Romney's Tax Hike for the Middle Class
 

So whaddya guys think about Romney's plan to increase taxes on the middle class while giving the rich guys a break?

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...xes/?mobile=nc

I'd rather see a flat tax for everyone.

Not saying 10% is the choice to go on, but I'll use it as an example.

Say your poor and only make 1.00 for the day, you'll owe .10 cents.

If you make 100.00 for the day you'll owe 10.00

If you make 1,000.00 for the day you'll owe 100.00

If you make 1,000,000.00 for the day you'll owe 100,000.00

Seems like a fair way, nobody gets screwed.

Like big corporations will ever pay 10% of their earnings.

Plus when you think about it a person making one million a day can handle paying a higher percentage then a person at the lower end of the scale.

Barney

Yes, on the margin a dollar is worth significantly more to the poor than the rich. Where a flat tax rate certainly has a feeling of being just, it inherently hurts those in poverty more than the wealthy. Transferring all tax liability to individuals and away from corporations would give corporation incentive to keep employment here and keep more money expanding the company IMHO. That said, the highest tax rate should be 15-20% and the government's size ought reflect that constraint.

Anybody ever heard of the "Fair Tax"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

Take time to read the whole thing, especially about the effective rates.

Corporations pay ZERO now. The tax is passed on to the consumer as a cost of doing business. Sure, the books say different but we all know that any cost associated with doing business is ultimately paid by the consumer.

hehe.

You guys dodged the question.

What do you think about Romney's plan to hike taxes on the middle class and give the rich a tax break?

Yeah, we know. And we'd like to see that fixed. Problem is, we won't. Because half the country thinks they pay too much as it is.:rolleyes:

Dave

Every time I think about it I want to crush Mitts precious ones with my Vise-Grips and watch his eyes pop out of his head.

Does that answer your question?

Dave

Or we could have him examined for testicular cancer in a mamogram machine.:p But does he really have any?

I figured as much. I was more wondering what the Republican voters thought of their Golden Boy's plan. After all, what's a little money between them and their King.

First they have to find out what it is.

Last I heard, he said they have to elect him first. (Kind of like the shyster car dealer who tries to get you to sign the paperwork before he'll tell you what the price is. Come to think of it, he even looks like that guy.:eek:)

Dave

Romney has a plan? Who knew!

I actually agree 100%. The cuts in government have to come from all areas of government. military spending is out of control. We can easily do what the founding fathers wanted with some modifications. No standing army.

They like Eisenhower were worried about a military state or a military industrial complex cropping up. Well, it has happened. Just fly out of Reagan international and look at the hundreds, if not thousands, of million dollar mansions owned by weapons contractor lobbyist.

We also have to get control of the too big to fail banks. They play with our money and when things go into the dumpster they get bailed out; we don't.

We need an overhaul for this country.

Had an intersting conversation with an exArmy vet last night. He looked up at the telescreen in the breakroom as Obama was speaking and said, "Then why did you fire us dammit?"

I asked him if he thought the government should be run like a business.

"Hell yeah."

"Do businesses generally keep people they think they no longer need?"

"No."

"Didn't think so."

Dave

Last week I did a rough calculation on how much the military alone costs taxpayer. After accounting for corporate taxes and percentage of households that actually pay taxes, it worked out to something like $25,000 annually per taxpaying household.

That's simply unsustainable.

A figure like that per household simply means the dept only gets worse as very few pay in that sorta cash. :eek:

That's a per capita figure. In reality some pay more, some pay less, some pay nothing. But the average it that figure he presented.

Dave

Negative. I omitted people that don't pay federal taxes.

Our military costs tax paying American households about $25K per year.

Most corporations and about half of households get a free ride.

As an aside and not too far off topic. Keep in mind that a disproportionate number of those low income non taxpaying families provide the cannon fodder for the rest of us.

And to the extent that payments under Social Security and Medicare are considered as part of the budget that must be cut, payroll taxes toward Social Security and Medicare should be considered income taxes as well. When that is considered, the portion of folks who don't pay income tax shrinks considerably. A considerable portion of the others who don't pay income taxes are those who are collecting the benefits to which they contributed for their entire working life. Sorry of that is off topic, but it irks me every time I see someone mention that half of the people don't pay income tax. It just is not true.

Regards,

D-Ray

My pet peeve is the assertion that over 50% off all Americans are "....on some sort of public assistance." I don't know what the figure is, but, that just sounds unrealistically high.

Anybody have the numbers?

Dave

It is inaccurate to state it that way. If you believe the WSJ, however, in 2010, 49% of Americans lived in a household in which someone received some sort of assistance. One has to read that carefully, if one person in a household containing four people receives a government check, or medicaid or food stamps, that household counts. Saying that half the people receive government assistance overstates the number. Moreover, that number includes anyone who receives Medicare or Social Security - those folks who are collecting benefits toward which they contributed during their working lives. It includes folks who receive Medicaid, which includes the working poor, as is the case with food stamps. It also included households in which one member received unemployment benefits, a transitional payment. Moreover, the numbers are swelled because of the lingering effects of the Great Recession.

I would agree with a statement that the numbers are too high. It is absolutely a shame that the stratification of our incomes is so severe that folks who work for a living are so poor that they must have assistance to put food on the table. There is no excuse that capital is so highly valued over labor that those who labor are not paid enough to eat.

Regards,

D-Ray

Speaking to the original question (and with the understanding that I'm on some serious pain medication at the moment) I see nothing surprising in the Romney tax plan. How that plan would end up reducing the national debt however escapes me particularly since Romney is emphaisizing an increase in military spending as an integral component of his campaign.

According to this we are all on welfare

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...123809,00.html

That's the number I'd like to see, but I can't find any data on it. Because I happen to know people working for low wages and short hours that are on foodstamps. Because at <$9 an hour and at <30 hours a week, there is just no way. Especially not for a single Mom with a kid or two.:(

When you consider the weakening of Unions especially after PACO and the lowering of pay along with befits what else would happen. Unions and the fear of them kept companies from being greedy. Now with that fear almost totally removed the final two obstacles of paying taxes and regulations being considered to excessive . Once they are gone so will the middle class!


Barney

And, it's really beginning to show, Barney. I don't know if you're still working or retired, or how long it's been.....but they're getting cockier every day, it seems. Much of it is a function of the slow economy, but it is also because people have no backing and they know it.

Dave

Retired from a major carrier for a few years now. But wife is still doing time. She could retire any day but the youngest was in collage. With two sons and a large family I see and hear about it all the time.




Barney

The single mom part is just heard way to often these days. Dunno why couples part company so easy, like it doesn't matter that ''they'' brought kids in to this world and have an obligation to make things work. My mom left dad and I went back and forth state to state. Made myself a promise that I'd never put my own kids though anything of that nature and I lived up to it. Wasn't always easy though.

See? We ARE all soci@lists now. ;)

It's a shame that things like this have to be pointed out to folks but most are to ignorant of the fact and just plow on with their "rugged individualism".

Time for folks to realize they been on the tit most of their lives one way or another and to just start being more Soci@l and neighborly in general.

And that they've been paying the way for others, even through private insurance, their entire lives and they always will. It just isn't going to work any other way.:rolleyes:

Dave

I think I heard it said best in a recent speech I listened to:

But we also believe in something called citizenship – a word at the very heart of our founding, at the very essence of our democracy; the idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another, and to future generations.

(President Obama, DNC Speech)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1849133.html

Amen, and I did not have it thrust upon me by birth, I asked for it

Far from it but we all, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, benefit from "soci@list" programs. "Rugged individualism" was an important characteristic of American society when we were settling the frontier, though even then it had its drawbacks, but it's anachronistic and destructive today.

John

Well, maybe the American "brand" but citizenship and a sense of the commons is as important in Canada as it is here. (Except for Toronto. Everyone hates Toronto. ;))

John

The fun part is that the only way to disavow your citizenship in Canada is to go to the government and tell them you don't want it (in person). Since the few times I have been there I was otherwise occupied I still have both.:)

That's Tarrana

Good Stephanopoulos article on a Romney interview on Yahoo. Very scary actually.
http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-romn...politics.html]
I don't know where he gets his middle class figure, it certainly isn't the USG Census Bureau. :confused:

Or am I missing something here?


Carl

I also like the part where he says he is quoting a report he hasn't read but starts off the interview with Obama is a liar. Again. :rolleyes:


Carl