On October 05 2012 07:13 Silidons wrote: Did anyone see this from ReasonTV? Just saw it on TheYoungTurks, as a rebuttal to the video from Samuel L Jackson. Brilliant video... (Warning: NSFW - Language)
I think blacks are starting to wake up check out this new ad for Romney not everyone is fooled by Samuel L Jackson and blind celebrities.
I don't really understand your point about "lost" revenue, the money is not being collected by the government, it is not going to magically appear in their coffers, it is gone from their balance sheet. If you cut spending dollar for dollar to match tax increases you should get more growth in the economy as you shuffle money around in marginally more efficient ways. You might end up with more wealth and income inequality, shittier schools, and public services unless local and state governments increase taxes but you will have a bigger GDP when all is said and done unless other taxes go up an equal amount
I understand that lowering taxes = higher tax revenue is something that is hard to understand (it isn't), but facts are facts, and that's what happened during the Bush Administration. Record tax receipts year after year.
Schools and public services have stayed shitty after we've spent over ten trillion dollars on them in the last 40 years, arguments that cutting spending will make them worse has absolutely no impact on me and a lot of people. They could hardly be worse and spending more and more money hasn't improved them, the deterioration in quality has in fact happened during this period of increasing spending on them.
Ya know, I really thought there was something to your post that first source was full of charts and just loaded with information, then I read your second source and realized that you just attributed the economic impact of the housing bubble getting really out of control to the Bush Tax Cuts.
Honestly, if I hadn't actually studied finance and economics, I would find this whole idea that lowering taxes = higher tax revenue a lot easier to understand. Since I have seen the numbers and analysis I tend to struggle with it. (A note on Reagan tax cuts, in real per capita revenues, the government had less money, only in nominal dollars did they get more.)
On October 05 2012 07:12 DeepElemBlues wrote: So do the poorest people everywhere, including egalitarian paradises in Europe.
Except in places where there aren't shopping carts and plastic bags because the countries are too poor to even have those. Not coincidentally, these places lacking carts and bags are corrupt semi-command economies in sub-Saharan Africa.
My point is that we shouldn't ignore them. Which he did, completely, by saying "the poorest people in America..." I'm not arguing about Europe or Africa being better or worse than America, just saying that there are truly poor here who deserve better then being ignored. Can we agree on that?
On October 05 2012 03:17 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] That doesn't address the first part of my post about the fact that Romney will reduce marginal tax rates on the rich and that his plan doesn't add up.
Also, it's laughable that rejigging the tax system would have anything more than the most minimal effect in boosting the economy. To suggest that increased efficiency in the tax code will boost the economy is to say that what's holding the economy is that people are really confused about how to fill in the tax return, that businesses would hire more workers if only they didn't have to spend so much money paying their tax accountants, and that not enough people are been taxed currently.
Your point about reducing marginal rates is irrelevant. If you reduce taxes on the rich by $1 and raise taxes by $1 you have not given them a tax cut. I don't know why this is hard math for you.
Prove that it doesn't add up please. I'd love to see your math
I also love how you dismiss its effect because you only know how to look at the economy in the short-run aggregate.
Where's that $1 going to come from? How is Romney going to make up that loss revenue from his tax cut? What loopholes is he going to close?
It's a hopeless question. You will never answer it, because Romney has no answer.
Why should I have to prove anything. It's Romney's plan, so the burden of proof is on him (or you, since you support it). Luckily, the TPC has already done the math for him and said that it's mathematically impossible.
Nope, just put more on the table than the TPC has assumed or reduce the reduction in the marginal rates.
EZPZ
The TPC already puts everything viable on the table, except those which Romney ruled out. If you cut less than 20%, then that just goes to show that Romney's plan is mathematically impossible, and that he hasn't thought this through. Of course, there's no doubt that he hasn't thought this through since he keeps talking about loophole closing the the abstract but refuses to give a single loophole he would close.
You say that I'm dismissing the long run effect of the Romney tax plan, and that I've only looked at the short run. But the depressed economy is a short run problem. It makes no sense that the way to get out of a recession is to simplify the tax code. What if we've simplified everything to a flat 15% tax on everything and everyone, and have another recession. What then is the solution? How can we simplify further? And what about the long run? Where's the evidence that this is good in the long run, and where's the evidence that what's good in the long run is good in fixing the short run? In the short run, there is no debt problem, but in the long run there is. So how is it a good idea to give a tax cut which almost certainly cannot be paid for in the long run? In the long run, there needs to be a tax increase.
No, we've been over this. The TPC took off the table what they assumed Romney ruled out. Romney has since stated that he's very willing to eliminate deductions for higher earners. And there's plenty room to lower rates while closing loopholes. That's what Simpson-Bowles wanted to do - reduce the highest tax rates to 29% or less - right in line with what Romney wants.
Romney's tax plan can be read on his website. Unless Romney makes changes to it, the TPC's analysis was perfectly valid - one of its two promises has to be broken for the other one to hold.
OK, if that's the way it works out then give his play a few tweaks. 20% is too much? Knock it down to 19%. Can't get a particular deduction removed? Knock it down a bit more.
I'm pretty sure 20% was chosen for its nice roundness - not because it is exactly the best number to use.
Yes, I'm sure we'll only have to knock it down by "a bit". The bottom line is that his plan, as it has been published, can't work for both of its core promises.
