Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan finally release the "details" to their Tax plan

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Well it's pretty simple logic; the wealthy in this country have the biggest-ever ratio of wealth versus the poor, so in other words the wealthy are doing better right now then they ever have been. The poor and middle class are doing badly, and there is a huge deficit. Let the ones who got the free gift pay back to their country what they were given. The GOP talk so much about lowering the deficit, but when it comes time to do so, they only want the money to pay for that deficit lowering to come from someone else's pocket.

Obama's own Simpson-Bowles commission suggested a plan lowering taxes across the board (More than Romney's advocating for). Lowering corporate taxes also, but eliminating deductions and loopholes. Essentially they're lowering taxes but broadening the base.

 

[Ldir]

Romney's plan:
Reduce income tax on all earned income
Close tax loopholes (which ones? unsure.)
Limit deductions (to what? unsure.)
Reduce spending

Obama's plan:
Increase taxes on the wealthy
Increase estate taxes (tax money that has already been taxed just because it is being given to someone else.)
Increase capital gains taxes
Create more tax credits for the poor

I don't need to know the details of what loopholes Romney will close. I don't care because at least Romney is trying to do something other than raise taxes. Obama is going right for the easy solution - just raise taxes on the rich and give money to the poor. If Romney fails he can always fall back on Obama's plan and just raise taxes.

Romney will not reduce spending. He already wants to spend $2 TRILLION more on the military. Plus he wants to start a war with Iran. That will be another TRILLION or more. He may want to start a war with Syria.

 

[Juddog]

Obama's own Simpson-Bowles commission suggested a plan lowering taxes across the board (More than Romney's advocating for). Lowering corporate taxes also, but eliminating deductions and loopholes. Essentially they're lowering taxes but broadening the base.

Simpson-Bowles advocated raising taxes while cutting discretionary spending - do you even read up at all before you spout garbage?

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Let the ones who got the free gift pay back to their country what they were given

Here is the fundamental problem with your thinking and why arguing is useless. I was not given anything. I was given the same opportunity in life as you. But I have been working multiple jobs since I was 14. I worked full time while getting my master's degree in engineering. I worked 20 hour days at times to make things happen. I put a lot of what I've earned on the line. If one of my current businesses fails then it means I could be out of a house.

We all speak of people being money rich. How about the people that work a normal 9-5 job? They are time rich. How can we redistribute their time and give back to those that make it possible for them to have a job and time?

Luck is when opportunity meets preparation. We all have opportunity - the "rich" were just prepared for it when it came along. It sure as hell would have been nice to get an easy degree, not work while doing it too, and get to bed on time. I am now being punished because I chose to sacrifice when I was younger to make something of myself.

The fact that you think any of us owe you anything is laughable. You should be ashamed of yourself. The "rich" pay a lot back into society as it is and to think you believe we owe even more is ridiculous.

 

[jackstar7]

No, he is suggesting it isn't your money to redistribute.

I would think we had a problem with poverty in America if we didn't all have cell phones, cars, big screen TVs, computers, data plans, gadgets galore, cable TV, internet, and have a yearly average of nearly 9 liters of pure ethyl alcohol consumed per capita.

I've been around the world. I once saw a family living in a house made out of a couple of pallets nailed to a banana tree. That is poverty.

I had renters that lived in poverty. They were on section 8 housing and were responsible for a small portion of rent. Being poor meant they barely had enough money to get their hair AND nails done and still go out drinking!

America doesn't have a problem with poverty. America has a problem called "living outside of your means." We all witness it every day of our lives. Go to the unemployment office and see how many people have smart phones.

You should strive to have a broader range of experiences if you're going to let your anecdotal experience inform your choices.

We, as Americans, do not ALL have the things in your list. There are real poor and real homeless and the country does not enjoy the level of upward mobility for motivated people that is used to support.

 

[Juddog]

Here is the fundamental problem with your thinking and why arguing is useless. I was not given anything. I was given the same opportunity in life as you. But I have been working multiple jobs since I was 14. I worked full time while getting my master's degree in engineering. I worked 20 hour days at times to make things happen. I put a lot of what I've earned on the line. If one of my current businesses fails then it means I could be out of a house.

