True... it is remarkably akin to GOP primary voters uniting and stating loudly, and with one voice, "my god, I have no earthly idea what's going on, please don't ask my opinion."
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
Honestly, in a way this makes me kind of sad for Romney. I get the feeling he was a decent guy, and he did some great, historical things in Massachusetts. He had a path toward presidency based on those things, and everything seems like it should have worked great for him then. Then, his entire party basically abandons him for absolutely no reason. There's no logical reason for the sharp turn the entire party made without him. It's all just shitty politics and "not Obama" stuff that just piled on and on. But Romney still wants to be president and has these great accomplishments and the foundation laid already, and now his only way to do that is to basically go back against everything he's done and pander to the loons that have taken his party away from him. I kind of get the feeling that without the hijacking of the Republican party he would have been a decently progressive Republican, and could have pushed the nation at least slightly further. But now I have no confidence in him taking a stand against those he's had to pander to.
adamsappel
Member
I actually did like the hotel comment! And I hope the Romneys treat their horses better than they treat their dogs.
I don't begrudge the wealthy their trappings. I will admit I'm just projecting what the response would be if anyone actually asked him about it. I hate the pretense that fabulously rich people have much concept of how even middle class people live. Ann Romney saying it could all be gone tomorrow ($250,000,000, gone in a blink!). "Want to bet $10,000?" "I'm unemployed!" "I didn't inherit anything." Build your damn car elevator, and admit it's useful because you have so many cars.
I hated his "Oh, I'll take the pink one" line and how he said it. That's such a bullshit, underhanded denigration. And, again, I'm just projecting how he'd back down and deny his intent if he was called on it.
Tim-E, I'm from West Virginia as well. I'm reasonably sure the gulf between the breeds/stables/care of horses between the folks back home and the Romneys is pretty wide.
I don't hate Romney. In an era with a reasonable Congress, he'd be a perfectly acceptable Republican president. But his spinelessness combined with extremity in Congress really frightens me.
The Obama's release their tax returns.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamas-paid-20-5-tax-143948278.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamas-paid-20-5-tax-143948278.html
So... that's.... roughly 5% more in taxes on Obama's less than $1 million of income compared to Romney's ~$20 million?
...:-/
I can't even
Which is the entire point of the release, of course.
Well, it's standard operating procedure to release your tax returns. That's the point of releasing it so early though, certainly, because the comparisons will just get more and more creative between now and November...
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Basically agreed. But one could say the same about representing a liberal state. He works with what he has, which would probably make him a great president with Dem controlled house and senate
Arrowgigantic
Member
6.6%.
Why the shock? We know that Romney's money comes from investments. Investments that are taxed at a much lower rate than personal income.
(Rates that Obama continued as law at the end of 2010)
A valid point; it isn't "shock" in the sense that I'm surprised at the qualitative facts (I didn't expect Obama to actually have an equal or lower tax rate), but seeing and comparing the hard-number values on paper is disquieting.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Well, hopefully laws can be pushed to equalize all types of income on a more even state. I don't want all capital gains taxed like income, but it definitely should be progressively taxed.
and obviously income taxes should go up, too.
Why not?
I never understood that.
There's nothing wrong with that, quite the opposite actually.
The problem though, is that he's not running for the president of the GOP.
Invisible_Insane
Member
Maybe in the 90s.
Because investors are special. Their work is harder than everyone else's.
The underlying idea is to not punish people for saving (through investments). So by lowering those tax rates you encourage people to save. But as he said, a proper progressive system would take care of that. One where the average person is taxed relatively little (less than income) on investments and a top earner is taxed higher.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Because people should have some added incentive for saving and investing. I am thinking that the first 200k or so should be tax-free or very low taxed, after that, it should go progressively higher, especially to avoid scenarios where people make tens of millions or billions and pay extremely low percentages of their income. In return, mortgage interest deduction should be controlled much better. Millionaires and billionaires don't need added incentives for owning one of their homes.
I am not saying that there is anything wrong with that, in fact, it showed how he was able to work across the aisles on a lot of different issues, unfortunately, he has had to contort himself to fit the GOP mold for a nominee, and now wont be able to shake it to appeal to independents and blue dogs. Essentially, his ability to compete was over the moment the Tea Party won a lot of seats in 2010.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Well, what do you suggest would be a good way to make an idea a reality?
National sales tax. Discourages consumption, encourages saving, leads to investment.
We can equalize the average taxes on investment and income at a rate that's lower than current income taxes, and make those taxes more highly progressive to balance out the regressive nature of a sales tax.
Advanced A.I. that can determine which industries or sectors are the most beneficial (and logical) for human advancement. Then take it's recommendations and grant them a special class for investors.