On October 05 2012 06:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 05 2012 06:21 Defacer wrote:
On October 05 2012 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 05 2012 05:07 kwizach wrote:
On October 05 2012 04:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 05 2012 03:55 paralleluniverse wrote:
On October 05 2012 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 05 2012 03:27 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] Where's that $1 going to come from? How is Romney going to make up that loss revenue from his tax cut? What loopholes is he going to close?
It's a hopeless question. You will never answer it, because Romney has no answer.
Why should I have to prove anything. It's Romney's plan, so the burden of proof is on him (or you, since you support it). Luckily, the TPC has already done the math for him and said that it's mathematically impossible.
Nope, just put more on the table than the TPC has assumed or reduce the reduction in the marginal rates.
EZPZ
The TPC already puts everything viable on the table, except those which Romney ruled out. If you cut less than 20%, then that just goes to show that Romney's plan is mathematically impossible, and that he hasn't thought this through. Of course, there's no doubt that he hasn't thought this through since he keeps talking about loophole closing the the abstract but refuses to give a single loophole he would close.
You say that I'm dismissing the long run effect of the Romney tax plan, and that I've only looked at the short run. But the depressed economy is a short run problem. It makes no sense that the way to get out of a recession is to simplify the tax code. What if we've simplified everything to a flat 15% tax on everything and everyone, and have another recession. What then is the solution? How can we simplify further? And what about the long run? Where's the evidence that this is good in the long run, and where's the evidence that what's good in the long run is good in fixing the short run? In the short run, there is no debt problem, but in the long run there is. So how is it a good idea to give a tax cut which almost certainly cannot be paid for in the long run? In the long run, there needs to be a tax increase.
No, we've been over this. The TPC took off the table what they assumed Romney ruled out. Romney has since stated that he's very willing to eliminate deductions for higher earners. And there's plenty room to lower rates while closing loopholes. That's what Simpson-Bowles wanted to do - reduce the highest tax rates to 29% or less - right in line with what Romney wants.
Romney's tax plan can be read on his website. Unless Romney makes changes to it, the TPC's analysis was perfectly valid - one of its two promises has to be broken for the other one to hold.
OK, if that's the way it works out then give his play a few tweaks. 20% is too much? Knock it down to 19%. Can't get a particular deduction removed? Knock it down a bit more.
I'm pretty sure 20% was chosen for its nice roundness - not because it is exactly the best number to use.
The guy has no concrete plans. At all. I've been saying this all along.
Should you need actual policy to become the president? Does it matter?
I'm actually not sure. Let's just say it's a lot easier to criticize SC2 for all it's faults and imbalances than actually design a better game.
What was Obama's detailed plan in '08? Hope and Change? What's his detailed plan now? Resurrect old bills that got voted down? How will that work?
Guess we can't vote for either then...
His detailed plan is right there on his website. It's amazing to me that some people have the never to put the Romney and Obama plans on equal footing when Obama's actually has the specifics that Romney refuses to include in his. And, by the way, your "old bills that got voted down" argument got completely debunked in this very thread when it was explained to you that the bills submitted by Republicans were in reality not Obama's plan at all.
According to the TPC, even with the assumptions they used as to what is on the table and off the table, there's more than enough loopholes to pay for the rate reductions. The TPC analysis specified that
in order to offset $360 billion in cuts, one must eliminate 65 percent of all of the available $551 billion in tax expenditures.
There's plenty of money out there to make it work - it just needs to be structured in a way that doesn't benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class.
Where on Obama's website is his detailed plan? Can you send me a link?
Keep reading until the next paragraph:
The key intuition behind our central result is that, because the total value of the available tax expenditures (once tax expenditures for capital income are excluded) going to high-income taxpayers is smaller than the tax cuts that would accrue to high-income taxpayers, high-income taxpayers must necessarily face a lower net tax burden. As a result, maintaining revenue neutrality mathematically necessitates a shift in the tax burden of at least $86 billion away from high-income taxpayers onto lower- and middle-income taxpayers. This is true even under the assumption that the maximum amount of revenue possible is obtained from cutting tax expenditures for high-income households.
Regarding the 2013 budget and its section on taxes: link.
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote: Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms
"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"
"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"
and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.
You say what you need to to get elected.
All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.
People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.
The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.
Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.
Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.
People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.
Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.
It's unimportant that a small select few control the vast majority of the wealth? I'm pretty sure that is important to everyone, rich and poor alike.
It's unimportant what % of total wealth in the world you control, what's important is that the total value of that wealth is growing.
To put it in simple terms, would you rather have $1 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $10 (you own 10% of all the wealth in the entire world)
Or would you rather have $5 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $100 (you now own 5% of the wealth in the entire world)
Poor is a make believe RELATIVE term.
A guy making 20K in the US is considered poor. He has a higher standard of living than 99.99% of people in human history ever has. THAT is what is important.
He has more utility wealth at his disposable than most emperors and kings in history did.
To use a classic analogy, stop worrying about how the pie is divided and start worrying about making a bigger pie. What's important is not the ratio of your pie slice to everyone else's, what's important is that if things run properly EVERYONE GETS MORE PIE.
Why not use any contemporary analogies? Is the existence social democracy some massive conspiracy and actually Europe doesn't exist at all or something? Besides, median real wages in the U.S. have remained stagnant for decades, while the richer have got richer. Productivity has increased, as have profits, but wages have not. There IS more pie, and ALL of the excess is going to the rich. The rich are taking the whole pie.
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote: Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms
"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"
"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"
and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.
You say what you need to to get elected.
All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.
People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.
The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.
Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.
Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.
People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.
Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.
It's unimportant that a small select few control the vast majority of the wealth? I'm pretty sure that is important to everyone, rich and poor alike.
