PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Unless you are a millionaire, Romney plans on raising your taxes


Mr. Laz
09-20-2012, 11:08 AM
"The study was conducted by researchers at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute ....


What would that mean for the average tax bill? Millionaires would get an $87,000 tax cut, the study says. But for 95 percent of the population, taxes would go up by about 1.2 percent, an average of $500 a year."

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf


http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/study-romney-tax-plan-would-result-in-cuts-for-rich-higher-burden-for-others/2012/08/01/gJQAbeCCOX_story.html

Swanman
09-20-2012, 11:09 AM
"The study was conducted by researchers at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute ....


What would that mean for the average tax bill? Millionaires would get an $87,000 tax cut, the study says. But for 95 percent of the population, taxes would go up by about 1.2 percent, an average of $500 a year."

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf


http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/study-romney-tax-plan-would-result-in-cuts-for-rich-higher-burden-for-others/2012/08/01/gJQAbeCCOX_story.html


It's redistribution in another direction.

patteeu
09-20-2012, 11:18 AM
Repost. Analysis is based on some imaginary tax plan that has never been endorsed by Romney.

patteeu
09-20-2012, 11:21 AM
It's redistribution in another direction.

Even if this thread were based on something real, your post would be untrue. Redistribution shouldn't be measured from the status quo. It ought to be measured from a baseline of everyone paying an equal share of the cost of government. Of of everyone paying an equal share of the cost of government after all transfer payments (both corporate and individual welfare) are eliminated.

BigCatDaddy
09-20-2012, 11:35 AM
I'd be fine with everyone getting a tax raise and some restraints on Govt spending.

Mr. Laz
09-24-2012, 06:52 PM
<header class="entry-header" style="display: block; margin: 0px auto; width: 610px; font-size: 1.3em; font-family: arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 17px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 300; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">Mitt Romney admits he’ll need to raise taxes on the middle class

Posted by Ezra Klein (http://www.washingtonpost.com/2011/02/24/ABifXwI_page.html) on September 24, 2012 at 8:59 am
</header>
On “60 Minutes (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57518495/campaign-2012-obama-vs-romney/?tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel)” last night, Mitt Romney said it again. “I want to keep the current progressivity in the code. There should be no tax reduction for high income people.”
You’ve heard Romney say this — or some variant of it –dozens of times before. What’s changed since then is that Romney has admitted that his tax cuts, if they’re not going to add to the deficit, will have to increase taxes on people he defines as middle income and cut them on people he defines as high income.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/08/romney-whiteboard.jpeg (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/08/romney-whiteboard.jpeg)Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Evan Vucci/AP

Before we get to that admission, a quick refresher. Romney’s tax plan proposes to cut tax rates by 20 percent. That would cost trillions of dollars, and mean a particularly big tax cut for the rich.

But Romney promises his tax cut won’t cost anything, won’t raise taxes on the middle class, won’t cut taxes on the rich, and won’t end the tax breaks for savings and investment.

The Tax Policy Center, the gold standard in nonpartisan tax wonkery, looked at the tax cut and these promises and declared the proposal “not mathematically possible (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-02/romney-tax-plan-on-table-debt-collapses-table-.html).” Since Romney doesn’t want to touch tax breaks for savings and investment like the capital gains cut — a position he reiterated last night on “60 Minutes” — there just isn’t enough money in the remaining tax breaks for people making over $250,000 to pay for their tax cuts.

For awhile, the Romney campaign had no answer to this. They just said they didn’t believe the Tax Policy Center — called it biased, even though it’s run by one of George W. Bush’s top economists.

Then, slowly, right-leaning economists and outlets began releasing their own studies showing that, if you made some really, really questionable assumptions, you could kinda sorta make Romney’s math look like it might add up. And so you might have heard Romney say this to David Gregory on “Meet the Press”:The good news is that five different economic studies, including one at Harvard and Princeton and AEI and a couple at The Wall Street Journal all show that if we bring down our top rates and actually go across the board, bring down rates for everyone in America, but also limit deductions and exemptions for people at the high end, while you can keep the progressivity in the code, you could remain revenue neutral and you create an enormous incentive for growth in the economy.
The Harvard study was done by economist Martin Feldstein, and he makes a very important decision in his paper. He writes (http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2012/09/a-reply-from-martin-feldstein.html), “I think it is very reasonable to say that people in that high-income group” — by which means people making over $100,000 — “are not the ‘middle class.’”

And so, under really, really unrealistic assumptions, he shows that the math can kind of work, but that Romney’s policies would mean a really big tax increase for people making between $100,000 and $250,000 in order to pay for a big tax cut on people making more than $250,000. But that’s okay, because people making over $100,000 are not in the middle class.