We all speak of people being money rich. How about the people that work a normal 9-5 job? They are time rich. How can we redistribute their time and give back to those that make it possible for them to have a job and time?

Luck is when opportunity meets preparation. We all have opportunity - the "rich" were just prepared for it when it came along. It sure as hell would have been nice to get an easy degree, not work while doing it too, and get to bed on time. I am now being punished because I chose to sacrifice when I was younger to make something of myself.

The fact that you think any of us owe you anything is laughable. You should be ashamed of yourself. The "rich" pay a lot back into society as it is and to think you believe we owe even more is ridiculous.

By your definition you don't even qualify as rich. Do you make more than $250k a year? If not then you really have no business arguing here.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Romney will not reduce spending. He already wants to spend $2 TRILLION more on the military. Plus he wants to start a war with Iran. That will be another TRILLION or more. He may want to start a war with Syria.

You can reduce overall spending while still allocating more money to other sectors. Show me where his budget is greater than Obama's.

Show me where he said he wants to start a war with Iran. Or Syria.
Isn't it our current president that has gotten us into additional wars? I guess it is OK for Obama to get us into little skirmishes (hey, as long as we don't call it a war, right?) but you THINK Romney wants to take a shot at Iran and that is reprehensible?

 

[woolfe9999]

Let's say you were neutral, and you saw the following figure. Lies told by each party candidate:

Democrat | Republican
=================
53 | 53

To monovillage, that result would be "OMG OBUMMER TOLD 53 LIES!!" and would totally disregard the 53 lies that Romney spoke. Likewise some of the die hard left-wingers here would do the same thing in favor of Obama.

Personally, if I saw 53/53 I would suspect that the fact checkers had a bias toward proving themselves non-partisan, and hence intentionally selected an equal number of falsehoods from each side while not necessarily rating every statement made. In the real world, it's actually quite unlikely that falsehoods would be exactly equal on each side. If nothing else, random chance would produce a slight variance between the sides even if both had equal inclinations toward honesty/dishonesty.

I mention this because it's pretty much what politifact and, to a certain extent, factcheck.org do. Factcheck has an article on each of the 2 debates so far where they bullet point falsehoods and alternate them back and forth to produce equal numbers on each side. Yet if you look at the text beneath the bullet points, they note many additional falsehoods and the ultimate number is of course not equal because you wouldn't expect it to be.

- wolf

 

[randomrogue]

No, he is suggesting it isn't your money to redistribute.

I would think we had a problem with poverty in America if we didn't all have cell phones, cars, big screen TVs, computers, data plans, gadgets galore, cable TV, internet, and have a yearly average of nearly 9 liters of pure ethyl alcohol consumed per capita.

I've been around the world. I once saw a family living in a house made out of a couple of pallets nailed to a banana tree. That is poverty.

I had renters that lived in poverty. They were on section 8 housing and were responsible for a small portion of rent. Being poor meant they barely had enough money to get their hair AND nails done and still go out drinking!

America doesn't have a problem with poverty. America has a problem called "living outside of your means." We all witness it every day of our lives. Go to the unemployment office and see how many people have smart phones.

I get it. Yeah because people allocate $50 a month on a phone we should continue to concentrate the wealth into smaller and smaller segments of our population. 80% of the country has 15% of the wealth. WTF?!

I've been all over the world too and there is a better way to run a country other than simply fucking over most of your population. I'm not advocating redistribution of wealth to walmart checkers, but I am saying that we have a huge fucking problem right now. I live overseas and I can't even visit my family without getting travel insurance since there is no public healthcare in the USA. Yet if I'm in Zimbabwe it's free and in most other parts of the world free or dirt cheap. We don't invest in our people. Our infrastructure, our transit systems, our health care, our public education, it's all rock bottom. It's embarrassing. We don't provide our people with benefits befit of a great country and society. We fire people for getting pregnant, we give 2 weeks or less of vacation, we discriminate against people of different sexual orientations, and quite honestly we don't live up to the standards that our forefathers set.

America is a "great country" if you're in the upper echelons of society - gifted intellectually, mega hard working, or born rich. However most people aren't like that and we simply ignore them and cater to a very small percentage of our population.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

By your definition you don't even qualify as rich. Do you make more than $250k a year? If not then you really have no business arguing here.

When did I define rich? I said I'm not rich. Rich is a relative term.

Yes, I make over twice that amount. I do not consider myself rich. I consider myself a high earner.

Do you make more than $250K per year? If not I would suggest you take your own advice.

 

[Juddog]

Personally, if I saw 53/53 I would suspect that the fact checkers had a bias toward proving themselves non-partisan, and hence intentionally selected an equal number of falsehoods from each side while not necessarily rating every statement made. In the real world, it's actually quite unlikely that falsehoods would be exactly equal on each side. If nothing else, random chance would produce a slight variance between the sides even if both had equal inclinations toward honesty/dishonesty.

I mention this because it's pretty much what politifact and, to a certain extent, factcheck.org do. Factcheck has an article on each of the 2 debates so far where they bullet point falsehoods and alternate them back and forth to produce equal numbers on each side. Yet if you look at the text beneath the bullet points, they note many additional falsehoods and the ultimate number is of course not equal because you wouldn't expect it to be.

- wolf

So an exact number of lies by each side means that the fact checker is biased. Got it. This is a pretty basic test to determine whether you are biased, and you verified that you are.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

I get it. Yeah because people allocate $50 a month on a phone we should continue to concentrate the wealth into smaller and smaller segments of our population. 80% of the country has 15% of the wealth. WTF?!

I've been all over the world too and there is a better way to run a country other than simply fucking over most of your population. I'm not advocating redistribution of wealth to walmart checkers, but I am saying that we have a huge fucking problem right now. I live overseas and I can't even visit my family without getting travel insurance since there is no public healthcare in the USA. Yet if I'm in Zimbabwe it's free and in most other parts of the world free or dirt cheap. We don't invest in our people. Our infrastructure, our transit systems, our health care, our public education, it's all rock bottom. It's embarrassing. We don't provide our people with benefits befit of a great country and society. We fire people for getting pregnant, we give 2 weeks or less of vacation, we discriminate against people of different sexual orientations, and quite honestly we don't live up to the standards that our forefathers set.

America is a "great country" if you're in the upper echelons of society - gifted intellectually, mega hard working, or born rich. However most people aren't like that and we simply ignore them and cater to a very small percentage of our population.

I can't even take your post seriously. You point out free health care in Zimbabwe...a country that has collapsed. A country with a per capita GDP of less than $500.

Yes, in Zimbabwe health care is free. They seem to be doing quite well over there where the inflation rate in 2008 was 89,700,000,000,000,000,000,000%.

Maybe Zimbabwe should look at America and say "They don't provide free health care, but then again a loaf of bread does cost $100 Billion. Everyone has a car, a phone, and opportunity to work and purchase their own healthcare." Honestly, would you rather live in Zimbabwe or USA? Zimbabwe, where 1 in 8 children will die before age 5. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/mar/18/zimbabwe.aids)

Yes, Zimbabwe. We should really look to them as a model.

 

[jackstar7]

When did I define rich? I said I'm not rich. Rich is a relative term.

Yes, I make over twice that amount. I do not consider myself rich. I consider myself a high earner.

Do you make more than $250K per year? If not I would suggest you take your own advice.

Your threshhold for "rich" is likely skewed because you are a high-earner. It keeps you driven towards a higher goal. In fact, the term needs to be relative for you to maintain the motivation. I imagine (pure speculation) that you view rich as equivalent to a measure with "secure", which makes it a very attractive goal despite remaining elusive.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Simpson-Bowles advocated raising taxes while cutting discretionary spending - do you even read up at all before you spout garbage?

I didn't state that cutting taxes alone will balance the budget... I was talking about tax plans....which may be related to spending, but it's not the same thing as spending.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The issue isn't the specific number of lies each told in the debate.