It's unimportant what % of total wealth in the world you control, what's important is that the total value of that wealth is growing.
To put it in simple terms, would you rather have $1 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $10 (you own 10% of all the wealth in the entire world)
Or would you rather have $5 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $100 (you now own 5% of the wealth in the entire world)
Poor is a make believe RELATIVE term.
A guy making 20K in the US is considered poor. He has a higher standard of living than 99.99% of people in human history ever has. THAT is what is important.
He has more utility wealth at his disposable than most emperors and kings in history did.
To use a classic analogy, stop worrying about how the pie is divided and start worrying about making a bigger pie. What's important is not the ratio of your pie slice to everyone else's, what's important is that if things run properly EVERYONE GETS MORE PIE.
Why not use any contemporary analogies? Is the existence social democracy some massive conspiracy and actually Europe doesn't exist at all or something? Besides, median real wages in the U.S. have remained stagnant for decades, while the richer have got richer. Productivity has increased, as have profits, but wages have not. There IS more pie, and ALL of the excess is going to the rich. The rich are taking the whole pie.
The most productive people get the biggest piece of the pie.
On October 05 2012 07:13 Silidons wrote: Did anyone see this from ReasonTV? Just saw it on TheYoungTurks, as a rebuttal to the video from Samuel L Jackson. Brilliant video... (Warning: NSFW - Language) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhV9aZOqmz8
I think blacks are starting to wake up check out this new ad for Romney not everyone is fooled by Samuel L Jackson and blind celebrities.
On October 05 2012 03:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Your point about reducing marginal rates is irrelevant. If you reduce taxes on the rich by $1 and raise taxes by $1 you have not given them a tax cut. I don't know why this is hard math for you.
Prove that it doesn't add up please. I'd love to see your math
I also love how you dismiss its effect because you only know how to look at the economy in the short-run aggregate.
Where's that $1 going to come from? How is Romney going to make up that loss revenue from his tax cut? What loopholes is he going to close?
It's a hopeless question. You will never answer it, because Romney has no answer.
Why should I have to prove anything. It's Romney's plan, so the burden of proof is on him (or you, since you support it). Luckily, the TPC has already done the math for him and said that it's mathematically impossible.
Nope, just put more on the table than the TPC has assumed or reduce the reduction in the marginal rates.
EZPZ
The TPC already puts everything viable on the table, except those which Romney ruled out. If you cut less than 20%, then that just goes to show that Romney's plan is mathematically impossible, and that he hasn't thought this through. Of course, there's no doubt that he hasn't thought this through since he keeps talking about loophole closing the the abstract but refuses to give a single loophole he would close.
You say that I'm dismissing the long run effect of the Romney tax plan, and that I've only looked at the short run. But the depressed economy is a short run problem. It makes no sense that the way to get out of a recession is to simplify the tax code. What if we've simplified everything to a flat 15% tax on everything and everyone, and have another recession. What then is the solution? How can we simplify further? And what about the long run? Where's the evidence that this is good in the long run, and where's the evidence that what's good in the long run is good in fixing the short run? In the short run, there is no debt problem, but in the long run there is. So how is it a good idea to give a tax cut which almost certainly cannot be paid for in the long run? In the long run, there needs to be a tax increase.
No, we've been over this. The TPC took off the table what they assumed Romney ruled out. Romney has since stated that he's very willing to eliminate deductions for higher earners. And there's plenty room to lower rates while closing loopholes. That's what Simpson-Bowles wanted to do - reduce the highest tax rates to 29% or less - right in line with what Romney wants.
Romney's tax plan can be read on his website. Unless Romney makes changes to it, the TPC's analysis was perfectly valid - one of its two promises has to be broken for the other one to hold.
OK, if that's the way it works out then give his play a few tweaks. 20% is too much? Knock it down to 19%. Can't get a particular deduction removed? Knock it down a bit more.
I'm pretty sure 20% was chosen for its nice roundness - not because it is exactly the best number to use.
Yes, I'm sure we'll only have to knock it down by "a bit". The bottom line is that his plan, as it has been published, can't work for both of its core promises.
On October 05 2012 06:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 05 2012 06:21 Defacer wrote:
On October 05 2012 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 05 2012 05:07 kwizach wrote:
On October 05 2012 04:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 05 2012 03:55 paralleluniverse wrote:
On October 05 2012 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Nope, just put more on the table than the TPC has assumed or reduce the reduction in the marginal rates.
EZPZ
The TPC already puts everything viable on the table, except those which Romney ruled out. If you cut less than 20%, then that just goes to show that Romney's plan is mathematically impossible, and that he hasn't thought this through. Of course, there's no doubt that he hasn't thought this through since he keeps talking about loophole closing the the abstract but refuses to give a single loophole he would close.
You say that I'm dismissing the long run effect of the Romney tax plan, and that I've only looked at the short run. But the depressed economy is a short run problem. It makes no sense that the way to get out of a recession is to simplify the tax code. What if we've simplified everything to a flat 15% tax on everything and everyone, and have another recession. What then is the solution? How can we simplify further? And what about the long run? Where's the evidence that this is good in the long run, and where's the evidence that what's good in the long run is good in fixing the short run? In the short run, there is no debt problem, but in the long run there is. So how is it a good idea to give a tax cut which almost certainly cannot be paid for in the long run? In the long run, there needs to be a tax increase.
No, we've been over this. The TPC took off the table what they assumed Romney ruled out. Romney has since stated that he's very willing to eliminate deductions for higher earners. And there's plenty room to lower rates while closing loopholes. That's what Simpson-Bowles wanted to do - reduce the highest tax rates to 29% or less - right in line with what Romney wants.
