Visit Poli-GAF sometime (or don't, and save yourself much mental anguish). The standard line is that Obama is a center-right President.
Romney tax plan: tax increases for the middle class, tax cuts for the wealthy.
- Thread starter BSsBrolly
- Start date
- Status
Visit Poli-GAF sometime (or don't, and save yourself much mental anguish). The standard line is that Obama is a center-right President.
My problem with taxing the rich dis-proportionally more than the middle class is that I believe that every american "costs" the government an average $-figure to protect and serve. This $-figure is not a product of the GDP, but a measurable value.
To rephrase it another way:
It should "cost" the government the same amount to educate, protect, and serve me as it costs to educate, protect, and serve any other member of the US -- with an averaged and calculated value. That number should be calculated every year and taxed -- regardless of how much you make.
Nicety programs (ie military R&D) should then be funded by the dis-proportionally richer segment of the US based off of income.
Change the current system of sales tax to more heavily tax imports -- at the sales tax level. Make the american consumer buy domestically.
To rephrase it another way:
It should "cost" the government the same amount to educate, protect, and serve me as it costs to educate, protect, and serve any other member of the US -- with an averaged and calculated value. That number should be calculated every year and taxed -- regardless of how much you make.
Nicety programs (ie military R&D) should then be funded by the dis-proportionally richer segment of the US based off of income.
Change the current system of sales tax to more heavily tax imports -- at the sales tax level. Make the american consumer buy domestically.
This would be so bad. Successful people benefit more from our society and should pay more regardless.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
I don't disagree in theory, but the rich, specifically business owners benefit proportionally more from infrastructure and safe policing. They also would benefit more from an educated and healthy populace - their general level of employees would be higher.
For your first line I'm assuming that you're trying to make the point that personal wealth does not disqualify you for the post of president? The main point raised here against Mr Romney and his wealth, that I've seen, orbits around his ability to emphatize with the common man. The latter is a point that is fair I feel, as one does allways empathize more easily with those who are more alike oneself. (This needed mean that most can't empathize with others or even "others", but many feel like Mr Romney isn't one of them)
The second line makes me think of the Gates foundation. Or more to the point, poor generalizations are bad and detracts from the issue at hand.
The third line is simply false.
I absolutely agree that they should pay more and they should support welfare programs disproportionally more.
I refute that they benefit more from firemen, teachers, public servants, utilities and the military.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
Which was not enough to pass much of his agenda, because the Democrats still had to surmount the Republican filibuster. The stimulus was only passed with the votes of Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter, and thus compromises had to be made with tax cuts in order to accommodate their views. The health care bill, despite dropping a public option, was barely passed at all, and only then after months of haggling and the use of an obscure legislative tactic. The Dodd-Frank act had to be watered down to get the votes of Collins, Snowe, and Scott Brown. The DREAM act and the cap and trade scheme fell victim to Republic blockades and were never passed at all. In addition, Obama couldn't fill many appointments because of various holds that were placed on the nominees.
To Far Away Times
Member
It's things like this that makes me wonder how the election is even a competition.
Something "trickles" down but it isn't wealth.
It is warm and yellow though.
I'm voting based on my desire for America to move left as a country, and my belief as to how we can accomplish that -- which is, at least partially, by protecting Obamacare until it can put down roots. Secondarily I'm voting for anybody who's not Mitt Romney.
uh.
I dunno, is it?
The rich always get richer.
Annual income is not a good indicator of net worth. It's the most obvious indicator for a smaller government to measure, so I'm OK with it as it is.
High taxes mean no one is motivated to be rich.
So your facts are wrong. Nobody was rich in those days.
Even so, it was the most productive Congress of the last 50 years.
I think this is the crux of the argument.
You write "Successful people benefit more from society". Whereas I fall into the mantra of "Society benefits from successful people".
I want Steve Jobs (RIP) to be rich & successful. I love my Iphone! I want Bill Gates to be rich and successful. I love my windows too! I want people to be driven to create and invent and improve society, and for them to be rewarded for their worldwide unimaginable additions to society. The more you tax people and take away what they've earned (at least where fraud is not involved, ie. banks are a whole other story), the less people are driven to succeed.