So, we could feasibly see that in the next 200-300 years.
empty vessel
Member
I don't think something that discourages consumption can also encourage investment. Those are working at cross-purposes. And saving is really just economic waste.* I don't know if anybody has data, but I would be surprised if there is much of a relationship between investment and saving.
* This isn't to say I don't save. I save a lot, actually. Too much. That's money that is effectively removed from the economy. I do it because I don't trust my society to provide for my basic needs. No universal health care (need savings). Low social security benefits (need savings). But therein lies the waste. It would be better for the economy if I weren't saving that money but spending it. That would require, however, a very robust social welfare policy.
This is what some economists mean when they say that government spending has to accommodate the rate at which its citizens save money. The more people save, the more the government has to spend to maintain levels of aggregate demand. See Japan.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
If so, that is a pretty convincing argument. Does the data show a breakdown for lower and middle income savers/investors? Because if there is still no movement in the data, then you might as well make them in-line with typical income rates.
Black Mamba
Member
Romney gets a lot of money not from investments, but the money is still treated like one.
He has a retirement package from Bain Capital in which he still earns profits from the company. Only they're not treated like salary, they're treated like capital gains. it's called "carried interest."
Most rich people make money off stocks/bonds and the like which we all recognize as capital gains. This one is quite unique (of course Mitt also has capital gains, but most of it is carried interest).
It doesn't necessarily discourage new consumption as much as encourage used goods (and foreign outlets).
Black Republican
Member
called it
Unless you're saving your money under the bed, it isn't exactly wasted. When you deposit money in a bank account the bank serves as an intermediary between your capital and (hopefully productive) investments, even if those investments are simply mortgages or loans to small businesses. Obviously this can go awry, but when it doesn't, your money is being put to good use.
Aggregate demand may be the bees knees but unless we're taking steps to increase the long run potential output of the economy aggregate demand policies can only take us so far. In order to increase long run potential output, we need investment. Most investment will be under-girded by loans, which are made possible by savings. The most productive government spending - probably infrastructure or education - stimulates the economy most because they cause increases in the future output of the economy. That's what we need more of if we're going to fix the economy's structural problems.
.Jared Bernstein:
Post 1
Follow-up
Plotting the top cap gains rate against real business investment doesnt show much (biz investment is in natural logs to show proportional growth over this long time series). The cap gains rate bounces around based more on politics than policy, while investment pretty much grows with the cycle. Hard to see anything in the picture supporting the view that either the level or changes in cap gains taxes play a determinant role in investment decisions.
Now, in this case Im the first to say that this tax difference affects behavior, but its not real economic behaviorthe stuff that generates investment, jobs and good stuff like that. Its tax lawyer fun-and-games designed to label everything a cap gain so you can take advantage of the rate differential. Heres some evidence for this claim.
First, if you plot real business investment against the gap between the cap gains and the ordinary rate, you certainly dont see much of a correlation between the tax gap and real investment. In fact, the correlation between the tax gap and investment growth is .04 and that between the change in the tax gap and investment growth is 0.12, neither of which are statistically significant.
Black Mamba
Member
also re: incentive for capital gains.
It's wholly possible the tax rate could affect lower and middle class income earners investment strategies. If the tax is high enough, you'd rather consume (although I doubt at 15 or 25% this effect exists at such low rates).
but among the upper class? lol. They have to do something with their money. No one is going to just sit on $1 million under their mattress. And they're not simply going to start consuming shit. So yeah, there's no effect on them. You can make it a 70% tax and they're still going to invest.
It's wholly possible the tax rate could affect lower and middle class income earners investment strategies. If the tax is high enough, you'd rather consume (although I doubt at 15 or 25% this effect exists at such low rates).
but among the upper class? lol. They have to do something with their money. No one is going to just sit on $1 million under their mattress. And they're not simply going to start consuming shit. So yeah, there's no effect on them. You can make it a 70% tax and they're still going to invest.
empty vessel
Member
If you scroll up a bit, you'll see a Federal Reserve paper I quoted that talks about this. The reality is that bank deposits aren't used for lending purposes. A bank will lend to any creditworthy borrower regardless of its reserves. If, at the end of the day, its reserves are below the legally required ratio, it will borrow in the interbank market (at a lower interest rate than the loan it made for) or, barring that, from the Fed. So deposit savings don't really affect bank lending.
But aggregate demand generates investment. Investment doesn't occur when nobody has money to spend or is not spending the money they have. I agree that we need more government spending on infrastructure. Where you go wrong here, I think, is your linking of loans as being made possible by savings. That's not really the case. Loans are made possible by the existence of creditworthy borrowers seeking loans. That isn't happening right now, because the creditworthy borrowers that might exist are not seeking loans because (1) they are deleveraging from prior debt (this is what "balance sheet recession" means); and (2) aggregate demand is low, so taking out a loan to invest in something is undesirable.