And Romney has been all over the place trumpeting this study, saying this study shows his math works out. But then ABC’s George Stephanopoulos caught him out:GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?
MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.
For the record, I’m actually with Feldstein on this one: I think it’s reasonable to say households making more than $100,000 are not middle income. But Romney disagrees with me, and with Feldstein.

So the study Romney is promoting — the one he says is the study you should be looking at — actually shows even under the most favorable assumptions possible, he’s going to have to raise taxes on the people he defines as the middle class. In saying that that study is credible, he has admitted he can’t make his tax promises add up. And yet he constantly, repeatedly says the opposite.

Romney has clearly calculated that there aren’t many people who read these analyses. If he just keeps saying his tax plan can cut taxes on the rich while cutting taxes on the middle class while not cutting taxes on the rich while not costing a dime, eventually, his version of this will come to be seen as the truth. And perhaps he’s right. But the numbers show what they show.

BigRedChief
09-24-2012, 06:58 PM
Repost. Analysis is based on some imaginary tax plan that has never been endorsed by Romney.It's not imaginary that he thinks his paying a 14% tax rate is fair. But everyone else has to pay 20%-30%+.

Mr. Flopnuts
09-24-2012, 07:14 PM
Even if this thread were based on something real, your post would be untrue. Redistribution shouldn't be measured from the status quo. It ought to be measured from a baseline of everyone paying an equal share of the cost of government. Of of everyone paying an equal share of the cost of government after all transfer payments (both corporate and individual welfare) are eliminated.

Absolutely. If you're born retarded into a poor family with no opportunity, you should pay the same in as a guy like Mitt Romney who was born into wealth. :thumb:

Brought to you by the mentality that's assuring 4 more years of Barrack Obama.

HonestChieffan
09-24-2012, 07:27 PM
It's not imaginary that he thinks his paying a 14% tax rate is fair. But everyone else has to pay 20%-30%+.

Everyone? Do you believe this sort of left wing tripe?

BigRedChief
09-24-2012, 07:32 PM
Everyone? Do you believe this sort of left wing tripe?Okay, so I exaggerated. Let's go with the "average" person pays a 20%-30% tax rate.

The "average" tax rate for someone making $50K is 20%. Is it fair for Mitt is pay a 14% tax rate when Joe smith has to pay 20%?

LiveSteam
09-24-2012, 07:37 PM
Absolutely. If you're born retarded into a poor family with no opportunity, you should pay the same in as a guy like Mitt Romney who was born into wealth. :thumb:

Brought to you by the mentality that's assuring 4 more years of Barrack Obama.

Mr no opportunity pays zero taxes, lives off of the system & smokes the finest weed around.

LiveSteam
09-24-2012, 07:38 PM
Mr no opportunity pays zero taxes, lives off of the system & smokes the finest weed around.

Mother fucker eats T-Bone steak 4 times a week to. :cuss:

J Diddy
09-24-2012, 07:41 PM
Mr no opportunity pays zero taxes, lives off of the system & smokes the finest weed around.

Sounds like you been hanging with Mr. no opportunity

LiveSteam
09-24-2012, 07:44 PM
Sounds like you been hanging with Mr. no opportunity

I have been thinking the same thing for almost 4 years now. God you are smart

HonestChieffan
09-24-2012, 07:47 PM
Okay, so I exaggerated. Let's go with the "average" person pays a 20%-30% tax rate.

The "average" tax rate for someone making $50K is 20%. Is it fair for Mitt is pay a 14% tax rate when Joe smith has to pay 20%?

Lets go with facts.

If my income is predominately dividends what is the current tax rate? And after standard deductions....well hey. Its the rate. 15%

You believe the average tax rate for one with 50 grand in gross income is 20% I believe you will find it is 15% and that is adjusted gross income...after standard deductions and such as home mortgage interest. This is for married filing jointly just as the Romneys would file.

Even a single filer would not reach over 28% till they make $178 and change...not 30%

So, try as you may, you are as full of shit as a Christmas Goose.

Standard deduction for MFJ is $11,900. Single Payer $5950.

J Diddy
09-24-2012, 07:48 PM
I have been thinking the same thing for almost 4 years now. God you are smart
[QUOTE]
Oh I see....
I see what you did...
Your funny man, funny, really good stuff, good good stuff

Seriously, though, you write your own stuff, because it's good stuff.[/Stewie Griffin]

chiefzilla1501
09-24-2012, 07:50 PM
It's not imaginary that he thinks his paying a 14% tax rate is fair. But everyone else has to pay 20%-30%+.