Romney's tax plan can be read on his website. Unless Romney makes changes to it, the TPC's analysis was perfectly valid - one of its two promises has to be broken for the other one to hold.
OK, if that's the way it works out then give his play a few tweaks. 20% is too much? Knock it down to 19%. Can't get a particular deduction removed? Knock it down a bit more.
I'm pretty sure 20% was chosen for its nice roundness - not because it is exactly the best number to use.
The guy has no concrete plans. At all. I've been saying this all along.
Should you need actual policy to become the president? Does it matter?
I'm actually not sure. Let's just say it's a lot easier to criticize SC2 for all it's faults and imbalances than actually design a better game.
What was Obama's detailed plan in '08? Hope and Change? What's his detailed plan now? Resurrect old bills that got voted down? How will that work?
Guess we can't vote for either then...
His detailed plan is right there on his website. It's amazing to me that some people have the never to put the Romney and Obama plans on equal footing when Obama's actually has the specifics that Romney refuses to include in his. And, by the way, your "old bills that got voted down" argument got completely debunked in this very thread when it was explained to you that the bills submitted by Republicans were in reality not Obama's plan at all.
According to the TPC, even with the assumptions they used as to what is on the table and off the table, there's more than enough loopholes to pay for the rate reductions. The TPC analysis specified that
in order to offset $360 billion in cuts, one must eliminate 65 percent of all of the available $551 billion in tax expenditures.
There's plenty of money out there to make it work - it just needs to be structured in a way that doesn't benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class.
Where on Obama's website is his detailed plan? Can you send me a link?
The key intuition behind our central result is that, because the total value of the available tax expenditures (once tax expenditures for capital income are excluded) going to high-income taxpayers is smaller than the tax cuts that would accrue to high-income taxpayers, high-income taxpayers must necessarily face a lower net tax burden. As a result, maintaining revenue neutrality mathematically necessitates a shift in the tax burden of at least $86 billion away from high-income taxpayers onto lower- and middle-income taxpayers. This is true even under the assumption that the maximum amount of revenue possible is obtained from cutting tax expenditures for high-income households.
Yeah, that's why I said it needs to be structured so that it doesn't unduly benefit the rich. You can do that so long as you don't overly restrict yourself as to what is on the table / off the table.
Regarding the 2013 budget and its section on taxes: link.
You are just going to forward me the 2013 budget? I'm not going to read a 256 page PDF. What's in it that is novel?
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote: Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms
"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"
"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"
and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.
You say what you need to to get elected.
All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.
People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.
The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.
Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.
Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.
People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.
Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.
It's unimportant that a small select few control the vast majority of the wealth? I'm pretty sure that is important to everyone, rich and poor alike.
It's unimportant what % of total wealth in the world you control, what's important is that the total value of that wealth is growing.
To put it in simple terms, would you rather have $1 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $10 (you own 10% of all the wealth in the entire world)
Or would you rather have $5 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $100 (you now own 5% of the wealth in the entire world)
Poor is a make believe RELATIVE term.
A guy making 20K in the US is considered poor. He has a higher standard of living than 99.99% of people in human history ever has. THAT is what is important.
He has more utility wealth at his disposable than most emperors and kings in history did.
To use a classic analogy, stop worrying about how the pie is divided and start worrying about making a bigger pie. What's important is not the ratio of your pie slice to everyone else's, what's important is that if things run properly EVERYONE GETS MORE PIE.
Why not use any contemporary analogies? Is the existence social democracy some massive conspiracy and actually Europe doesn't exist at all or something? Besides, median real wages in the U.S. have remained stagnant for decades, while the richer have got richer. Productivity has increased, as have profits, but wages have not. There IS more pie, and ALL of the excess is going to the rich. The rich are taking the whole pie.
The most productive people get the biggest piece of the pie.
Sorry, I've met way too many rich people to believe this.
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote: Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms
"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"
"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"
and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.
You say what you need to to get elected.
All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.
People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.
The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.
Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.
Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.
People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.
Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.
It's unimportant that a small select few control the vast majority of the wealth? I'm pretty sure that is important to everyone, rich and poor alike.
It's unimportant what % of total wealth in the world you control, what's important is that the total value of that wealth is growing.
To put it in simple terms, would you rather have $1 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $10 (you own 10% of all the wealth in the entire world)
Or would you rather have $5 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $100 (you now own 5% of the wealth in the entire world)
Poor is a make believe RELATIVE term.
A guy making 20K in the US is considered poor. He has a higher standard of living than 99.99% of people in human history ever has. THAT is what is important.
He has more utility wealth at his disposable than most emperors and kings in history did.
To use a classic analogy, stop worrying about how the pie is divided and start worrying about making a bigger pie. What's important is not the ratio of your pie slice to everyone else's, what's important is that if things run properly EVERYONE GETS MORE PIE.
Why not use any contemporary analogies? Is the existence social democracy some massive conspiracy and actually Europe doesn't exist at all or something? Besides, median real wages in the U.S. have remained stagnant for decades, while the richer have got richer. Productivity has increased, as have profits, but wages have not. There IS more pie, and ALL of the excess is going to the rich. The rich are taking the whole pie.
The most productive people get the biggest piece of the pie.
Sorry, I've met way too many rich people to believe this.
Agreed lol. It's hilarious to me that some people can actually say that with a straight face.
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote: Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms
"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"
"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"
and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.
You say what you need to to get elected.