The issue is that Romney fundamentally changed major aspects of his previous platform.

 

[randomrogue]

When did I define rich? I said I'm not rich. Rich is a relative term.

Yes, I make over twice that amount. I do not consider myself rich. I consider myself a high earner.

Do you make more than $250K per year? If not I would suggest you take your own advice.

I never made $500K a year but I made $200K and change before I moved overseas. A bit more if I count company stock increases annually that I didn't take out until the end. I now make less (but don't care since I have money in the bank) and the quality of my life is about a billion times better. I took 5.5 months off last year.

I've been poor, I've been rich. You might not think $200K is rich but it is unless you want to own a jet. I could buy just about ANYTHING with that income.

Here's the thing. I paid my employees twice what the competition did. Did I have to? No. However it did a few things. First off it ensured that my employees never left, second it allowed them to live nice lives, and third it made me feel like a decent human being. If I use this small example to illustrate how the USA is doing right now then we're paying our employees a bit less than the competition. The country's philosophy is basically saying that we should give as little as possible to the small guy but the big guy should keep taking more. Hell they earned it right? Well look I earned every penny I made but I don't think I earned the right to destroy the middle class and leave people in poverty. If people are stupid enough to drop out of high school or buy a house that they can't afford that's their own problem but fleecing people is not right. If you truly own a business then you must have seen what they have been doing with health care costs. In CA they were raising them 20% a year. They had to back down eventually when they tried something crazy like 40% one year. At first we raised the cost to our employees a bit and absorbed the rest ourselves. Then we simply had to reduce their benefits. Those were crazy cost increases with an economy in meltdown. Lets continue. Big banks got bailed out and what did they do? They acquired other banks and solidified their books for record profits. What did they do to the rest of America - specifically small businesses? They told us to fuck off. Is this really the kind of country you want to live in?

We have to fix it and concentrating wealth into smaller and smaller sections of society is wrong. Flat out wrong. Prove me wrong by showing how these segments are doing great things for the average American but we both know that's a fool's errand.

 

[randomrogue]

I can't even take your post seriously. You point out free health care in Zimbabwe...a country that has collapsed. A country with a per capita GDP of less than $500.

Yes, in Zimbabwe health care is free. They seem to be doing quite well over there where the inflation rate in 2008 was 89,700,000,000,000,000,000,000%.

Maybe Zimbabwe should look at America and say "They don't provide free health care, but then again a loaf of bread does cost $100 Billion. Everyone has a car, a phone, and opportunity to work and purchase their own healthcare." Honestly, would you rather live in Zimbabwe or USA? Zimbabwe, where 1 in 8 children will die before age 5. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/mar/18/zimbabwe.aids)

Yes, Zimbabwe. We should really look to them as a model.

Oh come on you know I picked that country specifically because it's so terrible. Don't play the fool.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Your threshhold for "rich" is likely skewed because you are a high-earner. It keeps you driven towards a higher goal. In fact, the term needs to be relative for you to maintain the motivation. I imagine (pure speculation) that you view rich as equivalent to a measure with "secure", which makes it a very attractive goal despite remaining elusive.

Everyone has a thermometer and it adjusts accordingly. I am rich to someone making $100K/year. He is rich to someone making $30k/year. I am poor to someone making $10 million/year. I am aware of that fact.

I am a very driven person. I like what I do and I do what I like. I like the challenge of working. I don't like being punished for that.

 

[woolfe9999]

So an exact number of lies by each side means that the fact checker is biased. Got it. This is a pretty basic test to determine whether you are biased, and you verified that you are.

Really? You think it's actually plausible that the number of lies is exactly the same? And furthermore, you seemed to have overlooked the nature of the factchecker bias that I allege. Not a partisan bias but rather a bias toward presenting themselves as being non-partisan. I think the fact checkers do a fine job of assessing the statements they choose to vet, but the selection process for statements I think does tend to reveal a bias toward maintaining a non-partisan image. I doubt that even they would dispute that.

