Romney tax plan: tax increases for the middle class, tax cuts for the wealthy.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Black Mamba said:
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.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The guy is a clown, and is saddens me that so many people don't see it.
 
I think a lot of people in here are operating under the false premise that he has outlined a tax plan so far, but he hasn't. I am not saying it won't be some ridiculous mess, but unless he is willing to propose massive cuts to infrastructure, medicare/medicaid/social security/defense (none of which is politically expedient or even possible to pass without major support of congress), he will never be able to make tax cuts lower deficits. It is not mathematically possible.

If only politicians in this democratic republic where we live would man up and give the people the tax raises they need. Hell, even when cities and states vote for tax increases to fund things, the politicians are too chickenshit to actually do it.
 
AlteredBeast said:
I think a lot of people in here are operating under the false premise that he has outlined a tax plan so far, but he hasn't. I am not saying it won't be some ridiculous mess, but unless he is willing to propose massive cuts to infrastructure, medicare/medicaid/social security/defense (none of which is politically expedient or even possible to pass without major support of congress), he will never be able to make tax cuts lower deficits. It is not mathematically possible.

If only politicians in this democratic republic where we live would man up and give the people the tax raises they need. Hell, even when cities and states vote for tax increases to fund things, the politicians are too chickenshit to actually do it.
Click to expand...

Voters want all of those wonderful things, but they don't want to pay for them. It's sad, really. But they're going to learn the hard way. A childish, unrealistic electorate is going to get results that are rather fitting.
 
Opiate said:
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.
Click to expand...
How did those piles of money get there in the first place and how are they maintained? The measure of who is economically screwed if the money burns up needs to take into account the method and rate of replenishment. The one who needs to be more concerned about the loss is the one who cannot afford to lose their pile because they have a deficient method of recovery.

Generally, the less wealthy person would be the one most screwed because the more wealthy person would have a more reliable form of input at a higher rate/scale, unless you're talking about someone who only makes money from investments (and we assume the money pile represents the totality of those investments) or unless they obtained that money through idle means (e.g. gifts, inheritance).

People really shouldn't be picking on derder for trying to answer this question, because the attempts to bound the model ignored that no one's money pile is a closed system unless it's held in a trust that bears interest in perfect step with inflation.
 
derder said:
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.
Click to expand...

A bit off-topic but it's interesting to note, with the exception of that last item your list is funded overwhelmingly by state budgets which uniformly throughout the United States take a larger share of the incomes of the poorest than those of the rich.
 
Maybe I'm out of the loop, but is there actually a remote chance Romney will even get elected? I was under the impression everyone thought he was a lunatic aside from fringe hardcore republicans.
 
JzeroT1437 said:
Maybe I'm out of the loop, but is there actually a remote chance Romney will even get elected? I was under the impression everyone thought he was a lunatic aside from fringe hardcore republicans.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's a lunatic judging from his history, but I feel like he is trying to cater to who's voting for the republican party.
 
JzeroT1437 said:
Maybe I'm out of the loop, but is there actually a remote chance Romney will even get elected? I was under the impression everyone thought he was a lunatic aside from fringe hardcore republicans.
Click to expand...

No, unfortunately not everyone thinks he's a lunatic. In general national polls he's very close to Obama, usually only a couple points down, so quite a lot of people are going to vote for him.

As for his chance, yes there is a remote chance of him being elected, but right now it's low. He doesn't have very many electoral paths to victory, as he's losing by more than those few percentage points in a lot of key swing states.
 
fbn-cavuto-20120731-bushexpire.jpg


Lol
 
derder said:
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.
Click to expand...

I disagree, you're failing to acount for things such as the infrastructure. If you consider something like the roads, and how much more a shipping and packing company uses said roads, then the cost varies greatly. Those who own the company, use the road more, earn more money from it's paid infrastructure, should be taxed more to account for that no? Same with education, the owners of a company make their money off of the ideas and minds the company hires, should they too not be taxed more for the education infrastructure or incentives? Hell, even clean air, or the cost of their companies pollution. How do you value something like wildlife? are they not worth protecting? if so who should we tax for the destruction of wilderness for new housing developments?
 
For shits and giggles I was listening to mark levin on the radio yesterday. It amazing how they will go to push the party line.

His whole premise was that rich people are your only hope of a job so give them more money and they will turn around and give it to you in the form of a job.

I feel sad for the people listening and believing this.
 
Pctx said:
Thanks guys for quoting what was incomplete in which I was typing as I watching, I appreciate that. The whole thing in context makes sense. Case closed. Moving on.
Click to expand...

I was hoping you would comment on your realization that you have been purposely misled to interpret that speech incorrectly and would begin second guessing your previously trusted news sources

:'(
 
Chumly said:
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".
Click to expand...

All of these campaign budget plans are political documents with only a tenuous link to real world plausibility. They aren't designed to actually go through congress, they are designed to highlight campaign themes. I'm sure some majority conservatvive forum is having the same discussion about the contradictions in Pres. obama's campaign plan based on a study that the AEI did taking it seriously. The main result is to generate indignation among people who already agree, as well as short quotes to run in a 30 second ad aimed at undecideds who will never read the original document or the study written about it.
 
Guileless said:
It is high on GAF. Most of us are going to vote for the party dedicated to preserving and expanding wealth transfer from young to old.
Click to expand...

hangon, that sounds like most US gaffers would vote republican? that's not my impression of this forum.
 
Black Mamba said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm going with option B. The Reps have never shown themselves willing to be any more fiscally responsible than the Dems. (well, maybe for BRIEF periods when fighting a Dem President but that's out of partisanship, not principle).
 
Who cares. Nobody on this board really understands the tax system. I'd wager 1% of this board is the only ones that actually pay a significant tax burden (if that).

Doesn't matter... Romney has no chance. He's a terrible candidate... almost Mondale level. Republicans have no leadership and their candidates are weak. The sad part is that Obama is a terrible president just slightly above Carter level.

No wonder this country is going to crap.
 
HocusPocus said:
Who cares. Nobody on this board really understands the tax system. I'd wager 1% of this board is the only ones that actually pay a significant tax burden (if that).

Doesn't matter... Romney has no chance. He's a terrible candidate... almost Mondale level. Republicans have no leadership and their candidates are weak. The sad part is that Obama is a terrible president just slightly above Carter level.

No wonder this country is going to crap.
Click to expand...

Real world facts don't support this at all.

But thanks for showing us your ignorance!
 
HocusPocus said:
Who cares. Nobody on this board really understands the tax system. I'd wager 1% of this board is the only ones that actually pay a significant tax burden (if that).

Doesn't matter... Romney has no chance. He's a terrible candidate... almost Mondale level. Republicans have no leadership and their candidates are weak. The sad part is that Obama is a terrible president just slightly above Carter level.

No wonder this country is going to crap.
Click to expand...
You are a fan of dat hyperbole aren't you?
Mondale level? You think Romney will win only 1 state? And you really think Obama is better than Carter? C'mon dude.
 
Czigga said:
If we'd only tax the rich more, that'd fix all our problems!
Click to expand...

Well I'm convinced! We should never consider gaining revenue from taxing the wealthy ever again because it wouldn't solve a strawman defense developed by someone on the Internet. Thank you so much for saving us the trouble Czigga.
 
Lmao. I just read the article about the Romney campaign's respone to that report and its literally "bu-bu-but it doesn't take into account all the trickle down".
 
None of this matters because the only people that are going to vote for Romney are the same people who would vote for Ted Bundy if he had an R in front of his name instead of a D. Mitt Romney is just so unlikeable that pretty much nobody in the undecided range will vote for him once they actually get to see him and hear him talk. He's a used car salesman. He is the most obviously disingenuous person I've seen in my life. He is the kind of person that when you meet them for the first time you assume that they are lying when they tell you their name.

I plan to vote for him just out of pity. He is going to lose so badly that my vote wont make any difference at all. So I'm going to vote for him out of pity for the modern Republican party.

I always vote absentee so I will be able to take a pic and upload my pity vote for you GAF.
 
HocusPocus said:
Who cares. Nobody on this board really understands the tax system. I'd wager 1% of this board is the only ones that actually pay a significant tax burden (if that).

.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you consider "significant" but I would take this bet. I paid like 50k in taxes last year so now you have to come up with 99 gaffers who didn't pay income tax. I know I'm not the only one paying taxes, either.

This also completely ignores all the non income taxes people pay, which is a pet peeve of mine.
 
Admittedly I don't watch a lot of sources to have commercials..but...
Every commercial I see from Romney/Republicans attacks everything Obama has done/wants to do and basically says Obama's plan is shitty. Yes, not a single ad from Romney says what his plan is to fix things, or how he is different from Obama. Of course Obama has a bunch of attacking ads too. But at least a few say what he has done, and that he wants to do more.
 
Dali said:
Lmao. I just read the article about the Romney campaign's respone to that report and its literally "bu-bu-but it doesn't take into account all the trickle down".
Click to expand...

Except, the study did that

Nevertheless, even if one were to use the model from Mankiw and Weinzierl (2006) and assume that after five years 15 percent of the $360 billion tax cut is paid for through higher economic growth, the available tax expenditures would still need to be cut by 56 percent; on net lower- and middle-income taxpayers would still need to pay higher taxes.
Click to expand...

For those who don't know, Mankiw is an economic adviser to the Romney campaign and has large effects in his models for these things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The Apothecary Diaries Managaka Arrested over Tax Evasion
News 
2
879
Robot Carnival replied
Andrew Tate accused of tax fraud
News 
33
3K
Mistake replied
Tax Issue/Question
19
1K
Sub_Level replied
New W4 form, im so confused.... (US Payroll Tax Form)
2
1K
Happosai replied
Weak Hero: Class 1 (Class 2 soon on Netflix)
30
1K
AJUMP23 replied
Top Bottom