• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Romney quietly announces a good tax policy idea

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

mwtgg

Lifer
Dec 6, 2001
10,491
0
0
So the wage I earned last year wasn't subject to inflation?

What your implying is money from investments are superior to money earned via labor and should be treated differently. I disagree, whether you make 100k from wages or 100k via investments it money earned.
You do realize why dividends are treated differently than other classes of income? Dividends are distributions of after-tax profits to shareholders. In order to minimize double taxation, the dividends are taxed at a lower rate.
 

AyashiKaibutsu

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2004
9,307
3
81
I think I'm pretty connected to average people. Have no problem paying my taxes, paid an effective %19 last year, and wouldn't mind paying more, after all I am benefitting from the society I live in why shouldn't I pay my fair share?
If you think you're middle class making over 100k a year, then you're not connected with reality. You could make an argument for upper middle class at that point, but simply saying middle class is being disingenuous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class#Income
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
You do realize why dividends are treated differently than other classes of income? Dividends are distributions of after-tax profits to shareholders. In order to minimize double taxation, the dividends are taxed at a lower rate.
I understand, I just think capital gains should be taxed as income.
I see no difference in earning money from investments and labor.

Short term capital gains are taxed as income so should long term.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
If you think you're middle class making over 100k a year, then you're not connected with reality. You could make an argument for upper middle class at that point, but simply saying middle class is being disingenuous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class#Income
I made over triple the median income in my area. Middle class is a term being discussed surrounding tax and politics.

In no way do I compare my situation to a family of 4 making 60k a year.
 

mwtgg

Lifer
Dec 6, 2001
10,491
0
0
I understand, I just think capital gains should be taxed as income.
I see no difference in earning money from investments and labor.

Short term capital gains are taxed as income so should long term.
So then you're okay with getting rid of corporate taxation?

Anyway, the point is there's no simplistic way to correct, fix, adjust the tax code. What we don't need are more "temporary" fixes that only last for a year or two. We also don't need politicians to spout off half-assed "solutions".
 

SparkyJJO

Lifer
May 16, 2002
13,360
6
81
Lol I have more than 17k in just mortgage interest deductions.

I am middle class and had over 50k itemized deductions.

17k cap isn't a horrible idea but would hit middle class the hardest.
You seriously pay $17k a year in mortgage interest alone?

I think that is more your own fault than anything. What did you do, finance an entire $350k+ house? o_O

I think I'm pretty connected to average people. Have no problem paying my taxes, paid an effective %19 last year, and wouldn't mind paying more, after all I am benefitting from the society I live in why shouldn't I pay my fair share?
Feel free to give the fed more than your tax rate if you want to and are able to. Just don't act like the rest of us should pay more because YOU want to pay more :colbert:
 
Last edited:

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
So then you're okay with getting rid of corporate taxation?

Anyway, the point is there's no simplistic way to correct, fix, adjust the tax code. What we don't need are more "temporary" fixes that only last for a year or two. We also don't need politicians to spout off half-assed "solutions".
No I am not for getting rid of corporate taxation. I agree the tax code issues require more than temp fixes and political lip service.

Besides tax implications are only half solved by the tax collected how it's spent is the other half. I think it's ridiculous to address one without addressing the other.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
You seriously pay $17k a year in mortgage interest alone?

I think that is more your own fault than anything. What did you do, finance an entire $350k+ house? o_O



Feel free to give the fed more than your tax rate if you want to and are able to. Just don't act like the rest of us should pay more because YOU want to pay more :colbert:
No I own two homes, collect $200 per month rent on one, renting to a family friend. I'm about to pull the trigger on a 4 plex, do it will be more next year.

I said I would be ok with paying more because I am getting more monetary benefit from the society I live in.

You pay what you are legally required to, if I don't think it's enough I'll vote to change it.
 

SparkyJJO

Lifer
May 16, 2002
13,360
6
81
No I own two homes, collect $200 per month rent on one, renting to a family friend. I'm about to pull the trigger on a 4 plex, do it will be more next year.

I said I would be ok with paying more because I am getting more monetary benefit from the society I live in.

You pay what you are legally required to, if I don't think it's enough I'll vote to change it.
Screw you. I have a problem with people (out of jealously in most cases) wanting to tax higher income earners more, but to have a higher earner wanting to raise taxes on the lower earners is even worse.
 

gotsmack

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2001
5,768
0
71
If you think you're middle class making over 100k a year, then you're not connected with reality. You could make an argument for upper middle class at that point, but simply saying middle class is being disingenuous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class#Income
Middle class is a wide band that includes anyone above the working poor line, but below the "I don't have to work for a living" line. There are sub groups with the middle class.



It also depends on where you are living. In Manhattan making 200k a year is good living, but all that means is that you don't have to share your shoe box 1 br. apt with anyone. If you live out in the middle of nowhere, it is a very good living and you're on the road to early retirement.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
Just tax all imports at 6.25% and all exports at a single ad valorem rate that's more than 6.25% if they're not willing to reinstate the Articles of Confederation. I am worried that Romney's proposal mentioned by the OP will be revenue neutral compared to the current code. Also, what does W Mitt Romney say about the payroll tax? That should be abolished first IMO and maybe the latest Coolidge personal and corporate income tax code could be reinstated so that fewer people would pay income taxes... that combined with reduced spending plus what I mentioned in this post's first sentence would help a lot because it could allow GDP to be at closer to market levels.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
Screw you. I have a problem with people (out of jealously in most cases) wanting to tax higher income earners more, but to have a higher earner wanting to raise taxes on the lower earners is even worse.
We have a progressive tax system designed specifically to do just that.