All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.
People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.
The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.
Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.
Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.
People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.
Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.
It's unimportant that a small select few control the vast majority of the wealth? I'm pretty sure that is important to everyone, rich and poor alike.
It's unimportant what % of total wealth in the world you control, what's important is that the total value of that wealth is growing.
To put it in simple terms, would you rather have $1 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $10 (you own 10% of all the wealth in the entire world)
Or would you rather have $5 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $100 (you now own 5% of the wealth in the entire world)
Poor is a make believe RELATIVE term.
A guy making 20K in the US is considered poor. He has a higher standard of living than 99.99% of people in human history ever has. THAT is what is important.
He has more utility wealth at his disposable than most emperors and kings in history did.
To use a classic analogy, stop worrying about how the pie is divided and start worrying about making a bigger pie. What's important is not the ratio of your pie slice to everyone else's, what's important is that if things run properly EVERYONE GETS MORE PIE.
Why not use any contemporary analogies? Is the existence social democracy some massive conspiracy and actually Europe doesn't exist at all or something? Besides, median real wages in the U.S. have remained stagnant for decades, while the richer have got richer. Productivity has increased, as have profits, but wages have not. There IS more pie, and ALL of the excess is going to the rich. The rich are taking the whole pie.
The most productive people get the biggest piece of the pie.
An alternative would be to eschew all notions of fairness or deserts altogether, and simply decide that America should be a rich country that provides for all its citizens, rather than a poor country that only provides for some. Or more realistically something in the middle whereby the mega-fantastically wealthy deign to become merely super-fantastically wealthy so that everyone has a basic standard of living while the super-duper-ultra rich remain super-duper rich.
I don't think we can or should objectively decide who lives and who dies based on their moral worth whether it be based on their productivity or any other factor. But fortunately this is a question we shouldn't even have to ask in a country as developed as America. Unfortunately, people still ask it and we allow a ton of easily preventible death and suffering, because I guess Jesus hated poor people or something?
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote: Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms
"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"
"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"
and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.
You say what you need to to get elected.
All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.
People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.
The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.
Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.
Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.
People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.
Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.
It's unimportant that a small select few control the vast majority of the wealth? I'm pretty sure that is important to everyone, rich and poor alike.
It's unimportant what % of total wealth in the world you control, what's important is that the total value of that wealth is growing.
To put it in simple terms, would you rather have $1 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $10 (you own 10% of all the wealth in the entire world)
Or would you rather have $5 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $100 (you now own 5% of the wealth in the entire world)
Poor is a make believe RELATIVE term.
A guy making 20K in the US is considered poor. He has a higher standard of living than 99.99% of people in human history ever has. THAT is what is important.
He has more utility wealth at his disposable than most emperors and kings in history did.
To use a classic analogy, stop worrying about how the pie is divided and start worrying about making a bigger pie. What's important is not the ratio of your pie slice to everyone else's, what's important is that if things run properly EVERYONE GETS MORE PIE.
Why not use any contemporary analogies? Is the existence social democracy some massive conspiracy and actually Europe doesn't exist at all or something? Besides, median real wages in the U.S. have remained stagnant for decades, while the richer have got richer. Productivity has increased, as have profits, but wages have not. There IS more pie, and ALL of the excess is going to the rich. The rich are taking the whole pie.
The most productive people get the biggest piece of the pie.
There's a guy I know of, he works at a mcdonalds as a manager. I go there at 3pm after school wanting to get lunch and he's there. Having been out working til 3am, I go there to pick up a bit to eat(same day), and he's there(happened more than once). He's definitely a productive person, dude most likely works as hard or harder than everybody in this thread. Yet I don't think his slice of the pie reflects his productivity.
On October 05 2012 03:27 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] Where's that $1 going to come from? How is Romney going to make up that loss revenue from his tax cut? What loopholes is he going to close?
It's a hopeless question. You will never answer it, because Romney has no answer.
Why should I have to prove anything. It's Romney's plan, so the burden of proof is on him (or you, since you support it). Luckily, the TPC has already done the math for him and said that it's mathematically impossible.
Nope, just put more on the table than the TPC has assumed or reduce the reduction in the marginal rates.
EZPZ
The TPC already puts everything viable on the table, except those which Romney ruled out. If you cut less than 20%, then that just goes to show that Romney's plan is mathematically impossible, and that he hasn't thought this through. Of course, there's no doubt that he hasn't thought this through since he keeps talking about loophole closing the the abstract but refuses to give a single loophole he would close.
You say that I'm dismissing the long run effect of the Romney tax plan, and that I've only looked at the short run. But the depressed economy is a short run problem. It makes no sense that the way to get out of a recession is to simplify the tax code. What if we've simplified everything to a flat 15% tax on everything and everyone, and have another recession. What then is the solution? How can we simplify further? And what about the long run? Where's the evidence that this is good in the long run, and where's the evidence that what's good in the long run is good in fixing the short run? In the short run, there is no debt problem, but in the long run there is. So how is it a good idea to give a tax cut which almost certainly cannot be paid for in the long run? In the long run, there needs to be a tax increase.
No, we've been over this. The TPC took off the table what they assumed Romney ruled out. Romney has since stated that he's very willing to eliminate deductions for higher earners. And there's plenty room to lower rates while closing loopholes. That's what Simpson-Bowles wanted to do - reduce the highest tax rates to 29% or less - right in line with what Romney wants.
Romney's tax plan can be read on his website. Unless Romney makes changes to it, the TPC's analysis was perfectly valid - one of its two promises has to be broken for the other one to hold.
