2012 01:42 BluePanther wrote: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. You pay 15% on all long term investments (>1 year). He could be investing in businesses that burn down forests and spread diseases, and he would still pay 15% on those investments. And this argument about tax rates isn't a red herring. It actually points to the larger issue that many (not all or most) rich people in this country get away with paying an effective tax rate that is much lower than we have been led to believe in the past. The businesses that the 15% capital gains tax applies to pay taxes as well. Do they? You can make that assumption if you'd like, but it's definitely not true all the time. The business itself could run profit-less and still pay key employees in a way that the only tax cost is the 15% the employee makes. The way corporate taxes work, profits are what is considered taxable. Employee compensation comes in before profits, and that compensation can be deferred, put into a fund that counts as a company expense, and then paid to the recipient years later at capital gains rates.
Who cares? That money is still getting taxed. Even assuming that the company goes for a zero-profit strategy to avoid the corporate taxes, the company still has to pay its share of FICA/other wage taxes on what it pays its employees. Moreover, the employees will also have to pay taxes on the additional income that is earned. If the additional income goes to the owners/executive, then it likely going to be taxed at a very high rate.
|
On September 19 2012 00:55 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 00:48 HunterX11 wrote:On September 19 2012 00:22 Roe wrote:On September 19 2012 00:09 HunterX11 wrote:On September 18 2012 23:03 radiatoren wrote:On September 18 2012 22:38 Signet wrote:On September 18 2012 22:24 Adila wrote:
I'd consider a flat tax if it were a progressive flat tax, ie. certain income levels have to pay a flat X%.
The same flat X% tax across all income levels is just a fantasy for the rich and even greater hardship for the hardworking poor. If you have a tax system like that, then you run into weird things happening at the boundary between income brackets -- like, let's say if you make below $50k you pay a flat 20% on all income and from $50,001 to $75k you pay a flat 25% on all income. Then you're actually better off making $49k than making $51k. That's one of the reasons a progressive tax system works the way it does, with each person's income partitioned into all of the tax brackets. That is if I'm understanding you correctly... I believe you are corrrect, sir. I am, however wondering why we need the bracketing. Of course you need upper and lower boundaries, but a straigt up linear taxation between those would seem like a much more interesting structure. Last I checked, one of the primary answers was that they wanted people to be able to calculate their taxes without a calculater... I still laugh at such dilusional answers! I for one fully support eliminating tax rates and implementing a tax function. Sure, most people don't know basic calculus, but already most people don't seem to understand what tax brackets are in the first place, and use a computer either way. What's a tax function? The idea would be to make the tax rate a function of income so that your tax liability is calculated as the integral of the tax function from zero to your gross income. Also it would simplify things to replace tax credits with a negative income tax (i.e. have f(0) be negative) since as it stands, tax credits aren't entirely progressive. How does this clarify anything for someone who doesn't understand calculus? The usual progressive tax system would simply be a piecewise linear tax function under your definition. Even a flat tax for various income brackets where you can possibly make less net income as your gross increases, can be put into this framework. So I don't see what the point of introducing this concept is, other than to needlessly complicate.
I admit it's kind of a silly idea but it would still be cool to have infinitely many tax brackets, as it were (you could even have the limit of the top rate be 100%!)
|
On September 19 2012 01:38 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 16:05 Defacer wrote:Washington Post has a recap of Mitt Romney's past two weeks ... sigh. 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?
He never did. Anything else?
|
On September 19 2012 02:42 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:19 BluePanther wrote:On September 19 2012 01:54 ZeaL. wrote:On September 19 2012 01:42 BluePanther wrote: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. Why the douchey, condescending tone? I would like a more progressive tax rate. I would like to see capital gains be taxed at a progressive rate. I would like to see donations to charity aka tithing to the mormon church removed as a deduction. Even if Romney pays what he legally owes in taxes I think its fairly obvious that he has spent a great deal of effort on lowering his taxation rate and that he wouldn't willingly increase taxes on himself as president. And why should it matter who's "fault" it is? It seems fairly obvious that President Mitt will in all likelihood maintain the status quo while President Obama would not.
It's a tone of annoyance.
My point is that "maintaining the status quo" is EXACTLY what Obama did when he had the chance to change this 2 years ago. Therefore to blame Romney for it is beside the point. Sure, Romney can serve as an example for why we should probably go back and adjust a few things, but he's not raping and pillaging the middle class because of his tax rate: he's probably employing them through his investments. Suggesting otherwise is basically a political sideshow.