Have higher incomes pay more tax.

But via lobby and loopholes it doesn't always work that way.
 

SparkyJJO

Lifer
May 16, 2002
13,360
6
81
We don't even need progressive tax systems to make higher incomes pay more tax. Basic math shows a flat rate would do the same.

I think we could easily have a flat tax rate (though with an initial minimum amount perhaps), cut out a billion loopholes (such as make it impossible to receive back more in a tax return than you paid), and have a much simpler tax code that would get the job done, possibly even increase tax revenue, without hurting anybody's real bottom line. Well, except maybe the tax preparers would end up getting the short end of the stick as they wouldn't be needed near as much anymore...

Obviously this is just really general and specifics would be needed worked out. We still need to cut the government waste too. There are things that get government money that absolutely should never get taxpayer dollars.

Frankly the entire tax structure we have needs to be totally gutted and rebuilt from the bottom up.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
We don't even need progressive tax systems to make higher incomes pay more tax. Basic math shows a flat rate would do the same.

I think we could easily have a flat tax rate (though with an initial minimum amount perhaps), cut out a billion loopholes (such as make it impossible to receive back more in a tax return than you paid), and have a much simpler tax code that would get the job done, possibly even increase tax revenue, without hurting anybody's real bottom line. Well, except maybe the tax preparers would end up getting the short end of the stick as they wouldn't be needed near as much anymore...

Obviously this is just really general and specifics would be needed worked out. We still need to cut the government waste too. There are things that get government money that absolutely should never get taxpayer dollars.

Frankly the entire tax structure we have needs to be totally gutted and rebuilt from the bottom up.
I would not be opposed to a well thought out flat tax. And agree our tax system is terrible.
 

SparkyJJO

Lifer
May 16, 2002
13,360
6
81
Sad thing is no one has the guts or or the clout to really force the overhaul we need. They just keep throwing more gunk into the mix.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,294
1
76
You do realize why dividends are treated differently than other classes of income? Dividends are distributions of after-tax profits to shareholders. In order to minimize double taxation, the dividends are taxed at a lower rate.
dividends are no different than wages as an expense for a business, there's no less double taxation of wages than there is of dividends.

the real difference is people get dividend income by owning something, they get wages by working.

That's no justification for one or the other having favorable tax treatment.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,198
149
106
You work hard for your money. You pay a higher tax rate then someone who does nothing. Seems like this is opposite of what it should be.
 

Howard

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
47,991
9
81
So then you're okay with getting rid of corporate taxation?

Anyway, the point is there's no simplistic way to correct, fix, adjust the tax code. What we don't need are more "temporary" fixes that only last for a year or two. We also don't need politicians to spout off half-assed "solutions".
oh hey bro welcome back
 

Dulanic

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2000
9,793
399
136
In what world do you live in where the middle class has $17,000 in itemized deductions?

EDIT: And seems like Romney per-implemented his plan by not claiming all his charitable contributions.
It is not hard to do... I'm middle class and last year I had $21,772. In this world LOTS of people have at least that much in deductions. This doesn't even count the fact I had no child deduction last year which I will have this year which adds another $3700.

On a off note and a different topic, I do believe the child credit should be limited to 2 per family. We shouldn't fund for a family of 10.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,807
1,123
126
I'm low middle class and have a lot more than 17K in itemized deductions. I do a lot of closings and I would estimate that 50-75% of the clients can hit the 17K level on the mortgage interest deduction alone.

Either Romney is completely out of touch or he is trying to subtly introduce the specifics of a "bend over and drop your trousers middle class" screwing.

Question for the Romney fans-if the Romney/Ryan 20% tax cut is going to be revenue neutral (as R-R repeatedly claim) how can this plan possibly stimulate growth? By their own implicit admission the intent of this plan is to redistribute the cost of income taxes.
 
Nov 29, 2006
14,576
2,346
126
I say we just go to sale tax only on everything but food and clothing. Give people more of their hard earned money to spend as consumers to push the economy along.

As well as cut out the bloat spending in DC.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Honestly, its time to repeal the 16th amendment. I'm not saying we need to eliminate tax, I am saying we need to eliminate the federal government from being able to levy it.

They can't even tell us how much of it they need every year ffs.

They have proven, without a doubt, they can't be responsible with our tax dollars. Like a teenager on a mall spending spree, we must ask that they hand over the credit card.
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
I'm low middle class and have a lot more than 17K in itemized deductions. I do a lot of closings and I would estimate that 50-75% of the clients can hit the 17K level on the mortgage interest deduction alone.

Either Romney is completely out of touch or he is trying to subtly introduce the specifics of a "bend over and drop your trousers middle class" screwing.

Question for the Romney fans-if the Romney/Ryan 20% tax cut is going to be revenue neutral (as R-R repeatedly claim) how can this plan possibly stimulate growth? By their own implicit admission the intent of this plan is to redistribute the cost of income taxes.
Right. Because 50-75% of middle income people buy $400,000 homes (assuming 5% interest rate) :rolleyes:
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
Interesting idea.

I'd want to see how many middle-class filers this would affect before giving that specific number a thumbs-up or down, but it sounds like a good idea in general.

We still need to cut all kinds of spending including both social programs and military. And we will probably need a lot more loophole closing besides this one.
It hits us hard and a lot of people I know. Doesn't effect everyone but when it does look for foreclosures. Then there are a lot of people who donate disproportionately to charity and the deduction to do someone else good will mean axing those to make up for the increase paid in tax. They are going to screw charities out of donations by the most generous.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,630
181
106

ASK THE COMMUNITY