We don't really know what Mitt Romney paid, because who knows what he has stashed offshore. But if we're going with pure #'s, 14% isn't really 14%. 20% off claimed income was in the form of charitable contributions.

I don't see a problem with charitable contributions being deducted. If government is about public welfare, then 1/3 of his dollars was going for public good.

Again, this assumes that the $'s he claimed is actually the $'s he earned, which it likely is not.

LiveSteam
09-24-2012, 07:51 PM
[QUOTE]
Oh I see....
I see what you did...
Your funny man, funny, really good stuff, good good stuff

Seriously, though, you write your own stuff, because it's good stuff.[/Stewie Griffin]

You just came in last. But hay. Obama has a nice pretty ribbon for losers to.

AustinChief
09-24-2012, 07:58 PM
Okay, so I exaggerated. Let's go with the "average" person pays a 20%-30% tax rate.

The "average" tax rate for someone making $50K is 20%. Is it fair for Mitt is pay a 14% tax rate when Joe smith has to pay 20%?

Dude, I KNOW you are better at math than this. You are MUCH better as a matter of fact.

A married guy with two kids earning $50k taking all the deductions they can SHOULD end up with a tax rate between 12% and 14%... and that includes payroll taxes... which should NOT be included to make a fair comparison but whatever.

This doesn't include state taxes and such, but neither did Romney's.

BigRedChief
09-24-2012, 08:43 PM
Dude, I KNOW you are better at math than this. You are MUCH better as a matter of fact.

A married guy with two kids earning $50k taking all the deductions they can SHOULD end up with a tax rate between 12% and 14%... and that includes payroll taxes... which should NOT be included to make a fair comparison but whatever.

This doesn't include state taxes and such, but neither did Romney's.I just care enough I guess. Romneys tax rate is not a big deal to me. The inequity of the tax code is whats important to me. It's just not fair that millionaires/billionaires/mega corporations pay a lower tax rate than the average middle class family. And yes, I am generalizing and College algebra about killed me. Got a fucking C in theoritical physics so no, I suck at math.

HonestChieffan
09-24-2012, 09:21 PM
I just care enough I guess. Romneys tax rate is not a big deal to me. The inequity of the tax code is whats important to me. It's just not fair that millionaires/billionaires/mega corporations pay a lower tax rate than the average middle class family. And yes, I am generalizing and College algebra about killed me. Got a ****ing C in theoritical physics so no, I suck at math.

You have such a poor understanding of the tax code based on this thread, you may want to reconsider your feelings of how unfair it is.

AustinChief
09-24-2012, 09:26 PM
I just care enough I guess. Romneys tax rate is not a big deal to me. The inequity of the tax code is whats important to me. It's just not fair that millionaires/billionaires/mega corporations pay a lower tax rate than the average middle class family. And yes, I am generalizing and College algebra about killed me. Got a fucking C in theoritical physics so no, I suck at math.

Damn I thought you were a math guy. My bad.

I am a proponent of a true progressive tax code... but you have to weigh effects you will have on the overall economy. The fact is, NOW is the absolute wrong time to look at tax increases of ANY kind. Unfortunately, when the economy is going strong and the time is RIGHT for changes... the public will shout "NO NO everything is good, don't change anything!!!"

I have said this many times before. The answer that works will be one that creates a system where it makes more sense for the wealthy to pay taxes than to avoid them. They have to be low enough (not sure what that means exactly) and harder to get around (again being vague, I know) and the advantages to staying in America have to be tangible enough to keep people from simply taking their money and going to someplace with a friendlier tax code. Simply saying "It's not fair" doesn't solve anything even if it may be true.

And to be clear... most people with any money (let's say $50k+) pay about the same effective tax rate... 10-20% regardless of income. Please stop buying into the LIE that millionaires pay a lower effective rate (some do, some don't but most are pretty close). What you can be upset over is that our supposedly progressive tax code, no longer truly is at all.

No that doesn't mean we need a flat tax... unless it is combined with a consumption tax. The problem there is that once you add a NEW tax, you're eventually going to see both creep up until we are taxed to death.

Direckshun
09-24-2012, 09:29 PM
I am a proponent of a true progressive tax code... but you have to weigh effects you will have on the overall economy.

A surprising piece of moderation in a pretty thoughtful post by Austin Chief.

Well done, AC, though I do disagree with parts.

Comrade Crapski
09-24-2012, 10:48 PM
"The study was conducted by researchers at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute ....