OK, if that's the way it works out then give his play a few tweaks. 20% is too much? Knock it down to 19%. Can't get a particular deduction removed? Knock it down a bit more.
I'm pretty sure 20% was chosen for its nice roundness - not because it is exactly the best number to use.
Yes, I'm sure we'll only have to knock it down by "a bit". The bottom line is that his plan, as it has been published, can't work for both of its core promises.
On October 05 2012 06:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 05 2012 06:21 Defacer wrote:
On October 05 2012 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 05 2012 05:07 kwizach wrote:
On October 05 2012 04:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 05 2012 03:55 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] The TPC already puts everything viable on the table, except those which Romney ruled out. If you cut less than 20%, then that just goes to show that Romney's plan is mathematically impossible, and that he hasn't thought this through. Of course, there's no doubt that he hasn't thought this through since he keeps talking about loophole closing the the abstract but refuses to give a single loophole he would close.
You say that I'm dismissing the long run effect of the Romney tax plan, and that I've only looked at the short run. But the depressed economy is a short run problem. It makes no sense that the way to get out of a recession is to simplify the tax code. What if we've simplified everything to a flat 15% tax on everything and everyone, and have another recession. What then is the solution? How can we simplify further? And what about the long run? Where's the evidence that this is good in the long run, and where's the evidence that what's good in the long run is good in fixing the short run? In the short run, there is no debt problem, but in the long run there is. So how is it a good idea to give a tax cut which almost certainly cannot be paid for in the long run? In the long run, there needs to be a tax increase.
No, we've been over this. The TPC took off the table what they assumed Romney ruled out. Romney has since stated that he's very willing to eliminate deductions for higher earners. And there's plenty room to lower rates while closing loopholes. That's what Simpson-Bowles wanted to do - reduce the highest tax rates to 29% or less - right in line with what Romney wants.
Romney's tax plan can be read on his website. Unless Romney makes changes to it, the TPC's analysis was perfectly valid - one of its two promises has to be broken for the other one to hold.
OK, if that's the way it works out then give his play a few tweaks. 20% is too much? Knock it down to 19%. Can't get a particular deduction removed? Knock it down a bit more.
I'm pretty sure 20% was chosen for its nice roundness - not because it is exactly the best number to use.
The guy has no concrete plans. At all. I've been saying this all along.
Should you need actual policy to become the president? Does it matter?
I'm actually not sure. Let's just say it's a lot easier to criticize SC2 for all it's faults and imbalances than actually design a better game.
What was Obama's detailed plan in '08? Hope and Change? What's his detailed plan now? Resurrect old bills that got voted down? How will that work?
Guess we can't vote for either then...
His detailed plan is right there on his website. It's amazing to me that some people have the never to put the Romney and Obama plans on equal footing when Obama's actually has the specifics that Romney refuses to include in his. And, by the way, your "old bills that got voted down" argument got completely debunked in this very thread when it was explained to you that the bills submitted by Republicans were in reality not Obama's plan at all.
According to the TPC, even with the assumptions they used as to what is on the table and off the table, there's more than enough loopholes to pay for the rate reductions. The TPC analysis specified that
in order to offset $360 billion in cuts, one must eliminate 65 percent of all of the available $551 billion in tax expenditures.
There's plenty of money out there to make it work - it just needs to be structured in a way that doesn't benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class.
Where on Obama's website is his detailed plan? Can you send me a link?
Keep reading until the next paragraph:
The key intuition behind our central result is that, because the total value of the available tax expenditures (once tax expenditures for capital income are excluded) going to high-income taxpayers is smaller than the tax cuts that would accrue to high-income taxpayers, high-income taxpayers must necessarily face a lower net tax burden. As a result, maintaining revenue neutrality mathematically necessitates a shift in the tax burden of at least $86 billion away from high-income taxpayers onto lower- and middle-income taxpayers. This is true even under the assumption that the maximum amount of revenue possible is obtained from cutting tax expenditures for high-income households.
Yeah, that's why I said it needs to be structured so that it doesn't unduly benefit the rich. You can do that so long as you don't overly restrict yourself as to what is on the table / off the table.
You can't do that based on Romney's plan as it has been/is being presented.
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote: Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms
"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"
"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"
and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.
You say what you need to to get elected.
All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.
People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.
The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.
Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.
Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.
People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.
Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.
It's unimportant that a small select few control the vast majority of the wealth? I'm pretty sure that is important to everyone, rich and poor alike.
It's unimportant what % of total wealth in the world you control, what's important is that the total value of that wealth is growing.
To put it in simple terms, would you rather have $1 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $10 (you own 10% of all the wealth in the entire world)
Or would you rather have $5 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $100 (you now own 5% of the wealth in the entire world)
Poor is a make believe RELATIVE term.
A guy making 20K in the US is considered poor. He has a higher standard of living than 99.99% of people in human history ever has. THAT is what is important.
He has more utility wealth at his disposable than most emperors and kings in history did.
To use a classic analogy, stop worrying about how the pie is divided and start worrying about making a bigger pie. What's important is not the ratio of your pie slice to everyone else's, what's important is that if things run properly EVERYONE GETS MORE PIE.
Why not use any contemporary analogies? Is the existence social democracy some massive conspiracy and actually Europe doesn't exist at all or something? Besides, median real wages in the U.S. have remained stagnant for decades, while the richer have got richer. Productivity has increased, as have profits, but wages have not. There IS more pie, and ALL of the excess is going to the rich. The rich are taking the whole pie.
The most productive people get the biggest piece of the pie.
