The gold standard? Really?
Romney tax plan: tax increases for the middle class, tax cuts for the wealthy.
- Thread starter BSsBrolly
- Start date
- Status
The gold standard? Really?
In many cases society benefits from successful people as well. At some point they created a good or service that people willingly bought. I'm not against them paying more but people need to stop thinking the rich are only taking from society.
Onion_Relish
Member
If the republicans get any more evil they will need tophats and long thin moustaches to twirl.
Mitt will become president, because he is the president stupid yanks deserve. You will vote for him because you must, a complete disaster, the dork knight.
Mitt will become president, because he is the president stupid yanks deserve. You will vote for him because you must, a complete disaster, the dork knight.
This is such a bizarre thought process to me. Do you really think that people will just be less successful because they're taxed? You know that many if not most innovations are created by people who are EMPLOYEES, right? They seem happy to perform labor and create new things despite the fact that their employer will take most of the benefits from them. Steve Jobs is great and all, but Steve Wozniak created Apple with no more motivation than to impress the computer club. I think that this line of argument displays a fundamentally false understanding of what drives people to actually work and be productive.
How are you the second person in this thread to advocate the gold standard? This terrifies me more than anything Romney could do.
Okay, that's not true, but it does terrify me a lot.
A seriously loaded question, indeed.
I would say that a person who has less money has more to lose.
That literally makes no sense.
I get that you're trying to say that the person who has less money will be more fucked if his pile is stolen, but that makes no sense. They'll both be fucked if their piles are stolen, but one will have lost more than the other. Retaining a larger pile is more beneficial than retaining a smaller one as it facilitates a higher quality of living.
Conservative mental gymnastics never cease to amaze. Here we have a man who is literally, literally convinced that having less means that you have more.
Manmademan
Member
Statistics be damned, it's a lot lower than that.
There are almost no truly undecided voters left- every poll puts them dramatically lower than 08, and thanks to the perpetual campaign cycle the negative attacks have never ACTUALLY stopped. More ads won't do a damn thing.
There really isn't anything the Romney campaign can actually DO to move obama voters into the Romney column. His entire hopes for the presidency ride on the economy spontaneously melting down, or Obama being caught in the Oval Office with a white intern. The odds of either happening aren't anywhere near 30%.
Hey, go easy on him. he's still working on the distinction between lose and "loose"- he'll get to economics eventually.
Just curious.... Why does it cost more to insure a 1,000,000 home verses a 200,000 home.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Bringing up people like Steve Jobs seems to suggest a lingering mentality centered around a kind of mythological image of the genius inventor. I.E. some brilliant invention that changes society and everyone benefits from is purely the result of a single person, and so that person's benefit to society is uniquely special.
But not really, much of the time. People who become rich via the corporate route may be the initiators of good and valuable ideas, but their success is a group effort partnered with hundreds and thousands of other people - most of whom, by the way, never benefit nearly as much from the invention of the 'genius'.
I'm reminded of the classic case of Thomas Edison vs Tesla. Tesla was the actual mad scientist inventor and innovator, Edison was the shrewd businessman who didn't even respect book learnin'. Edison took much of the work of others and profited from it, and marketed himself so that history remembers him as the singular genius to whom we owe the lights over our heads.
Another point is that while society may benefit from the actions of the wealthy, the wealthy often require more of society's resources to operate. A poor man living on lower class income isn't using as much of society's resources to protect and serve his existence as a wealthy man. Being wealthy inflates one's virtual footprint in 'the system'.
Oh, and let's not forget that when there's a shortfall of public services like police (due to, you know, not enough funds being available), the wealthy traditionally have the inside track with making sure their interests are covered, no matter how they have to do it.
It is always interesting to see the argument brought up that "well, with such high taxes, nobody will want to do anything great!" Firstly, it implies that the only reason anyone ever does anything is for pure, raw, capitalistic greed. Secondly, it's as if people who say this don't really have a clear grasp on just how rich people can get. What that really means; as in the piles of money heads of business and finance sit on, that due to the very way the system works, is easily multiplied by using money to make more money. Divorced even from any sort of direct and "honest" correlation to the value created by their personal labors and ideas.