What would that mean for the average tax bill? Millionaires would get an $87,000 tax cut, the study says. But for 95 percent of the population, taxes would go up by about 1.2 percent, an average of $500 a year."

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf


http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/study-romney-tax-plan-would-result-in-cuts-for-rich-higher-burden-for-others/2012/08/01/gJQAbeCCOX_story.html

:ZZZ:

Go ahead and run with it.

41 days and it's all over for moonbat messiah.

Comrade Crapski
09-24-2012, 10:50 PM
Repost. Analysis is based on some imaginary tax plan that has never been endorsed by Romney.

Obama spent $200 million dollars in September running attack ads talking about Bain Capital and what not.

For all that he's neck and neck with Romney in the polls.

If the moonbats wanna run with this for the next 40 days, let them.

:clap:

J Diddy
09-24-2012, 10:51 PM
Obama spent $200 million dollars in September running attack ads talking about Bain Capital and what not.

For all that he's neck and neck with Romney in the polls.

If the moonbats wanna run with this for the next 40 days, let them.

:clap:

I guess behind is neck and neck.

Comrade Crapski
09-24-2012, 10:52 PM
The fact is, NOW is the absolute wrong time to look at tax increases of ANY kind.

Now is not the right time for QE3 to infinity either, but hey, let's not get in the way of Barry's fundamental change forward to progressive utopia.

Comrade Crapski
09-24-2012, 10:53 PM
I guess behind is neck and neck.

You go on and keep believing the manipulated data.

41 days and Barry's reign of error is over. Thank God.

2bikemike
09-25-2012, 04:37 AM
Lets go with facts.

If my income is predominately dividends what is the current tax rate? And after standard deductions....well hey. Its the rate. 15%

You believe the average tax rate for one with 50 grand in gross income is 20% I believe you will find it is 15% and that is adjusted gross income...after standard deductions and such as home mortgage interest. This is for married filing jointly just as the Romneys would file.

Even a single filer would not reach over 28% till they make $178 and change...not 30%

So, try as you may, you are as full of shit as a Christmas Goose.

Standard deduction for MFJ is $11,900. Single Payer $5950.

This is why I never felt sorry for Buffets secretary, She is probably making a monster salary, Ole Warren ought to turn her on to his tax preparer or give her some financial advice. If she is paying considerably more than 15% she is doing something wrong.

patteeu
09-25-2012, 07:13 AM
It's not imaginary that he thinks his paying a 14% tax rate is fair. But everyone else has to pay 20%-30%+.

I know someone who is clueless about taxes and needs to go sit at the kiddie table when they are being discussed. Can someone get a really big chair over there at the kiddie table for our big friend here?

patteeu
09-25-2012, 07:18 AM
Absolutely. If you're born retarded into a poor family with no opportunity, you should pay the same in as a guy like Mitt Romney who was born into wealth. :thumb:

If you're born retarded into a poor family, chances are, you're going to end up on the receiving end of some redistributive program, but that doesn't change where the baseline should be for determining what counts as income redistribution.

BTW, was this an autobiographical example?

Baby Lee
09-25-2012, 07:38 AM
I just care enough I guess. Romneys tax rate is not a big deal to me. The inequity of the tax code is whats important to me. It's just not fair that millionaires/billionaires/mega corporations pay a lower tax rate than the average middle class family. And yes, I am generalizing and College algebra about killed me. Got a fucking C in theoritical physics so no, I suck at math.

'I don't understand what's going on, but what some people have alleged for partisan gain has upset me greatly.'


How can one beat up on a poster who's already beaten himself to a pulp unbidden?

Comrade Crapski
09-25-2012, 07:58 AM
Demagogues, Debt, and Atlas Shrugging

Obama’s pre-election story is that taxing the rich is the key to funding the government and reducing the debt. Even his greatly expanded government will be financed by the rich paying their fair share.

This story is for people who do not understand anything at all about current government spending and the staggering size of our debt. Obama’s story is for uninformed voters. The question is, do the uninformed represent a majority yet?

Lying about the revenue available from taxing “the rich” may get votes, but it won’t change reality. Do the math. There is not remotely, in your wildest dreams, enough money to cover the spending of this government with increased taxes on top earners. The math has been explained many places, including here, and here, and here.

Obama’s proposed ‘tax the rich’ plan will solve about 5% of our deficit problem. And that assumes that productive people will not change their behavior in response to higher taxes, an unlikely assumption. Mike Flynn has just written a good summary of the absurdity of the plan. Others have shown that even if you take all the income from the top 1%, you can only finance this bloated government for a few months. And then what? The golden geese will be dead. Where would you get eggs next year?