This is why QE hasn't really worked. It is based on the same false premise that bank loans are based on bank reserves, so the idea was that bank lending could be increased by increasing bank reserves. It didn't work, because the reason banks are not lending is not because their reserves are low, but because there is nobody to lend to. The Fed Reserve paper linked to above concludes that there isn't any meaningful relationship between bank reserves and lending and rejects the "simple textbook treatment."
Yes. The above details are regarding the top tax rate, but what about behavior of average people who are taxed at lower than top tax rates. I am thinking average people with a total investment of less than say 1 million dollars.
jamesinclair
Banned
NYTimes editorial
Standard republican stuff.
Burn the future to score political points today. Who cares, its not like hell be around tod eal with the crushing consequences.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/opinion/gov-chris-christie-and-the-tunnel-project.html?_r=1
Standard republican stuff.
Burn the future to score political points today. Who cares, its not like hell be around tod eal with the crushing consequences.
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, we've talked about this a bit and I'm fully on board with this idea. I would think the GOP should be for it too except for the fact that it taxes the very rich at higher rates and that suddenly makes it 'COMMUNISM!'.
The already do this . . . you are only allowed to deduct interest on mortgages up to $1Million. And that is a good rule.
speculawyer
Member
I think it will come as a shock to many people that don't realize how much the tax codes favor the wealthy.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Was behind a pickup truck with the back window blacked out, in white letters
CAPITALISM OR COMMUNISM
lol
CAPITALISM OR COMMUNISM
lol
planar1280
Banned
Google will be the official social platform for the Republican National Convention
http://googlepolitics.blogspot.com/2012/04/breaking-down-walls-of-convention.html
So Obama - Team iOS
Romney - Team Android
http://googlepolitics.blogspot.com/2012/04/breaking-down-walls-of-convention.html
So Obama - Team iOS
Romney - Team Android
adamsappel
Member
Does New Jersey still require full-service gas stations? That has to add to the cost of gasoline.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Christie isn't a dumb guy, but this strikes me as a dumb move. Raising gas taxes slightly to ensure your state's economy greatly improves seems like a no brainer. But of course that wouldn't stop him from being labeled as a moderate who raised taxes more than any candidate. Same thing happened to Mike Huckabee, who raised the gas tax in Arkansas to fund infrastructure spending....a sensible move that was rejected by the republican in 07/08, base before their descent into madness
Obama also used the Google+ hangouts, I think its something we will see a lot more of. That and youtube live broadcasting.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Yeah, I would really love to see how the lower income investors invest dependent on the tax rates. I am sure that data exists somewhere.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Yeah, I think Romney quadrupled the gas tax rate in Mass, or something. Got a ton of flak, but such a miniscule number that creates so much revenue is a smart tax in any scenario.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Exactly. And it's not like there's a candidate out there who is a better politician than Christie (on the republican side); he can certainly bullshit his way out of a minor gas tax increase
Yeah, he increased it from half a cent to two cents per gallon. Got labeled as raising the gas tax 400%, but that's exactly the kind of marginal thing that should be done to fund major infrastructure.
Christie is a buffoon.
cartoon_soldier
Member
And anybody who questions him on the 70% lie will be called an idiot...or something.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Yeah, NJ is actually one of the lowest for gas taxes in the country, and Mass was way down there as well before being raised. People act like roads, bridges, and other infrastructure items take care of themselves, even with millions of people using them...
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Black Mamba
Member
I don't have data on that, but I imagine it wouldn't make a dent if it affects lower income individuals.
97% of stocks/bonds/MFs are among the top 40%. Think about that. I'm gonna guess non-principle real estate among the lower 2 quintiles is inherited.
I think this is actually smart. The media hand-wringers have started to attack Dems for calling out the GOP on their bullshit just because of the phrase. Keep talking up the issues but drop the phrase and keep the focus squarely on the GOP
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Republicans use the same phrase for everything Obama does. Just recently, Romney 'condemned' Obama for an 'assault on our economic freedom.'
It's such a fucken joke. I hate how the media constantly plays into the Republican hands
The political media does not like Dems that hit back HARD everytime (See Howard Dean). Obama and his allies need to pick their spots cos Dems are not allowed to play rough for some reason. I mean, Romney has been attacking Obama relentlessly for a year but the minute Obama forcefully defends himself, he has a "harsh tone" lol
Where did they declare that?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...talking_point_.single.html#pagebreak_anchor_2
The source is not all that great either.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked