Romney's Plan: $100 tax hike for the poor, $100,000 tax cut for the rich

[Anarchist420]

And Dr. Paul will never (and I mean NEVER) get Congress to approve the necessary spending cuts to not only cover his tax cuts but to significantly decrease the current deficit which means our debt will balloon even faster.

And it's a sad country we live in. With SOPA about to pass, the days of limited tyranny will be over.

 

[PeshakJang]

Your taxes are lower if more is taken from a dead guy's estate. That means you have more money to consume, or buy a house, or start a business.

So you are saying that my opportunity will increase, because the government will choose to not take opportunity away from me?

Interesting, I like where you are going with this...

 

[Throckmorton]

So you are saying that my opportunity will increase, because the government will choose to not take opportunity away from me?

Interesting, I like where you are going with this...

The decision is made when the tax code is set up... Flatter tax = less money where it matters, and more wealth accumulation at the top.

 

[Doppel]

LOL these stupid ass tax plans are going to totally fvck the campains of people pushing them. Doesn't romney realize that he won't get elected without huge numbers of people who do NOT want to pay more taxes? The smaller guys at the top are the people he's on his knees for in office (lobbyists/corporations) NOT the people he needs to placate now.

 

[PeshakJang]

Someone who casually talks about betting someone $10K isn't exactly in touch with most wage earners in this country.

Somebody who makes hundreds of thousands in tax-exempt foreign income from book sales isn't either. Guess who?

 

[PeshakJang]

The decision is made when the tax code is set up... Flatter tax = less money where it matters, and more wealth accumulation at the top.

Doesn't that all depend on how much is spent?

How much opportunity do I need? Define equal opportunity? What if I blew all my opportunities? What if I didn't care to take advantage of my opportunities? How much more do I deserve? How much more does somebody else owe me?

How can you say that rich people are destroying my opportunities, when I choose to give money to them, while the government takes it from me?

How many opportunities have rich people created for me? Did they get rich creating opportunities for other people? Did they create a product that allows me to have more opportunities, while keeping more of my money too? What opportunities have they taken from me?

What opportunities did the government give me? What opportunities have they taken from me?

 

[Fern]

Eliminating estate taxes is a bad idea. I thought conservatives were all about equality of opportunity. Perpetuating legacy wealth is not in line with that concept. If anything, he should favor lowering taxes for the living and raising them for the dead.

Well, I didn't mention estate taxes. But I think you already know I don't advocate eliminating it. In fact, again as you probably know, I want it fixed (exemptions & deductions scaled back or eliminated etc) so that we have a real death/estate tax that the wealthy cannot easily skirt, as they do now.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Your taxes are lower if more is taken from a dead guy's estate. That means you have more money to consume, or buy a house, or start a business.

We also prevent the creation/perpetuation of an aristocracy in the US.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Obama has to be thanking Romney for this plan. Who in their right mind would think of these things as a good idea.

Who thought the Bush tax cuts for the rich that were responsible for a huge amount of increased debt and transfer of wealth from the people to the 1% were a good idea?

 

[PeshakJang]

Because they are just rolling in it, let's take some of their money and give billionaires and trust fund babies a tax cut.

I can play that game.

Let's take more from those that risked everything they had, may have lost it all several times, and finally succeeded on their own sweat and blood, and give it to a drug dealer that collects food-stamps and welfare checks while living on Medicaid.

Just looking at the numbers, my scenario is much more likely.

 

[PeshakJang]

We also prevent the creation/perpetuation of an aristocracy in the US.

Fern

I've already stated that I believe in confiscating the wealth of the wealthiest families among us, namely Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and the Kennedys. These are three prime examples of aristocracies that I am sure liberals would agree are doing more harm than good.

 

[Jhhnn]

Romney, and Repubs in general, are pissing into the wind of public opinion wrt taxes-

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/10/snapshot101111.html

Hopefully, it'll blow back on them in November.

 

[senseamp]

I can play that game.

Let's take more from those that risked everything they had, may have lost it all several times, and finally succeeded on their own sweat and blood, and give it to a drug dealer that collects food-stamps and welfare checks while living on Medicaid.

Just looking at the numbers, my scenario is much more likely.

So Republicans are accusing the people whose taxes Romney would raise of being drug dealers on welfare? Go ahead and play that game, see how it works out for you

 

[PeshakJang]

So Republicans are accusing the people whose taxes Romney would raise of being drug dealers on welfare? Go ahead and play that game, see how it works out for you

I am making that statement, similar to how you accused those who you want to tax as all being useless trust fund babies. Try to keep up with your own rhetoric kiddo.

 

[PeshakJang]

Romney, and Repubs in general, are pissing into the wind of public opinion wrt taxes-

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/10/snapshot101111.html

Hopefully, it'll blow back on them in November.