France is going to learn this lesson ahead of us. France just elected a Socialist President who rode the class envy train to power. He is promising to tax top earners at 75%. Socialists have the delusion that you can take most of the product of someone’s labor and the person will keep working just as hard. Reality has never worked that way and never will.

Now, France’s richest businessman, Bernard Arnault, is leaving the country. As Daniel Greenfield reports, This Atlas is Shrugging. Arnault, the head of Louis Vuitton, employs 100,000 people in France and around the world. Many other people of substance are fleeing France. The French “Liberation” newspaper reported Arnault’s departure with this headline: “Get lost, rich bastard!”

Yes, you golden geese, you get the hell out. And Liberation people, talk to me in a year or two about how your socialist delusion works out for you. I already know how it works out because this is an old movie with a tragic ending. Reality always bats last.


http://www.realitybatslast.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Forward1.jpg

Another aspect of overwhelming debt that is not discussed often enough is the close relationship between debt and national security. When Admiral Michael Mullen was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a reporter asked him to name the most significant threat to U.S. national security. His response was, “Our debt”.

On Monday, speaking to a panel of former members of Congress, Admiral Mullen elaborated on the dire implications of America’s fiscal path to our national security:


“A nation with our current levels of unsustainable debt, being this far out of fiscal balance, cannot hope to sustain for very long its superiority from a military perspective, or its influence in world affairs. That was not intended as a partisan statement then, and it has no partisan meaning now. I was using our growing and unsustainable debt as shorthand for the abundant disorder in our fiscal house, brought upon us, by ourselves, by our own doing. While much has been said since then, little has changed. In fact, I would argue that the mere passage of time, combined with a lack of solutions in the interim, has compounded the problem, as our debt increases seemingly exponentially, and solutions that require compromise seem a figment of the imagination.”

http://www.realitybatslast.com/2012/09/23/demagogues-debt-and-atlas-shrugging/

patteeu
09-25-2012, 08:04 AM
OK, the kiddie table isn't big enough for all of the Obama supporters who should be there during tax discussions, so I'm going to repost this graph to help bring the educable among you up to speed on effective tax rates.

http://www.econdataus.com/effind05.jpg

So, where do the quintile brackets begin and end in terms of income? Here are some numbers from the Tax Policy Center for household income:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/GIF/income_quintiles.gif

So for the household that has an income of $50K that has been mentioned in previous posts, they would be right on the average for the 3rd quintile. From the first graph, we can see that in 2005, the 3rd quintile paid an effective tax rate of LESS THAN 5%.

P.S. I realize that I'm comparing quintile data from 2009 to effective rate data from 2005, but the tax code hasn't changed dramatically during that period so I don't think the end result is much different.

FishingRod
09-25-2012, 10:00 AM
The problem that people just don’t seem to understand is that we have one tax code for everyone.

If a person makes more money, has a bigger mortgage, or more capital gains the dollar amount changes but the same rules apply. Yes the change in monies not paid to Uncle Sam were larger for people making $2,000,000 than they were for a family of 4 making 100 grand from the Bush Tax cuts but, in the difference made in the quality of life was in all likelihood much greater for the average guy.

The Same applies to the so called loopholes. The guys with the larger mortgage gets to write off more than the lesser one but in real help the little guy probably benefits more.

I would have no problem going to something like a flat tax, eliminating the deductions and making the tax code a paragraph instead of a set of encyclopedias but, most of us middleclass and poor folks really don’t want to pay more taxes just to get more from the rich guy too. We want them to pay even more and us to pay less.

BigRedChief
09-25-2012, 03:55 PM
I know someone who is clueless about taxes and needs to go sit at the kiddie table when they are being discussed. Can someone get a really big chair over there at the kiddie table for our big friend here?
http://rotflpictures.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/i-see-what-you-did-there-funny-picture-19229.jpg

BigRedChief
09-25-2012, 04:01 PM
OK, the kiddie table isn't big enough for all of the Obama supporters who should be there during tax discussions, so I'm going to repost this graph to help bring the educable among you up to speed on effective tax rates.

http://www.econdataus.com/effind05.jpg

So, where do the quintile brackets begin and end in terms of income? Here are some numbers from the Tax Policy Center for household income:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/GIF/income_quintiles.gif

So for the household that has an income of $50K that has been mentioned in previous posts, they would be right on the average for the 3rd quintile. From the first graph, we can see that in 2005, the 3rd quintile paid an effective tax rate of LESS THAN 5%.