Talk about the issues -- not the examples. Democrats are essentially crucifying an individual acting on policies they consented to only 2 years ago.
|
United States6277 Posts
On September 19 2012 03:09 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 02:42 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 02:19 BluePanther wrote:On September 19 2012 01:54 ZeaL. wrote:On September 19 2012 01:42 BluePanther wrote: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. You pay 15% on all long term investments (>1 year). He could be investing in businesses that burn down forests and spread diseases, and he would still pay 15% on those investments. And this argument about tax rates isn't a red herring. It actually points to the larger issue that many (not all or most) rich people in this country get away with paying an effective tax rate that is much lower than we have been led to believe in the past. The businesses that the 15% capital gains tax applies to pay taxes as well. Do they? You can make that assumption if you'd like, but it's definitely not true all the time. The business itself could run profit-less and still pay key employees in a way that the only tax cost is the 15% the employee makes. The way corporate taxes work, profits are what is considered taxable. Employee compensation comes in before profits, and that compensation can be deferred, put into a fund that counts as a company expense, and then paid to the recipient years later at capital gains rates.
If the business is profitless its really not going to have any meaningful value. So there's really no capital gain in such a situation.
I'm not sure what you are talking about with the putting money into a fund and making it a capital gain thing.
|
On September 19 2012 02:35 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:33 BlueBird. wrote:On September 19 2012 02:05 Fischbacher wrote:On September 19 2012 01:39 kmillz wrote: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. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/moochers-for-self-reliance/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/opinion/krugman-moochers-against-welfare.html
The only theory that I can come up with is that these people feel neglected by the government (it's someone elses fault that they're destitute, in this case, the government is in the way!). Not that I'm saying they themselves are the problem but being anti-whatyouliveoff can't have too many explanations.
|
On September 19 2012 03:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 03:09 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 02:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 02:42 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 02:19 BluePanther wrote:On September 19 2012 01:54 ZeaL. wrote:On September 19 2012 01:42 BluePanther wrote:On September 19 2012 01:38 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 01:34 BluePanther wrote:On September 18 2012 18:18 KuKri wrote:
[quote]
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. You pay 15% on all long term investments (>1 year). He could be investing in businesses that burn down forests and spread diseases, and he would still pay 15% on those investments. And this argument about tax rates isn't a red herring. It actually points to the larger issue that many (not all or most) rich people in this country get away with paying an effective tax rate that is much lower than we have been led to believe in the past. The businesses that the 15% capital gains tax applies to pay taxes as well. Do they? You can make that assumption if you'd like, but it's definitely not true all the time. The business itself could run profit-less and still pay key employees in a way that the only tax cost is the 15% the employee makes. The way corporate taxes work, profits are what is considered taxable. Employee compensation comes in before profits, and that compensation can be deferred, put into a fund that counts as a company expense, and then paid to the recipient years later at capital gains rates. If the business is profitless its really not going to have any meaningful value. So there's really no capital gain in such a situation. I'm not sure what you are talking about with the putting money into a fund and making it a capital gain thing.
It's one of the loopholes they use to get around standard tax rates.
Also, there CAN be capital gain specifically in that situation. In private equity, you can buyout the company and have them pay you fees that remove all the profits, but it STILL counts as a long term capital investment. Those fees can go to consultants, or they can go back into the private equity firm, which pays bonuses to the employees who then defer it. It's crazy!
|
On September 19 2012 03:36 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 02:42 ZeaL. wrote:On September 19 2012 02:19 BluePanther wrote:On September 19 2012 01:54 ZeaL. wrote:On September 19 2012 01:42 BluePanther wrote: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. Why the douchey, condescending tone? I would like a more progressive tax rate. I would like to see capital gains be taxed at a progressive rate. I would like to see donations to charity aka tithing to the mormon church removed as a deduction. Even if Romney pays what he legally owes in taxes I think its fairly obvious that he has spent a great deal of effort on lowering his taxation rate and that he wouldn't willingly increase taxes on himself as president. And why should it matter who's "fault" it is? It seems fairly obvious that President Mitt will in all likelihood maintain the status quo while President Obama would not. It's a tone of annoyance. My point is that "maintaining the status quo" is EXACTLY what Obama did when he had the chance to change this 2 years ago. Therefore to blame Romney for it is beside the point. Sure, Romney can serve as an example for why we should probably go back and adjust a few things, but he's not raping and pillaging the middle class because of his tax rate: he's probably employing them through his investments. Suggesting otherwise is basically a political sideshow. Talk about the issues -- not the examples. Democrats are essentially crucifying an individual acting on policies they consented to only 2 years ago.