That is actually more of a Socialist/Communist ideal than a Capitalist one.
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote: Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms
"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"
"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"
and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.
You say what you need to to get elected.
All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.
People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.
The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.
Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.
Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.
People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.
Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.
It's unimportant that a small select few control the vast majority of the wealth? I'm pretty sure that is important to everyone, rich and poor alike.
It's unimportant what % of total wealth in the world you control, what's important is that the total value of that wealth is growing.
To put it in simple terms, would you rather have $1 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $10 (you own 10% of all the wealth in the entire world)
Or would you rather have $5 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $100 (you now own 5% of the wealth in the entire world)
Poor is a make believe RELATIVE term.
A guy making 20K in the US is considered poor. He has a higher standard of living than 99.99% of people in human history ever has. THAT is what is important.
He has more utility wealth at his disposable than most emperors and kings in history did.
To use a classic analogy, stop worrying about how the pie is divided and start worrying about making a bigger pie. What's important is not the ratio of your pie slice to everyone else's, what's important is that if things run properly EVERYONE GETS MORE PIE.
Why not use any contemporary analogies? Is the existence social democracy some massive conspiracy and actually Europe doesn't exist at all or something? Besides, median real wages in the U.S. have remained stagnant for decades, while the richer have got richer. Productivity has increased, as have profits, but wages have not. There IS more pie, and ALL of the excess is going to the rich. The rich are taking the whole pie.
The most productive people get the biggest piece of the pie.
That is actually more of a Socialist/Communist ideal than a Capitalist one.
On October 05 2012 07:13 Silidons wrote: Did anyone see this from ReasonTV? Just saw it on TheYoungTurks, as a rebuttal to the video from Samuel L Jackson. Brilliant video... (Warning: NSFW - Language) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhV9aZOqmz8
I think blacks are starting to wake up check out this new ad for Romney not everyone is fooled by Samuel L Jackson and blind celebrities.
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote: Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms
"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"
"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"
and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.
You say what you need to to get elected.
All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.
People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.
The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.
Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.
Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.
People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.
Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.
It's unimportant that a small select few control the vast majority of the wealth? I'm pretty sure that is important to everyone, rich and poor alike.
It's unimportant what % of total wealth in the world you control, what's important is that the total value of that wealth is growing.
To put it in simple terms, would you rather have $1 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $10 (you own 10% of all the wealth in the entire world)
Or would you rather have $5 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $100 (you now own 5% of the wealth in the entire world)
Poor is a make believe RELATIVE term.
A guy making 20K in the US is considered poor. He has a higher standard of living than 99.99% of people in human history ever has. THAT is what is important.
He has more utility wealth at his disposable than most emperors and kings in history did.
To use a classic analogy, stop worrying about how the pie is divided and start worrying about making a bigger pie. What's important is not the ratio of your pie slice to everyone else's, what's important is that if things run properly EVERYONE GETS MORE PIE.
Why not use any contemporary analogies? Is the existence social democracy some massive conspiracy and actually Europe doesn't exist at all or something? Besides, median real wages in the U.S. have remained stagnant for decades, while the richer have got richer. Productivity has increased, as have profits, but wages have not. There IS more pie, and ALL of the excess is going to the rich. The rich are taking the whole pie.
The most productive people get the biggest piece of the pie.
That is actually more of a Socialist/Communist ideal than a Capitalist one.
On October 05 2012 03:27 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] Where's that $1 going to come from? How is Romney going to make up that loss revenue from his tax cut? What loopholes is he going to close?
It's a hopeless question. You will never answer it, because Romney has no answer.
Why should I have to prove anything. It's Romney's plan, so the burden of proof is on him (or you, since you support it). Luckily, the TPC has already done the math for him and said that it's mathematically impossible.
Nope, just put more on the table than the TPC has assumed or reduce the reduction in the marginal rates.
EZPZ
The TPC already puts everything viable on the table, except those which Romney ruled out. If you cut less than 20%, then that just goes to show that Romney's plan is mathematically impossible, and that he hasn't thought this through. Of course, there's no doubt that he hasn't thought this through since he keeps talking about loophole closing the the abstract but refuses to give a single loophole he would close.
You say that I'm dismissing the long run effect of the Romney tax plan, and that I've only looked at the short run. But the depressed economy is a short run problem. It makes no sense that the way to get out of a recession is to simplify the tax code. What if we've simplified everything to a flat 15% tax on everything and everyone, and have another recession. What then is the solution? How can we simplify further? And what about the long run? Where's the evidence that this is good in the long run, and where's the evidence that what's good in the long run is good in fixing the short run? In the short run, there is no debt problem, but in the long run there is. So how is it a good idea to give a tax cut which almost certainly cannot be paid for in the long run? In the long run, there needs to be a tax increase.
No, we've been over this. The TPC took off the table what they assumed Romney ruled out. Romney has since stated that he's very willing to eliminate deductions for higher earners. And there's plenty room to lower rates while closing loopholes. That's what Simpson-Bowles wanted to do - reduce the highest tax rates to 29% or less - right in line with what Romney wants.
Romney's tax plan can be read on his website. Unless Romney makes changes to it, the TPC's analysis was perfectly valid - one of its two promises has to be broken for the other one to hold.
OK, if that's the way it works out then give his play a few tweaks. 20% is too much? Knock it down to 19%. Can't get a particular deduction removed? Knock it down a bit more.
I'm pretty sure 20% was chosen for its nice roundness - not because it is exactly the best number to use.