But human beings suck at gauging relative scale and relationships. A rich guy with five hundred million dollars in the bank will scream that he's being robbed blind if he's suddenly asked to pay 2 million in taxes instead of 1 million. The capitalistic system is fun and all, but in its current form, it allows individual people to amass vast amounts of society's wealth so far beyond their own needs and even their wildest wants, it's ridiculous.
But not really, much of the time. People who become rich via the corporate route may be the initiators of good and valuable ideas, but their success is a group effort partnered with hundreds and thousands of other people - most of whom, by the way, never benefit nearly as much from the invention of the 'genius'.
I'm reminded of the classic case of Thomas Edison vs Tesla. Tesla was the actual mad scientist inventor and innovator, Edison was the shrewd businessman who didn't even respect book learnin'. Edison took much of the work of others and profited from it, and marketed himself so that history remembers him as the singular genius to whom we owe the lights over our heads.
Another point is that while society may benefit from the actions of the wealthy, the wealthy often require more of society's resources to operate. A poor man living on lower class income isn't using as much of society's resources to protect and serve his existence as a wealthy man. Being wealthy inflates one's virtual footprint in 'the system'.
Oh, and let's not forget that when there's a shortfall of public services like police (due to, you know, not enough funds being available), the wealthy traditionally have the inside track with making sure their interests are covered, no matter how they have to do it.
It is always interesting to see the argument brought up that "well, with such high taxes, nobody will want to do anything great!" Firstly, it implies that the only reason anyone ever does anything is for pure, raw, capitalistic greed. Secondly, it's as if people who say this don't really have a clear grasp on just how rich people can get. What that really means; as in the piles of money heads of business and finance sit on, that due to the very way the system works, is easily multiplied by using money to make more money. Divorced even from any sort of direct and "honest" correlation to the value created by their personal labors and ideas.
But human beings suck at gauging relative scale and relationships. A rich guy with five hundred million dollars in the bank will scream that he's being robbed blind if he's suddenly asked to pay 2 million in taxes instead of 1 million. The capitalistic system is fun and all, but in its current form, it allows individual people to amass vast amounts of society's wealth so far beyond their own needs and even their wildest wants, it's ridiculous.
The vast majority of economists would most certainly disagree with your assessment.
Why on earth would you say something like that?
I mean, it's obviously wrong even at a glance.
1% problems: UGHHHHHHHHHHH so much money so little tax cuts~I have to drink imported 4 carat Olympus Mountain water
99% problems: Y U NO GET TAX BREAK? Can't afford new filter for water!
Developing worlds problem: I get if it's black throw it back, it's brown might not go down, if it's yellow maybe mellow but what does fluorescent green mean?
99% problems: Y U NO GET TAX BREAK? Can't afford new filter for water!
Developing worlds problem: I get if it's black throw it back, it's brown might not go down, if it's yellow maybe mellow but what does fluorescent green mean?
The person... with less stuff.... has more to lose.... total... via the value of the stuff... than the person with more stuff.... if they both lost it all...
He more or less says explicitly in his post that he thinks the question is a trap, so no surprise that he answered it in an intentionally counterintuitive way.
But what would you actually think is true?
You've put in a great deal of effort to pull that from the answer I gave. Have you read anything other than my response to his question?
If both piles are completely stolen, both end up in the same place: 0.
If the same amount is taken from each, then the smaller pile has a disproportionately smaller remainder...
He asks, "Who benefits more from having their pile of money protected?"
I'm arguing for a flat-tax-plus. He's implying that one with more money will benefit more from the state protecting that larger sum of money. I think. I don't know what money protection has to do with government, much less my point.
Like yourself, I think he read a response out of context.
Having less means you have more to "loose"
No. The person with the smaller pile of bills, all bills being the same value, has less than the person with bigger pile of bills. It's not a complicated thing. There are people in this country who have zero dollars to their name and I guaran-fucking-tee they have less to lose than Mitt Romney.
And flat taxes? You mean the tax that punishes people who make less money than those that make more? IF everybody is taxed at the same percentage, as your value increase, the burden is lessened and the wealth gap increases leading to larger class gaps leading to the removal of opportunities of lower classes due to having more financial tools available.
