US PoliGAF 2012 | The Romney VeepStakes: Waiting for Chris Christie to Sing…

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zzoram said:
Except Gingrich doesn't want capital gains to become taxed as income, he actually wants it to be untaxed.
Click to expand...

I dreamed that Romney got up on stage and said, 'People like me should not have to pay taxes, because that will encourage people to become millionaires and fuel the economy. It's like winning the lottery, but you're in control of your own destiny! Everyone can win the lottery! And you don't want to be taxed on your lottery jackpot do you!?'

And everyone clapped and roared with applause.

They wouldn't in real life, would they?
 
OuterWorldVoice said:
I dreamed that Romney got up on stage and said, 'People like me should not have to pay taxes, because that will encourage people to become millionaires and fuel the economy. It's like winning the lottery, but you're in control of your own destiny! Everyone can win the lottery! And you don't want to be taxed on your lottery jackpot do you!?'

And everyone clapped and roared with applause.

They wouldn't in real life, would they?
Click to expand...

The GOP audience would be roaring with applause.
 
sc0la said:
I am with gingrich though. End the capital gains tax...

If you earn any money, it is income, and should be taxed as income.
Click to expand...
Here, here.

sc0la said:
I understand and completely agree. But when the sentence is read it gives the impression he would slash rates beyond that baseline (like Gingrich).
Click to expand...
I'll do some more reading in the morning, it's possible the flash reports I read tonight were not entirely accurate or complete. I have yet to dive as deep into their tax proposals as I do in the general, so it's possible I was misinformed. I have been under the strong impression Mitt's plan would cut his own taxes steeply.

Right before I hit post, I did a little digging. Seems 'cutting in half' is an exaggeration. None the less, his plan cuts taxes for himself rather significantly.

For a family making more than $1,000,000 a year, the average tax bill would go down by about $145,000.
Click to expand...
For a family making twenty million a year, I imagine the cut is much steeper than $145k. Given that he also proposes to raise taxes on the lower brackets, I find that particularly revolting.
 
A27_StarWolf said:
The later is an if Iran gets a Nuclear Weapon scenario. Besides, chances are they would find a way to sneak it into the country, they wouldn't launch it.
The point is they aren't stable, they are violent, indirectly kill United States soldiers.

Not to mention it's logical to point out that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, other areas and countries around them will build, or get more nuclear weapons themselves out of fear, escalating things in the region.

Also none of this "mutually assured destruction". How is that a valid argument? That is some scary stuff.
Click to expand...
If Israel or Saudi Arabia gets nuked, people will instantly think it was Iran. Do you think people will seriously wonder if it was anyone else? There will be an invasion before an investigation.

However, I do not believe that Iran should get a nuclear weapon. But I do think that they should be allowed to pursue a civilian nuclear program. Considering that Iran has not broken any IAEA laws and has allowed their inspectors complete access to all their facilities, what makes you think that action should be taken against Iran? What line have they actually crossed?
 
Zzoram said:
Polls often use landline telephones. Many young people don't have landlines anymore, so they may be under counted in general polls that aren't looking specifically at young people.
Click to expand...

They also don't count houses that have more than two television sets.
 
Hopefully the next debate focuses more on policy and less on record bashing and petty arguments. I grow weary of these reality TV debates.

Whose fault is this, though? The candidates for letting the ankle biting consume them, or the moderators for bringing it up and allowing it to grab so much air time? Seems like the candidates can't risk looking weak by turning the other cheek, so it should be more up to the moderators to bitch slap them into talking policy.
 
 
Rentahamster said:
Hopefully the next debate focuses more on policy and less on record bashing and petty arguments. I grow weary of these reality TV debates.

Whose fault is this, though? The candidates for letting the ankle biting consume them, or the moderators for bringing it up and allowing it to grab so much air time? Seems like the candidates can't risk looking weak by turning the other cheek, so it should be more up to the moderators to bitch slap them into talking policy.
Click to expand...

The moderator (Brian Williams) got into the stupid early and pretty much encouraged it and let them talk about it as much as they wanted. Poorly moderated debate until the other people took over.