P.S. I realize that I'm comparing quintile data from 2009 to effective rate data from 2005, but the tax code hasn't changed dramatically during that period so I don't think the end result is much different.http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aU__CQaKee4/TkpktnG3ZnI/AAAAAAAAnFc/4gs5gN8XX4c/s1600/1-funny.jpg

AustinChief
09-25-2012, 04:11 PM
So for the household that has an income of $50K that has been mentioned in previous posts, they would be right on the average for the 3rd quintile. From the first graph, we can see that in 2005, the 3rd quintile paid an effective tax rate of LESS THAN 5%

To be fair, you should add in all federal taxes, which would jump that 5% up to 12 or 13%. (assuming the $50k came from salary and not investment income)

VAChief
09-25-2012, 04:44 PM
To be fair, you should add in all federal taxes, which would jump that 5% up to 12 or 13%. (assuming the $50k came from salary and not investment income)

Rep for honesty...

The payroll taxes as a percentage of income are negligible for the wealthy. They can even pay 0 if they are living solely off of dividends. Not saying it is right or wrong, but it should be noted.

patteeu
09-25-2012, 05:20 PM
To be fair, you should add in all federal taxes, which would jump that 5% up to 12 or 13%. (assuming the $50k came from salary and not investment income)

That's not an apples and oranges comparison to Romney's 14% though. But I don't mind including the additional info.

Romney's effective rate for payroll taxes would be minuscule, but the amount he'll get back out of SS and Medicare will be minuscule compared to his income too, unlike the 50K household.

AustinChief
09-25-2012, 05:51 PM
That's not an apples and oranges comparison to Romney's 14% though. But I don't mind including the additional info.

Romney's effective rate for payroll taxes would be minuscule, but the amount he'll get back out of SS and Medicare will be minuscule compared to his income too, unlike the 50K household.

Exactly. I just wanted to add it in before someone started crying foul. The point being that even with the additional taxes (which in fact are supposed to be returned through SS, Medicare, etc) the rate is still lower or about the same.

HonestChieffan
09-25-2012, 06:37 PM
BRC cannot accept his ass was handed to him

Baby Lee
09-25-2012, 07:47 PM
BRC cannot accept his ass was handed to him

Looks to me that anger without comprehension makes him a sleepy old man.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aU__CQaKee4/TkpktnG3ZnI/AAAAAAAAnFc/4gs5gN8XX4c/s1600/1-funny.jpg

HonestChieffan
09-25-2012, 07:55 PM
Looks to me that anger without comprehension makes him a sleepy old man.

Foolish maybe. Bought into a pack of lies. Unwilling to look beyond the talking points. All probable but age is not relevant unless you mean he is showing to be a fool and is older than some.

I will accept he has been misled cause I dont think he is a fool or stupid. Like many Obots, they cannot accept that they have been scammed.

BigRedChief
09-25-2012, 08:03 PM
BRC cannot accept his ass was handed to himYou are not going to convince me that 14% is a fair tax rate for a millionaire. Your "facts" are not "facts" but opinions.

Defending millionaires tax breaks while telling our war heroes to go fuck themselves is no way to go through life,

patteeu
09-25-2012, 08:16 PM
You are not going to convince me that 14% is a fair tax rate for a millionaire. Your "facts" are not "facts" but opinions.

Defending millionaires tax breaks while telling our war heroes to go **** themselves is no way to go through life,

:facepalm: Good lord, stop digging already.

Mr. Kotter
09-26-2012, 07:57 AM
Effective income tax rates, by themsleves, are not nearly as telling as total tax burden as a percentage of income. The GOP's position is nothing more that an misleading and disingenuous attempt to demagogue the issue by the tea party faction of conservatism...on behalf of people who appear determined to destroy the middle class in this country, if it means they can increase their own share of the pie.

Direckshun
09-26-2012, 08:01 AM
Regardless if Romney actually wants to do this or not (because, let's face it, Romney is way too nebulous on this issue), raising taxes on everybody and lowering taxes on the wealthy is the official position of the Republican Party.

That's exactly what flat tax rates, the preferred tax system of the GOP, would effectively accomplish.

FishingRod
09-26-2012, 08:45 AM
"Effective income tax rates, by themsleves, are not nearly as telling as total tax burden"

Fixed it.

FishingRod
09-26-2012, 08:57 AM
Regardless if Romney actually wants to do this or not (because, let's face it, Romney is way too nebulous on this issue), raising taxes on everybody and lowering taxes on the wealthy is the official position of the Republican Party.

That's exactly what flat tax rates, the preferred tax system of the GOP, would effectively accomplish.