The majority of public opinion does usually favor increased benefit at the expense of others... Only so long that lasts. But hey, you already knew that..

 

[werepossum]

Last time I checked, "Poors", family making less than $10,000 a year, or even 25,000 for that matter, do not pay any taxes, unless he throws out the current tax code and rewrites it, I don't see how that's gonna happen. Stop drinking koolaid

Well said. The author is taking Obama's temporary payroll tax cut and counting its expiration as a tax increase - but only if it happens under a Republican. Figures don't lie, but liars figure . . .

That said, can't say I like the plan much. Tax cuts on individuals are not going to pay for themselves, nor result in many jobs. Why hire or invest when you can simply loan that money to the government with no real risk? And I'd love to see the corporate tax rate cut or reduced to zero, but without some sort of tariff or import barrier system, that just makes outsourcing more profitable - hardly an answer.

Romney has the same problem as any Republican which is gaining enough party support to win nomination without alienating the voting public at large. Considering that Romney is a moderate by many standards I expect that once he secures his candidacy his tune will change. This gives the Democrats ammunition to use against him of course but that's unavoidable considering that it is the party machine which ultimately makes or breaks a prospective office holder.

This is one reason why incumbent Presidents have such a natural advantage.

 

[senseamp]

I am making that statement,

Good to see you are admitting that

similar to how you accused those who you want to tax as all being useless trust fund babies. Try to keep up with your own rhetoric kiddo.

I never said "useless," that's your strawman rhetoric, not mine.

 

[Jhhnn]

Romney, and Repubs in general, are pissing into the wind of public opinion wrt taxes-

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/10/snapshot101111.html

Hopefully, it'll blow back on them in November.

The majority of public opinion does usually favor increased benefit at the expense of others... Only so long that lasts. But hey, you already knew that..

And the extreme minority whom the system benefits the most always want necessary sacrifice to be made by somebody else, by the little people.

If Repubs & their financial backers want to cut the deficit so desperately, they should be willing to pitch in to accomplish that, right? It's not like America's wealthiest don't pay the lowest taxes of any first world rich... or that their share of income hasn't grown enormously over the last 30 years of Reaganomics...

 

[cubby1223]

Your taxes are lower if more is taken from a dead guy's estate. That means you have more money to consume, or buy a house, or start a business.

Meh.

Government will find a way to waste the added income in ways that does nothing to help the commoner.

 

[Joepublic2]

Romney's plan to balance the budget: squeeze blood from a stone.

They do pay taxes.

Well, as somebody who knows dick all about money I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're wrong; the only kind of taxes that exist are income taxes. This is also why I'm certain that the top 0.0001% pays their fair share, too. I also told my boss to go ahead and not give me that raise because it would bump me into a higher tax bracket.

 

[Ausm]

This looks like a tax plan the GOP in Washington would love to bad their sheep are stupid enough to back this crap.

 

[PeshakJang]

This looks like a tax plan the GOP in Washington would love to bad their sheep are stupid enough to back this crap.

And too bad idiots like you don't even read the thread or actual analysis before making a conclusion. This is why we can't have nice things.

What if we look at the current law baseline instead of the baseline the article arbitrarily accepts as fact? Guess what? Poor people get a tax break! Guess what again? 99.9% of those in the bottom tax bracket don't pay income tax to begin with! Guess what the third? Most of those people get a fucking check from the government!

Why are simple facts so hard for you people to accept?

 

[Ausm]

And too bad idiots like you don't even read the thread or actual analysis before making a conclusion. This is why we can't have nice things.

What if we look at the current law baseline instead of the baseline the article arbitrarily accepts as fact? Guess what? Poor people get a tax break! Guess what again? 99.9% of those in the bottom tax bracket don't pay income tax to begin with! Guess what the third? Most of those people get a fucking check from the government!

Why are simple facts so hard for you people to accept?

I did read it and this is my conclusion to which I have a right to my opinion. You obviously don't know shit about the current tax policies or this article at hand.

 

[Jhhnn]

And too bad idiots like you don't even read the thread or actual analysis before making a conclusion. This is why we can't have nice things.

What if we look at the current law baseline instead of the baseline the article arbitrarily accepts as fact? Guess what? Poor people get a tax break! Guess what again? 99.9% of those in the bottom tax bracket don't pay income tax to begin with! Guess what the third? Most of those people get a fucking check from the government!

Why are simple facts so hard for you people to accept?

You're right, in a sense- in a world of low-pay employers, we chose to subsidize their behavior, rather than to raise minimum wage/ strengthen Unions to counteract that. And in Right-think, if we cut those subsidies, they'll necessarily need to pay more, so the owners will need a tax break...

You pulled that 99.9% number right out of your ass, huh?

 

[dank69]

...


Simply the tax code. Always good.


...

90% tax on everyone, no deductions. Simple and good.