Romney released his tax returns so that stupid little controversy can go away.
It's a big ho hum so what. Nothing we didn't know. He makes a lot of money, gives a lot to Mormon charities and pays around 14-15 % effective rate as he had said.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us...rmat=&page=1&listingType=politics#articleFull
 
ToxicAdam said:
GALLUP: Newt and Mitt polling the same versus Obama


http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx
Click to expand...

But he can't win because Obama will crush him, am I right GAF?

I still think it would be a close race. That's scary. Gingrich is the type of guy whose first order of business would be to sign an executive order putting his face on Mt. Rushmore and then get to work trying to screw over the poor and minorities.

Even from December, that's too close.
 
Plinko said:
But he can't win because Obama will crush him, am I right GAF?

I still think it would be a close race. That's scary. Gingrich is the type of guy whose first order of business would be to sign an executive order putting his face on Mt. Rushmore and then get to work trying to screw over the poor and minorities.
Click to expand...

Yes obama would crush him
 
Zzoram said:
Except Gingrich doesn't want capital gains to become taxed as income, he actually wants it to be untaxed.
Click to expand...

I really hope this sort of thing doesn't get lost amidst the Romney criticisms. The conversation our nation needs to have should really about why we allow capital gains to be taxed in such a way that this can happen, and why the Republican party as a whole believes that should be lowered even further. We need to figure out what, if anything we gain from this, and where it's just richer people wanting to lower the taxes on richer people. And we should figure out why it's acceptable that the Republican party preaches about lowering the deficit and balanced budgets and yet policies that lead to this are a-ok or even praised. This isn't a Mitt Romney problem and question. It's a broader society question, and Romney will just happen to be a sort of poster child for it.
 
reilo said:
Oh I'm guessing I paid at least double in effective tax rate last year than Romney.
Click to expand...
Are you sure?

I figured my effective tax rate was much higher, but it was about inline with what Romney was paying. I'm not saying that its right that he's paying that rate, but in order for you to pay double that rate you must be doing something wrong or be making around $300,000 without owning a house or making any charitable donations.
 
Obama had the chance to make people like Romney pay more in taxes, but he extended the Bush Tax cuts (and kept capital gains taxes at historically low levels).

Now, he's going to campaign on how rich people like Romney need to pay more? Yea right. He will just roll over again when the time comes.
 
sc0la said:
Exactly. This is what I was getting at. Terrible proposal still, but let's call it as it is.
Click to expand...

Yup, agree.
ToxicAdam said:
Obama had the chance to make people like Romney pay more in taxes, but he extended the Bush Tax cuts (and kept capital gains taxes at historically low levels).

Now, he's going to campaign on how rich people like Romney need to pay more? Yea right. He will just roll over again when the time comes.
Click to expand...

Obama lost a lot of credibility when it comes to taxes. It might play well, but having seen the disconnect between how Obama campaigns and governs, I'm not hopeful he will be able to enact his tax policy proposals.

Even with a Dem Congress. (Which he had for a while.)
 
Help me out, GAF--about how many people who make under $100,000 a year are getting capital gains each year? I'm not entirely sure how the cut in capital gains taxes would benefit anybody other than the rich.
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ie-mac-contract-as-rivals-raise-pressure.html
Newt Gingrich’s consulting firm yesterday released a copy of its 2006 contract with Freddie Mac (FMCC), which covers just one year of his multiple years of service and documents only $300,000 of the $1.6 million he received from the mortgage company.

The Republican hopeful’s first contract -- spanning 1999 to 2002 and worth between $1 million and $1.2 million, according to two people familiar with the agreement -- wasn’t released because officials at the Center for Health Transformation can’t find it, said Susan Meyers, a center spokeswoman who works for the Gingrich campaign. The 2006 contract also applied to 2007, she said, meaning the total value of that contract was $600,000.
Click to expand...

Lovely how convenient this always seems to be.
 
ToxicAdam said:
Obama had the chance to make people like Romney pay more in taxes, but he extended the Bush Tax cuts (and kept capital gains taxes at historically low levels).

Now, he's going to campaign on how rich people like Romney need to pay more? Yea right. He will just roll over again when the time comes.
Click to expand...

Correct.

And they should be referred to as the Obama Tax Cuts now. They are his.
 
Plinko said:
I'd love to hear the reasoning behind this.
Click to expand...