I think your rather glib response to my observations reveals your own bias here.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Oh come on you know I picked that country specifically because it's so terrible. Don't play the fool.

You showed me an example of a place where you can get free healthcare. It is literally one of the worst countries on earth. I do not understand how you thought your example would play out.

You are saying "See, free healthcare is given even in the poorest of countries."
I am saying that the mortality rate in that country is incredible high and the country is destitute. They healthcare is abysmal. Maybe the "free" part of the healthcare is part of the cause.

Do you even know how to pick an example?

 

[randomrogue]

You showed me an example of a place where you can get free healthcare. It is literally one of the worst countries on earth. I do not understand how you thought your example would play out.

You are saying "See, free healthcare is given even in the poorest of countries."
I am saying that the mortality rate in that country is incredible high and the country is destitute. They healthcare is abysmal. Maybe the "free" part of the healthcare is part of the cause.

Do you even know how to pick an example?

Ok, Norway. Go. Wait you'll complain they have oil money despite the fact that we do too. Ok, Sweden. Go. Wait you'll complain that they're too good looking. What example of free healthcare will work for you? Maybe you're content with the American system. You're the only one.

You're simply side stepping the issues at hand. You have your money and nobody else can have it. Doesn't matter to you that the American Dream is nearly dead for most people. Hey I lived it. You live it. That's all that matters. That guy working in a factory isn't worth as much to you because he didn't do what you did. Therefore we shouldn't care about his healthcare, his family, his income, his housing, his education, his fuel costs, etc. How dare he even buy a phone!

 

[jackstar7]

Everyone has a thermometer and it adjusts accordingly. I am rich to someone making $100K/year. He is rich to someone making $30k/year. I am poor to someone making $10 million/year. I am aware of that fact.

I am a very driven person. I like what I do and I do what I like. I like the challenge of working. I don't like being punished for that.

What punishment do you believe you are incurring?

Why isn't it simply factored in as a "cost" on the balance sheet?

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Ok, Norway. Go. Wait you'll complain they have oil money despite the fact that we do too. Ok, Sweden. Go. Wait you'll complain that they're too good looking. What example of free healthcare will work for you? Maybe you're content with the American system. You're the only one.

You're simply side stepping the issues at hand. You have your money and nobody else can have it. Doesn't matter to you that the American Dream is nearly dead for most people. Hey I lived it. You live it. That's all that matters. That guy working in a factory isn't worth as much to you because he didn't do what you did. Therefore we shouldn't care about his healthcare, his family, his income, his housing, his education, his fuel costs, etc. How dare he even buy a phone!

I paid over $100K in taxes last year. That means plenty of people are getting my money.
Our system is broken...because of people like you who want to give me hard earned money to the welfare mom so I can subsidize her cell phone use.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

What punishment do you believe you are incurring?

Why isn't it simply factored in as a "cost" on the balance sheet?

You want to raise my taxes because I have more money. I say we raise taxes...across the board. Raise EVERY tax rate by 5%.

It is factored in as a cost. But it is a cost I cannot control which is very bad. On top of that I see no return on this cost. When costs for something go up I do something about it. I change suppliers, change prices, or negotiate. There is none of that with this cost. Like paying rent, if it gets to high, I can go elsewhere.

 

[randomrogue]

I paid over $100K in taxes last year. That means plenty of people are getting my money.
Our system is broken...because of people like you who want to give me hard earned money to the welfare mom so I can subsidize her cell phone use.

Yeah I've paid 6 figures in taxes. I still put 6 figures in the bank. You realize there's more to America than giving your money to welfare moms. How about you stop worrying about that $30 T-mobile plan from Walmart and start worrying about the bigger issues?

Where you and I might agree would be that taxes wouldn't sound so bad if they were actually being spent wisely and not being wasted. Right now when I pay taxes in the states I don't feel like they go anywhere but to pay for a couple wars and horrible government administrators. I don't see the benefit anywhere unlike where I live now. Where we might disagree though is how to spend it wisely but I'd really hope that you'd agree on a few things such as Education and Healthcare, fundamental needs in life, as a proper use of tax dollars.