The way I see it Obama only had so much political capital to expend during the 2 years he had the house and senate and he decided to spend it on getting healthcare reform passed. Given the difficulty in getting healthcare reform passed I doubt any tax increases, especially during the height of the recession, would have been passable. I really don't think that you can equate not attempting a futile attempt to change tax policy with consenting to the current situation.
Why don't I trust Romney to do anything with regards to tax policy if he were to be elected into office? Well first off, he hasn't exactly been outspoken about his proposed policies besides MOAR TAX CUTS so there isn't much to work with. Without policy to look at, what else do you have besides his character? Obama made health care reform a big part of his run in 2008 and did it. He has broken promises but he has made good on a number of others. Since this election has spent a great deal of time focused on the issue of taxation I can expect that he will at least attempt something if he is elected again.
Also, I fail to see how money stored in offshore bank accounts employ the middle class. Or how investments in foreign companies employ (our) middle class.
|
United States6277 Posts
On September 19 2012 03:53 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 03:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 03:09 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 02:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 02:42 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 02:19 BluePanther wrote:On September 19 2012 01:54 ZeaL. wrote:On September 19 2012 01:42 BluePanther wrote:On September 19 2012 01:38 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 19 2012 01:34 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
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. You pay 15% on all long term investments (>1 year). He could be investing in businesses that burn down forests and spread diseases, and he would still pay 15% on those investments. And this argument about tax rates isn't a red herring. It actually points to the larger issue that many (not all or most) rich people in this country get away with paying an effective tax rate that is much lower than we have been led to believe in the past. The businesses that the 15% capital gains tax applies to pay taxes as well. Do they? You can make that assumption if you'd like, but it's definitely not true all the time. The business itself could run profit-less and still pay key employees in a way that the only tax cost is the 15% the employee makes. The way corporate taxes work, profits are what is considered taxable. Employee compensation comes in before profits, and that compensation can be deferred, put into a fund that counts as a company expense, and then paid to the recipient years later at capital gains rates. If the business is profitless its really not going to have any meaningful value. So there's really no capital gain in such a situation. I'm not sure what you are talking about with the putting money into a fund and making it a capital gain thing. It's one of the loopholes they use to get around standard tax rates. Also, there CAN be capital gain specifically in that situation. In private equity, you can buyout the company and have them pay you fees that remove all the profits, but it STILL counts as a long term capital investment. Those fees can go to consultants, or they can go back into the private equity firm, which pays bonuses to the employees who then defer it. It's crazy!
I think you are talking about carried interest. That's where an active partner is paid for his extra work by taking an out-sized share of the company (and resultant cap gain, if any) in lieu of pay. There's both reason to view that as appropriate and reason to view it as inappropriate. It's a gray area.
As far as the pulling profits out of the bought out firm goes I think you are lumping multiple transactions in together. The private equity firm can do consulting work and charge fees for it which is an expense for one firm and revenue for the other - so its a wash tax wise. The private equity firm can also sell their stake in the company and book the cap gain (if any) or it can pull cash out of the company (dividend).
|
On September 19 2012 04:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 03:53 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 03:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 03:09 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 02:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 02:42 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 02:19 BluePanther wrote:On September 19 2012 01:54 ZeaL. wrote:On September 19 2012 01:42 BluePanther wrote:On September 19 2012 01:38 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
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. You pay 15% on all long term investments (>1 year). He could be investing in businesses that burn down forests and spread diseases, and he would still pay 15% on those investments. And this argument about tax rates isn't a red herring. It actually points to the larger issue that many (not all or most) rich people in this country get away with paying an effective tax rate that is much lower than we have been led to believe in the past. The businesses that the 15% capital gains tax applies to pay taxes as well. Do they? You can make that assumption if you'd like, but it's definitely not true all the time. The business itself could run profit-less and still pay key employees in a way that the only tax cost is the 15% the employee makes. The way corporate taxes work, profits are what is considered taxable. Employee compensation comes in before profits, and that compensation can be deferred, put into a fund that counts as a company expense, and then paid to the recipient years later at capital gains rates. If the business is profitless its really not going to have any meaningful value. So there's really no capital gain in such a situation. I'm not sure what you are talking about with the putting money into a fund and making it a capital gain thing. It's one of the loopholes they use to get around standard tax rates. Also, there CAN be capital gain specifically in that situation. In private equity, you can buyout the company and have them pay you fees that remove all the profits, but it STILL counts as a long term capital investment. Those fees can go to consultants, or they can go back into the private equity firm, which pays bonuses to the employees who then defer it. It's crazy! I think you are talking about carried interest. That's where an active partner is paid for his extra work by taking an out-sized share of the company (and resultant cap gain, if any) in lieu of pay. There's both reason to view that as appropriate and reason to view it as inappropriate. It's a gray area. As far as the pulling profits out of the bought out firm goes I think you are lumping multiple transactions in together. The private equity firm can do consulting work and charge fees for it which is an expense for one firm and revenue for the other - so its a wash tax wise. The private equity firm can also sell their stake in the company and book the cap gain (if any) or it can pull cash out of the company (dividend).