In my homestate of California, which has near the top overall taxation (if not the highest), all the rich people are leaving and business are not opening up here any more. So now, the taxes are higher and no one is here to pay them. So now, no one wants to be here, and your overall revenues are going down, even though you raise taxes. So it's a fuck up on the two main counts.
I want my boss to be rich. I want the company I work for to pay less taxes. In each of these cases, the more money they make, the better off I am, whether it be more money, more job security, better, cheaper products.
Makes sense, but the rich people aren't leaving the US -- they're moving to Washington, Texas, Florida and NC. When they leave, the industries that were there to support them (ie service sector) can follow, but it's much harder.
Protip: Don't join the service sector economy in California.
You probably don't want to use Bill Gates as an example as he believes they should be paying more in taxes.
And Steve Jobs invested his wealth into the company.
There's a difference between the tax rate and the effective tax rate. Just because taxes on the wealthy used to be some absurd 90% figure didn't mean anyone actually paid at that rate. It's similar to how it is now with tons of loop holes and write offs. That's why you could actually cut the tax rate, yet raise the effective rate on the wealthy by eliminating tons of those complicated accounting practices that lead to people paying nowhere near what they should if you just looked at the progressive scale.
Yeah, raising taxes on the ultra wealthy by 3% totally dicourages me from ever wanting to become one of them. I couldn't imagine what it would be like to make million's every year and have to pay an aditional $87,000.00 in taxes. That would be horrible.
I love the fact that the rich are currently paying the lowest taxes in history and we have record low unemployement because of it.
Have you not noticed that Silicon Valley has basically come to a standstill? No one wants to create tech startups anymore, because the government would take some of that money away. What's the motivation?
profit?
While California is an example of issue with taxation, you're being disingeniousness if your stating that the better off your boss/company does the better off you will be/the more money you will make/more job security/better products.
We've seen a decrease in employment, a decrease in salary, an increase in unpaid internships, an increase in debt across the board (how about dat degree college grads? got that job yet), an increase in youth returning to live at home, record breaking poverty rates, etc. Meanwhile, companies and top earners are doing incredibly well.
So, what's actually happening is a lot of people are taking advantage of the bad economy, and are hiring and paying less because they can get away with it, while making a lot of money. You're completely wrong if you think the better your boss does the better you will do.
Delusibeta
Banned
Ultimately, when we're talking economy, there's really only going to be two outcomes for the government: a higher deficit or higher taxes. Pick one.
I would argue that a single-digit-%s on the rich have little correlation to low unemployment. Doesn't Greece have the highest taxes on the rich in history and the highest unemployement?
If you talk to them, investors aren't as stupid as they were years ago.
Historical data doesn't coincide with your world views. You act like I don't want guys like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs to be successful but their products weren't made out of vacuum. Everything is made based on the technology and society that is available to them. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates wouldn't exist if the US did not invest in computer technology and the internet. Our capitalistic society grants them property rights, patents, ownership of what they make and ability to profit from it. The government - which means the people ideally - should be able to dictate how much is taken and I think we need to take as much as we need to maintain a minimum quality of life. Taxes have been way higher in the past and there wasn't exactly a dearth of successful people.
Also important: if they are spending that money and putting it back into society I wouldn't have much of an issue, but a lot of what's happening right now is that the money is being hoarded. When that happens, money becomes useless.
And you really think your employer would pay you more and make you better off if they didn't have to? Just look at all these companies downsizing and making people work harder, less raises and benefits and it's mainly the guys at the top and the shareholders reaping the profits. Data doesn't correspond with what you believe.
Not really. The Clinton years shows that tax raises on the ultra rich + tax cuts for everyone else + tax cuts for small businesses = balanced budget and booming economy.
Why do you think salaries for CEO's have grown astronomically to over 380x the average worker's, while yours has largely remained stagnant (as a whole) since the 70's? Why did their insane wages increase by a double digit percentage over two years while tons of people remain unemployed? Your boss is certainly getting rich - but that hasn't translated to you (and the average American worker) being better off. The money is simply funneling upward with little downward movement.