Yes, I'm sure we'll only have to knock it down by "a bit". The bottom line is that his plan, as it has been published, can't work for both of its core promises.
On October 05 2012 06:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 05 2012 06:21 Defacer wrote:
On October 05 2012 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 05 2012 05:07 kwizach wrote:
On October 05 2012 04:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 05 2012 03:55 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] The TPC already puts everything viable on the table, except those which Romney ruled out. If you cut less than 20%, then that just goes to show that Romney's plan is mathematically impossible, and that he hasn't thought this through. Of course, there's no doubt that he hasn't thought this through since he keeps talking about loophole closing the the abstract but refuses to give a single loophole he would close.
You say that I'm dismissing the long run effect of the Romney tax plan, and that I've only looked at the short run. But the depressed economy is a short run problem. It makes no sense that the way to get out of a recession is to simplify the tax code. What if we've simplified everything to a flat 15% tax on everything and everyone, and have another recession. What then is the solution? How can we simplify further? And what about the long run? Where's the evidence that this is good in the long run, and where's the evidence that what's good in the long run is good in fixing the short run? In the short run, there is no debt problem, but in the long run there is. So how is it a good idea to give a tax cut which almost certainly cannot be paid for in the long run? In the long run, there needs to be a tax increase.
No, we've been over this. The TPC took off the table what they assumed Romney ruled out. Romney has since stated that he's very willing to eliminate deductions for higher earners. And there's plenty room to lower rates while closing loopholes. That's what Simpson-Bowles wanted to do - reduce the highest tax rates to 29% or less - right in line with what Romney wants.
Romney's tax plan can be read on his website. Unless Romney makes changes to it, the TPC's analysis was perfectly valid - one of its two promises has to be broken for the other one to hold.
OK, if that's the way it works out then give his play a few tweaks. 20% is too much? Knock it down to 19%. Can't get a particular deduction removed? Knock it down a bit more.
I'm pretty sure 20% was chosen for its nice roundness - not because it is exactly the best number to use.
The guy has no concrete plans. At all. I've been saying this all along.
Should you need actual policy to become the president? Does it matter?
I'm actually not sure. Let's just say it's a lot easier to criticize SC2 for all it's faults and imbalances than actually design a better game.
What was Obama's detailed plan in '08? Hope and Change? What's his detailed plan now? Resurrect old bills that got voted down? How will that work?
Guess we can't vote for either then...
His detailed plan is right there on his website. It's amazing to me that some people have the never to put the Romney and Obama plans on equal footing when Obama's actually has the specifics that Romney refuses to include in his. And, by the way, your "old bills that got voted down" argument got completely debunked in this very thread when it was explained to you that the bills submitted by Republicans were in reality not Obama's plan at all.
According to the TPC, even with the assumptions they used as to what is on the table and off the table, there's more than enough loopholes to pay for the rate reductions. The TPC analysis specified that
in order to offset $360 billion in cuts, one must eliminate 65 percent of all of the available $551 billion in tax expenditures.
There's plenty of money out there to make it work - it just needs to be structured in a way that doesn't benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class.
Where on Obama's website is his detailed plan? Can you send me a link?
Keep reading until the next paragraph:
The key intuition behind our central result is that, because the total value of the available tax expenditures (once tax expenditures for capital income are excluded) going to high-income taxpayers is smaller than the tax cuts that would accrue to high-income taxpayers, high-income taxpayers must necessarily face a lower net tax burden. As a result, maintaining revenue neutrality mathematically necessitates a shift in the tax burden of at least $86 billion away from high-income taxpayers onto lower- and middle-income taxpayers. This is true even under the assumption that the maximum amount of revenue possible is obtained from cutting tax expenditures for high-income households.
Yeah, that's why I said it needs to be structured so that it doesn't unduly benefit the rich. You can do that so long as you don't overly restrict yourself as to what is on the table / off the table.
You are just going to forward me the 2013 budget? I'm not going to read a 256 page PDF. What's in it that is novel?
where does your confidence for this come from? you don't think romney wants to structure it to "unduly benefit the rich"?
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote: Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms
"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"
"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"
and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.
You say what you need to to get elected.
All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.
People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.
The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.
Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.
Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.
People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.
Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.
It's unimportant that a small select few control the vast majority of the wealth? I'm pretty sure that is important to everyone, rich and poor alike.
It's unimportant what % of total wealth in the world you control, what's important is that the total value of that wealth is growing.
To put it in simple terms, would you rather have $1 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $10 (you own 10% of all the wealth in the entire world)
Or would you rather have $5 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $100 (you now own 5% of the wealth in the entire world)
Poor is a make believe RELATIVE term.
A guy making 20K in the US is considered poor. He has a higher standard of living than 99.99% of people in human history ever has. THAT is what is important.
He has more utility wealth at his disposable than most emperors and kings in history did.
To use a classic analogy, stop worrying about how the pie is divided and start worrying about making a bigger pie. What's important is not the ratio of your pie slice to everyone else's, what's important is that if things run properly EVERYONE GETS MORE PIE.
Why not use any contemporary analogies? Is the existence social democracy some massive conspiracy and actually Europe doesn't exist at all or something? Besides, median real wages in the U.S. have remained stagnant for decades, while the richer have got richer. Productivity has increased, as have profits, but wages have not. There IS more pie, and ALL of the excess is going to the rich. The rich are taking the whole pie.
The most productive people get the biggest piece of the pie.
That is actually more of a Socialist/Communist ideal than a Capitalist one.
How do you figure?
labor product = worker wage.
His idea of communism probably involves equal redistribution of all wealth
EPT