Come on, man.
Oh, and it's "lose." Like "I'm going to lose this race" not "my shoelaces are loose."
holy shit
I'm glad that you've decided to join the discussion, I'll give you a few minutes to read over the thread before you joined us.
Edit: I said that rich should pay disproportionately more towards nicety programs like welfare.
There is a $ figure that every american costs the government to educate, serve, and protect -- a constant to the equation. We should all be taxed that amount regardless of how much we earn. On top of that should come nicety programs like military R&D, welfare, etc. That the rich should support disproportionately more than the poor.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
It sounds like the disagreement between derder and Opiate hinges on the application (or misapplication, perhaps) of some kind of utility curve, whereby equivalent absolute partial losses will affect the person with less money more adversely. The original scenario involved complete losses, though, and in such a case the person with more money has more to lose, for certain.
So the question, I guess, is whether that complete loss scenario is the most appropriate analogy to use when trying to calculate who benefits most from having their money protected.
It seems plausible to me that the partial loss scenario might apply more broadly, more of the time than the absolute loss case. But I know fuck all about economics.
So the question, I guess, is whether that complete loss scenario is the most appropriate analogy to use when trying to calculate who benefits most from having their money protected.
It seems plausible to me that the partial loss scenario might apply more broadly, more of the time than the absolute loss case. But I know fuck all about economics.
gutter_trash
Banned
doesn't matter because Romney only has a 30% chance of winning
We're discussing opportunity cost. Total losses is the relevant calculation. The marginal utility of each individual dollar is higher for the poorer person, yes.
Incredibly rich people benefit more from a well educated, healthy, protected, and skilled populous. This is not debatable.
The idea that a person making 20k a year should have an entry level rate the same as the cat making 1bil is foolish. It's just disproportionate. Even if you even out the taxes to only income, that still hurts the broke folks more. Even if those people get to take advantage of social programs that move them up the ladder, they're still not receiving as much of a benefit from living in the US as the rich man.
I'm not suggesting that rich people don't deserve their wealth, but in many cases it's luck and circumstance that bestow such riches upon people.
If you have a ton of money, the dregs and working class of society got you there. I just don't see how anybody can say "no matter how poor you are, you owe something because you get just as much from this society as the rich guy does."
Are you even related to someone from the original colony's? This America is great stuff is getting out of hand. We used to be great and cared about our fellow citizens, but now it's all about "I'm gonna get mine, screw everyone else". We don't rank first any thing now days, our educational system is a joke, healthcare is out of hand and the list goes on.cultural heritage has nothing to do with makes up my world view? Yeah, that's a good one.
Sure, it could be a conspiracy, and perhaps you know better than the majority of scientists dedicated to the profession. It does happen (and I mean that -- it isn't sarcasm. It happens). It's not likely, however.
Moreover, conservative advocates in the US are becoming increasingly reliant on anti-science agendas: they frequently believe that climatologists are propagating a fraud, they are much, much more likely to denigrate biologists and anything relevant to evolution, and now also (Apparently) dismiss majority economic opinion.
Scientists are not always right, to be sure. Even the majority of scientists. But I'm not sure what you're basing your opinion on that you consider to be a better gauge of reality.
And? What does that have to do with anything?
Phoenix
Member
Really? As an intellectual exercise I'll dive into this one.
Rich people generally employ other people to handle things that normal society relies on the government to provide. A billionaire isn't about to depend on the local law enforcement to defend his home. He has his own personal security. His home is generally not easily accessible by the normal footprint of fire suppression - he has a different commercial system installed in his home normally. He doesn't drive to work everyday so he is producing less wear on the roads. Etc. Where a rich person will have a larger footprint is that he/she will have a larger physical footprint and that is something that pay substantially more for as a result. The poor and middle class tend to use more of society's resources out of a necessity in their normal day to day lives.