Would that not depend on what the rate is? Well I guess not for those paying 0% but if one were to exempt the first $20,000-70,000- (pick a number) Eliminate all deductions and then tax the rest at 5-15% (again pick a number) wouldn’t that be fair? I really do think all of us should contrubute something even it it is $100 but that is just because I think it is right not that it adds up to anything

Likewise if one wants to keep social security why not eliminate the cap where income above $105,000 is exempt but also raise the payouts accordingly. It would be essentially a free loan to the Government

Iowanian
09-26-2012, 09:15 AM
I think we should just tax the ever living shit out of overpaid government contractors.

Direckshun
09-26-2012, 10:04 AM
Would that not depend on what the rate is? Well I guess not for those paying 0% but if one were to exempt the first $20,000-70,000- (pick a number) Eliminate all deductions and then tax the rest at 5-15% (again pick a number) wouldn’t that be fair?

Depends on what fair means to you.

Some people think it's fair to ask the wealthy to pay more since they can, and still live comfortably and/or lavishly, while asking the poor to pay very low rates while they live in studio apartments.

patteeu
09-26-2012, 10:08 AM
Effective income tax rates, by themsleves, are not nearly as telling as total tax burden as a percentage of income. The GOP's position is nothing more that an misleading and disingenuous attempt to demagogue the issue by the tea party faction of conservatism...on behalf of people who appear determined to destroy the middle class in this country, if it means they can increase their own share of the pie.

As I already mentioned, the argument against that is that SS and Medicare were never intended to be welfare. While there is a degree of redistribution baked into the benefit formula for SS, you essentially get a benefit that corresponds with your contributions. People like Mitt Romney who pay a trivial percentage of their income into the system end up getting a trivial percentage of their income back out. People like you whose effective tax rate for SS is probably equal to the marginal rate end up getting a substantial percentage of your income back in benefits. To blur the distinction between payroll taxes and other federal taxes in an effort to say the rich aren't paying their fair share is to essentially consider SS and Medicare welfare just like Medicaid and food stamps.

patteeu
09-26-2012, 10:16 AM
Regardless if Romney actually wants to do this or not (because, let's face it, Romney is way too nebulous on this issue), raising taxes on everybody and lowering taxes on the wealthy is the official position of the Republican Party.

That's exactly what flat tax rates, the preferred tax system of the GOP, would effectively accomplish.

First of all, the GOP's standard bearer, Mitt Romney, is not in favor of a flat tax, much to my dismay.

A flatter, broader-based tax would be the best kind of tax for our economy and for raising revenue regardless of how the burden of the tax falls. So to the extent that you argue that it must be more progressive, you're arguing that your idea of fairness should trump sound economic and fiscal policy. (To some degree, since class envy is a popular emotion and since people like you stoke it, what's good for the economy and the government's fiscal health might lead to social unrest, so that has to be a consideration as well).

Given the political realities, any flat tax proposal from the GOP ALWAYS has a progressive element built into it to shield people from the tax up to the point that basic needs are taken care of essentially tax free. That said, again, Mitt Romney hasn't proposed a flat tax at all. He's proposed an across the board 20% reduction of rates (top rate goes to 28% or so, just like it was under Reagan, while the bottom rate goes down to 8%, far lower than it was under Reagan).

Direckshun
09-26-2012, 11:01 AM
First of all, the GOP's standard bearer, Mitt Romney, is not in favor of a flat tax, much to my dismay.

A flatter, broader-based tax would be the best kind of tax for our economy and for raising revenue regardless of how the burden of the tax falls. So to the extent that you argue that it must be more progressive, you're arguing that your idea of fairness should trump sound economic and fiscal policy. (To some degree, since class envy is a popular emotion and since people like you stoke it, what's good for the economy and the government's fiscal health might lead to social unrest, so that has to be a consideration as well).

Given the political realities, any flat tax proposal from the GOP ALWAYS has a progressive element built into it to shield people from the tax up to the point that basic needs are taken care of essentially tax free. That said, again, Mitt Romney hasn't proposed a flat tax at all. He's proposed an across the board 20% reduction of rates (top rate goes to 28% or so, just like it was under Reagan, while the bottom rate goes down to 8%, far lower than it was under Reagan).

My post was about the broader Republican Party, not Mitt Romney.

patteeu
09-26-2012, 11:18 AM
My post was about the broader Republican Party, not Mitt Romney.

I covered that too. I just want to prevent any confusion about how unrelated to the current campaign your post was.

FishingRod
09-26-2012, 12:13 PM
Depends on what fair means to you.

Some people think it's fair to ask the wealthy to pay more since they can, and still live comfortably and/or lavishly, while asking the poor to pay very low rates while they live in studio apartments.