Basically here is a reasonably accurate rendition of how Rasmussen conducts his GCB polling.

T4Ral.gif
 
maximum360 said:
Actually, Santorum disagrees with that.
Click to expand...

No, he agrees, but he thinks the village idiot is going to rape you and the mayor is going to make you keep the baby.

Standing steadfast as the most socially right-wing candidate in the GOP presidential field, Rick Santorum has repeatedly touted his extreme anti-choice position, which dictates that abortion should be uniformly illegal, even in cases of rape or incest. He even suggested that physicians who provide abortions to such victims should be criminally charged.

Last Friday, CNN’s Piers Morgan asked Santorum to clarify his reasoning behind such a callous position. Insisting that “it’s not a matter of religious values,” Santorum explained that sexual assault victims should “accept this horribly created” pregnancy because it is “nevertheless a gift in a very broken way” and that, when it comes down to it, a victim just has “to make the best out of a bad situation“:


SANTORUM: Well, you can make the argument that if she doesn’t have this baby, if she kills her child, that that, too, could ruin her life. And this is not an easy choice. I understand that. As horrible as the way that that son or daughter and son was created, it still is her child. And whether she has that child or doesn’t, it will always be her child. And she will always know that. And so to embrace her and to love her and to support her and get her through this very difficult time, I’ve always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you. As you know, we have to, in lots of different aspects of our life. We have horrible things happen. I can’t think of anything more horrible. But, nevertheless, we have to make the best out of a bad situation.
Click to expand...
 
I like Chuck Todd, he just seems lazy.



Plinko said:
Help me out, GAF--about how many people who make under $100,000 a year are getting capital gains each year? I'm not entirely sure how the cut in capital gains taxes would benefit anybody other than the rich.
Click to expand...

Almost any figure you see will be done in dollars. So, obviously the lionshare of capital gains taxes is going to be paid by people making 200k+ (I think 75% of all CG taxes was paid by this group.).

I haven't ever really seen a breakdown that tells you X amount of people under a certain income pay capital gains taxes every year.
 
Plinko said:
Help me out, GAF--about how many people who make under $100,000 a year are getting capital gains each year? I'm not entirely sure how the cut in capital gains taxes would benefit anybody other than the rich.
Click to expand...

Gains_Many(1).jpg


Edit: But that is a chart showing only the returns with capital gains.
Only ~15% of all returns have capital gains.
 
Plinko said:
Help me out, GAF--about how many people who make under $100,000 a year are getting capital gains each year? I'm not entirely sure how the cut in capital gains taxes would benefit anybody other than the rich.
Click to expand...

Using what's likely to be that same 2006 data mainly because I can't find anything more recent:

In 2006 just 13.4 million out of 138.3 million taxpayers reported taxable net gains (net long-term gains in excess of net short-term capital losses and capital gains distributions, which are taxed at favorable capital gains rates) on Schedule D, and another 4.6 million reported capital gains distributions from mutual funds on their Forms 1040. Many taxpayers with gains had modest incomes — more than half (52 percent) of those with taxable net gains or capital gains distributions had incomes below $75,000
Click to expand...

However:

Capital gains represented less than 4 percent of AGI for gains recipients with income less than $200,000, but about 40 percent of AGI for those with income exceeding $1 million
Click to expand...
 
eBay Huckster said:
Capital gains represented less than 4 percent of AGI for gains recipients with income less than $200,000, but about 40 percent of AGI for those with income exceeding $1 million
Click to expand...

Thanks. That's what I'm looking for.

So, basically, it is a massive tax cut for the rich.

I would bet that in the past 5 years the gap between those percentages has risen as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Gwen Stefani invites us to pray with her, Chris Pratt and Mark Wahlberg to promote a meditation app
2
82
4K
Insane Metal replied
Colorful Stage! The Movie: A Miku Who Can't Sing
0
459
Heimdall_Xtreme replied
Soundgarden planning to release final album with Chris Cornell on vocals...
18
725
Mr Reasonable replied
  • Poll
When you read a book and it has a song, do you sing it?
14
288
DGrayson replied
Pour one out for those of us working on Christmas
48
2K
Wastelander92 replied
Top Bottom