They generally don't have the "inside track" on being covered, they normally have their own supply lines to cover them. Rich people have generators, in-ground power storage, geothermal solutions, etc. The distortion they provide is that there is a shadow ecosystem which supplies many of their needs and since the solutions what allow them this luxury are very expensive, they are out of the reach of the masses. For example, if the shit really hit the fan - these guys would be rolling around in electric and fuel cell vehicles, having already purchased this solution that the mainstream would simply not be able to afford at this current market state.
Are you arguing that compound interest should no longer be allowed once one has a certain amount of money? One day when I was getting my business degree I sat down with my dad after several session in economics because I'd come to realize that there was a formula through which our family could attain generation wealth - though it would require a particular sacrifice and long term commitment. If the inheritances that would be due me from my family through insurance and placing some fortunate bets on real estate during the "good years" were untouched for (2) generations, we would actually get to a point where, barring some substantial short term increase inflation, the interest from the money stored could generate a good lifestyle for those in that following 3rd generation. If they were taught or prohibited from ever manipulating the principal - the family over the course of 5 generations would also be in a position where generational wealth would be possible for us to. The sacrifice? Nobody living nor the children of anyone living would ever be able to touch the money for any reason whatsoever. In addition it would require a relative "drop" in the standard of living for those 2 "martyr" generations and strict education of the following generations so that they would appreciate the value of leaving the money alone at all costs.
On top of that lets also examine the argument that you're making which remains unstated - that a substantial tax rate would not discourage behavior. Let's look at the state of VA for a concrete example of this. For years, VA ran a tax on luxury vehicles via a personal property tax. This had the result of generating a lot of money for the state but it also created two side-effects: 1) it has a net effect of those moving into the upper middle class not buying NEW luxury vehicles, they would buy preowned vehicles to avoid the tax 2) it created a shadow market of illegal activity where people would cross the border into MD and buy the vehicles there, finding ways to claim residence in that state to avoid the tax. One sees this behavior exceptionally cleanly in NY where a lot of high-end properties have been disposed by the owners because of the tax rate of owning them in the state. While this didn't stop people from buying/owning these properties, many people simply migrated away (mostly upstate and to Boston) to avoid the situation. Similar can be observed with corporations that leave vast sums of money overseas to avoid taxation.
Similarly there is stated evidence in education where students underperform because there is no longer a benefit to over performing. The competitive drive of the species is strong. Its one of the things that got us to where we are and encourages us to always do better so we can be at the top. Its in our nature to climb ladders or at least have the desire to do so. A situation where you actively discourage that competitive spirit diffuses market energy by discouraging the competitive mechanic that drives innovation. It acts as a demotivator to building big things because the society would actively discourage one from building big things.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is that people with less are affected more when they lose something than people who have more.
For example, if a millionaire is taxed $10,000 more a year, he is affected far less than a guy who makes $30,000 a year and is taxed, say, $5,000 more a year.
Am I understanding you correctly?
No, no one wants to create a start up for fear of our crazy patient laws that Apple and the like have trust into the spotlight.
I don't think that Romney tax plan would increase taxes for the middle class because the part of where he is lying is about being in favor of revenue neutral taxes and not that he wants to increase taxes on the middle class. American politicians are notoriously spenders or in the last decade not gathering high revenues through taxes, increasing taxes on the middle class on the other hand is something more unpopular in regards to how they operate and what the public would tolerate.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Infrastructure, law enforcement, court system, etc. etc.
"Corporations" obviously get more direct benefit from societal institutions and rules than individuals.
So you don't think the Romney plan would increase middle class taxes solely because it wouldn't actually happen?
What I read from the study says assuming revenue neutrality means that lowering high income taxes requires increasing middle income taxes. I am saying that Romney is lying about revenue neutrality. Republicans never bothered their tax cuts to be revenue neutral. I doubt even Obama's are who is in favor of the Bush tax cuts for everyone other than the wealthy. If Romney plans to offset money lost from tax cuts it would probably be from reduction of spending.
Also, taking that assumption and concluding that he plans to increase taxes for the middle class and report "Romney tax plan increases taxes for the middle class" is irresponsible journalism. You can report this while saying what his claim of revenue neutrality entails so he either lies about it or he intends to do raise taxes. Of course readers have responsibilities too.
SlipperySlope
Banned
That's the way it seems. They're taking the amount of tax cuts for the rich, and assuming that he will cut exemptions on the poor to pay for it.