Yea, that sounds right. I have very cursory knowledge on most of this stuff. I just know that there's a reason why corporate tax reform is normally put on the back burner, and it has to do with how easy it is for business to keep profits incredibly low while rewarding employees/investors incredible amounts.
|
On September 19 2012 04:13 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 03:36 BluePanther wrote:On September 19 2012 02:42 ZeaL. wrote:On September 19 2012 02:19 BluePanther wrote:On September 19 2012 01:54 ZeaL. wrote:On September 19 2012 01:42 BluePanther wrote: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. Why the douchey, condescending tone? I would like a more progressive tax rate. I would like to see capital gains be taxed at a progressive rate. I would like to see donations to charity aka tithing to the mormon church removed as a deduction. Even if Romney pays what he legally owes in taxes I think its fairly obvious that he has spent a great deal of effort on lowering his taxation rate and that he wouldn't willingly increase taxes on himself as president. And why should it matter who's "fault" it is? It seems fairly obvious that President Mitt will in all likelihood maintain the status quo while President Obama would not. It's a tone of annoyance. My point is that "maintaining the status quo" is EXACTLY what Obama did when he had the chance to change this 2 years ago. Therefore to blame Romney for it is beside the point. Sure, Romney can serve as an example for why we should probably go back and adjust a few things, but he's not raping and pillaging the middle class because of his tax rate: he's probably employing them through his investments. Suggesting otherwise is basically a political sideshow. Talk about the issues -- not the examples. Democrats are essentially crucifying an individual acting on policies they consented to only 2 years ago. The way I see it Obama only had so much political capital to expend during the 2 years he had the house and senate and he decided to spend it on getting healthcare reform passed. Given the difficulty in getting healthcare reform passed I doubt any tax increases, especially during the height of the recession, would have been passable. I really don't think that you can equate not attempting a futile attempt to change tax policy with consenting to the current situation. Why don't I trust Romney to do anything with regards to tax policy if he were to be elected into office? Well first off, he hasn't exactly been outspoken about his proposed policies besides MOAR TAX CUTS so there isn't much to work with. Without policy to look at, what else do you have besides his character? Obama made health care reform a big part of his run in 2008 and did it. He has broken promises but he has made good on a number of others. Since this election has spent a great deal of time focused on the issue of taxation I can expect that he will at least attempt something if he is elected again. Also, I fail to see how money stored in offshore bank accounts employ the middle class. Or how investments in foreign companies employ (our) middle class.
A tax increase has never really been the goal of Democrats in the first place. When the goal of deficit reduction becomes the rallying cry of Republicans, the offered solution from Democrats comes in the form of increased revenue.
|
On September 19 2012 02:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 01:39 kmillz wrote: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.
I'm voting for Romney because I dislike Obama's policies MORE than I dislike Romneys, I would prefer to vote for Ron Paul but I live in Ohio and every vote for Mitt Romney is going to help the chances of getting Obama out of office. There are many things I disagree with Romney on, but overall I think he is more qualified to lead this country in a better direction than Obama is. I only mention that I am poor (and yes I pay no income tax, but I also am not on welfare, food stamps, or unemployment) to make the case that not ONLY rich people vote for Romney.
|
On September 19 2012 02:05 Fischbacher wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 01:39 kmillz wrote: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?
No, I am not on welfare, food stamps, or receiving unemployment. So no, his statement does not apply to me, I believe it applies to those who are abusing the system. I know plenty of people who work under the table and receive welfare and I think it is highly criminal.
|
Canada13389 Posts
So how about them mother jones hidden recorded video O.O
Those videos are freaking crazy, wouldn't surprise me if Romney just shot his own foot in the election.
|
"People who pay no income taxes aren't going to be persuaded by lower tax rates." Seems like absolute common sense to me. Sure, maybe the percentage who won't care is exaggerated, but that's not the point. I'm honestly baffled why people would think such an obvious idea is so controversial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