And blow jobs for everyone! Now who doesn't like a good blow job?
Black Mamba
Member
haha, the Greeks? The same Greeks who didn't actually collect those taxes?
First, the reason a low tax rate on the rich is bad for the middle/lower class is that it exaggerates the wealth gap. The larger the wealth gap the less opportunities the middle and, morso, the lower class are able to take advantage of due to the rich's ability to use money to keep those people out. Banana republic, and all that jazz.
Second, Greece has a completely different set of issues than America. Part of their issues began before the Euro was even created. Like, how in order to be part of the Eurozone they did some currency swap madness to make their debt not look as bad.
Third, silicon valley is doing great. That was sarcasm.
he doesnt
These are valid questions. I think the reason for most of this is a result of the Fed, deficit spending, printing money, inflation, coming off the gold standard, crony corporatism, lying politicians, etc. But I don't think it's because of lower taxes.
Also in my case I happen to work for a business management firm, so I know exactly how much money I provide my boss, how much money our clients make, how much taxes they pay, everything. And when our clients pay less taxes & make more money, my boss makes more money, and I make more money.
I just don't think that 3% more or less on the top X% is going to change the Banana Republic jazz. Taxing income is fundamentally borked.
k
Face it Tiger..
Banned
It's also because CA gets back less money for every dollar given to the federal government than red states like Mississippi and Alaska. Basically, red states get some of California's money.
And then they talk about individualism and shit.
Just as a simple, corollary question: let's say you and I both have piles of money, and neither of us can watch these piles of money all the time -- we have lives and other things to do. So both of us need someone to protect our piles occasionally.
Now, let's say my pile of money is much smaller than your pile. Who benefits more from having their pile of money protected? Serious question.
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
AstroNut325
Member
Looking at the charts... looks like I need to support Romney! I mean.. hey... only the bottom 20% get shafted!
Rom-nation. Under god. Indivisible. Liberty and tax cuts for the wealthy!
Rom-nation. Under god. Indivisible. Liberty and tax cuts for the wealthy!
Big Baybee
Member
Escape Goat
Member
I clicked on your graphic twice trying to get it to play.
Manmademan
Member
the benefits of "Society" isn't limited to those things, though there's certainly an argument to be made that it's impossible to run a successful business or hire a productive workforce when those things aren't in place.
But that aside, who do you think benefits more from the strict financial regulation of the markets that makes investments possible? who do you think benefits more from a robust court system that establishes and reinforces property rights? The average citizen? or the wealthy? How about embassies in foreign countries to protect businessmen (and vacationers) abroad? and where do you think the revenue comes from to guarantee these things?
It's not an accident that multinational corporations only exist in first world countries with the infrastructure and educated populace that can support them, and not lawless free for alls like Somalia. Without the protection of the state, as well as a social safety net, "job creators" would have everything they own taken from them by the mob. Remember the French Revolution?
Indeed, it needs to be much higher. Like, pre Regan higher.
The fact is people will make money so long as their is money to be made. The closer we make the income gab, the more equatable the classes become in terms of having the ability to access things they need (education, food, transportation, etc.).
Rich people will always get richer, but we should be doing more to make the guy worth billions of dollars do his part to help out the poor dude. Considering, the billionaire has more to lose should this country topple over.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Pretty interesting. Romney hasn't released any information on what particular tax deductables and breaks he would cut, and that study assumes many would be aimed at lower income families (such as tax credits for low income families). It also doesn't take spending cuts into account, thus solely focusing on loopholes Romney will allegedly cut. Although given Romney and the republicans recent moves, it's likely those spending cuts would come from programs that assist lower and middle income folks.
He's been running for president for a year and hasn't released a single detail on this, which just might have saved him from this nasty headline/report.
He's been running for president for a year and hasn't released a single detail on this, which just might have saved him from this nasty headline/report.
He certainly does. The odds favor Obama but Romney statistically has a 30% chance of winning. That's too large for comfort, if you ask me.
Liberals can't afford to be complacent this year.
Joke post? It absolutely has to do with low taxes.
I don't get this.
That's like the people that complain that they won the lottery and the government only left them with 10 million dollars.
- Status