It's just... perhaps the worst report I've ever read. They actually think they know what they are talking about and just start making stuff up.
Yup. The article is completely made up bullshit. Surprised people even gave it the light of day in a discussion, let alone an actual article for fucking Reuters.
From the article:
What is it that you think Romney will do differently to make his cuts revenue neutral?
SlipperySlope
Banned
You're ignoring the fact that the report made an argument based on an assumption. "I think he'll do this, so let's assume he does. OMG, MASSIVE TAX HIKES! OH NO! DON'T VOTE FOR HIM!".
That's all this article is. Nothing more.
What is it that you think Romney will do differently to make his cuts revenue neutral?
Black Mamba
Member
No, it's completely accurate. This is the minimum possible threshold possible.
Do you know what revenue-neutral means? If you reduce the tax burden of the high income earners, by default you HAVE TO increase the tax burden of the not high income earners.
There is no other way for this to be. 2 + 2 = 4. And if it must be always 4 and you change a 2 to a 1, the other 2 must be a 3.
You cannot cut the tax burden of the rich without hurting the not rich if you're revenue neutral. It is mathematically impossible.
We know Romney isn't doing the opposite and a 0 change in burden is useless.
SlipperySlope
Banned
Dude... DUDE...
Ever thought there might be another variable to this equation? A little something called, oh I don't know, spending?
Or it won't be deficit neutral... which is the most likely outcome.
eBay Huckster
Member
Perhaps they wouldn't have to make an argument based on an assumption if Romney would actually bother articulating a single coherent domestic economic policy he'd put into place.
e: Though he's definitely implied that his policy will be 'revenue-neutral' in the past, so there's... something going for that, at least?
(e2: of course it won't be deficit neutral, if there's one thing that has characterized every GOP-proposed bit of tax legislation for the past 30 years it sure as shit hasn't been a net zero effect on the deficit)
I don't think you know what American Exceptionalism is.
Black Mamba
Member
Romney has never claimed it would be deficit neutral. he claimed it would be revenue neutral.
There is no other variable. For something to be revenue neutral and you change one's burden, you must change another's. There is no other way.
Correct me if I am wrong, but revenue neutral tax plan means that through the taxes themselves the income of the goverment is revenue neutral. If you want to speak about reduction of spending offseting revenue loss then you say that and don't talk about revenue neutrality. Personally I believe that Romney will increase the deficit all in all with the changes he is in favor.
The news here are that Romney's plan is not revenue neutral. This can be reported by responsible journalists. As for assumptions that he secretly wants to increase taxes being said as conclusions of course that is a different issue and is the usual political games of reporting something in the most damaging bu not necessarily most honest way.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
Considering that Romney has already ruled out cuts to defense, and health care spending is unlikely to see further deep cuts, and anything else isn't going to yield much in the way of additional savings, most of the changes will have to come on the revenue side, which likely means that the middle and lower classes will be affected disproportionately.
Obviously the correct answer is that Romney's lying. If he's elected, he'll go right back to standard Bush-era "deficits don't matter" and the Republicans will fall in line.
The point is that for his plan to work as stated, this is what would have to happen. Spending cuts aren't included because those aren't part of his plan.
SlipperySlope
Banned
Either way, it's political speak. There's no way the plan would be revenue neutral.
So your argument boils down to "we all know Romney's lying, how dare anyone take what he said at face value"?
Black Mamba
Member
A. Romney is lying and raising taxes on the middle class to cut taxes for wealthy
B. Romney is lying about it being revenue neutral and instead would likely increase deficits.
Those are the options (of course you could believe he'd cut spending faster than the tax cuts, but that would be a laughable position to hold).
Either way, his tax policies will hurt the middle class more than anything.
He's proposing to do the same as W did. It's all bullshit. He won't even outline what he would cut out of the tax code because he won't touch much. Deficits today are nothing like they will be, but instead of being productive and increasing spending to get there he will instead let his corporate buddies store more of their money.
So basically everyone should assume that Romney is flat out LYING all the time. How DARE that article assume that he would "tell the truth".
- Status