“Fair”
like “more” Obviously “fair” being only opinion cannot be universally agreed on. Having said that, I think it unfair of the Government to ask the people to be forced to give more than 15% to Fund the Federal State and Local Governments. There are any number of ways to collect the monies but, a flat income or National sales tax or possibly a combination of the two could certainly work this out in a far simpler and easier to understand way than the convoluted manner that we do it now.

” More”
by any definition of the word with the sometimes exception of % of gross income is pretty straight forward. The rich do now and would continue to do so under pretty much any Tax system we could come up with pay many more dollars than the poor.

When it comes in deductions the devil is in the details. Pretty much all deductions (see ones I have) or loopholes (the other guy’s) trace their roots back to economic and social engineering with a large side order of buying votes mixed in.

“Fair” Part II-
I know that those with millions can certainly get by with a smaller percentage of their income than those with $5.00 left at the end of the week but, if a person never stands up for others being scapegoated there will be no one left when the crosshairs fall on oneself. When dealing with percentages one can (and many do constantly) argue the rich are paying a lesser percentage of their gross (Federally) than practically any other time. This is true just as it is also true they are also carrying a larger percentage of the tax burden(Federally) than ever before. This indicates the rest of us are contributing an even smaller percent than the good old days where we were all taxed at a higher rate.

My objection to raising taxes on the rich boils down to a couple of simple concepts of what I believe to be “fair” and at least one that is self centered. I just don’t buy the idea if Uncle Sam could just get a few more bucks out of the “other guy”, they would somehow magically absorb the power of fiscal responsibility. I find that a leap of faith that is not fair to expect from us. I also believe is not “fair” for so many to contribute nothing at all but keep coming back to the for more.
. Democracy is sometimes described as two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for supper and too often there seems to be truth in that but, I’m more fond of the idea that a sheep can be sheered over and over but, it can only be skinned once. Most of us feel we are out of layers of wool and if they skin that big sheep and eat it we are all that is left on the menu

vailpass
09-26-2012, 12:31 PM
Depends on what fair means to you.

Some people think it's fair to ask the wealthy to pay more since they can, and still live comfortably and/or lavishly, while asking the poor to pay very low rates while they live in studio apartments.

:LOL: Leech.

Direckshun
09-26-2012, 01:11 PM
“Fair”
like “more” Obviously “fair” being only opinion cannot be universally agreed on. Having said that, I think it unfair of the Government to ask the people to be forced to give more than 15% to Fund the Federal State and Local Governments. There are any number of ways to collect the monies but, a flat income or National sales tax or possibly a combination of the two could certainly work this out in a far simpler and easier to understand way than the convoluted manner that we do it now.

What research are you relying on to say that 15% across the board would cover everything?

” More”
by any definition of the word with the sometimes exception of % of gross income is pretty straight forward. The rich do now and would continue to do so under pretty much any Tax system we could come up with pay many more dollars than the poor.

Yeah, but I'm talking about percentages, not the mere dollar size being paid.

Hell, even truly regressive taxes would yeild the rich paying a higher dollar amount than the poor.

When it comes in deductions the devil is in the details. Pretty much all deductions (see ones I have) or loopholes (the other guy’s) trace their roots back to economic and social engineering with a large side order of buying votes mixed in.

Yup.

“Fair” Part II-
I know that those with millions can certainly get by with a smaller percentage of their income than those with $5.00 left at the end of the week but, if a person never stands up for others being scapegoated there will be no one left when the crosshairs fall on oneself.

All due respect, I have no idea what this means.

When dealing with percentages one can (and many do constantly) argue the rich are paying a lesser percentage of their gross (Federally) than practically any other time. This is true just as it is also true they are also carrying a larger percentage of the tax burden(Federally) than ever before. This indicates the rest of us are contributing an even smaller percent than the good old days where we were all taxed at a higher rate.

The rest of us are currently contributing less because the rest of us are hit by the recession. The wealthiest 1% have done just fine during the recession, and have scored record profits over the past two decades while their tax rates are at record lows.

Democracy is sometimes described as two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for supper and too often there seems to be truth in that but, I’m more fond of the idea that a sheep can be sheered over and over but, it can only be skinned once. Most of us feel we are out of layers of wool and if they skin that big sheep and eat it we are all that is left on the menu

I have no idea what this means.

CoMoChief
09-26-2012, 01:19 PM
The Fed govt has wanted to get rid of the middle class for a long time now.

FishingRod
09-26-2012, 02:46 PM
All due respect, I have no idea what this means.

All due respect, I have no idea what this means.

Both mean that if we stick it to the other guy just because we can, don’t be surprised when others do the same to you because they can.