Printable View
This is what I remembered right away. Lewk only recently celebrated that he was finally paying taxes. So does that mean he was worthless, someone who would have voted for Obama no matter what, someone who refused to take responibility and woudn't care for himself?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
I find it silly for a man who greatly benefits from tax deductions and exemptions to impugn other people who benefit from the same, esp. when the latter group needs it far more than he does and consists to a significant extent of people who've either paid taxes all their lives or will do so. I do recognise that many in that group will not want to vote for him, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Nice of you to totally miss his point, which is about dependence on government largesse not on dodging taxes. :bored:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...o-the-47-vote/Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
A decent chunk of people who don't pay federal income tax are likely Romney voters. Esp. seniors who draw SS and Medicare. I wonder if those folks appreciate being referred to as moochers....or the "entitlements" they paid into is seen as "welfare". :bulb:
Romney said these things to his supporters, at a $50,000/plate fund raiser dinner, held at the home of one of his wealthy donors. He already has their vote, they already want to pay less in any tax, they already buy into the Trickle Down theory that Tax Cuts = growth .....so why did he wander into this divisive narrative about The Others?
He's also manipulating the term INCOME as it relates to taxation and federal revenue, because he's talking to high-income voters. Almost everyone pays some type of tax that funds Federal spending, whether it's a consumption tax, excise tax, surcharge or fee. Even the unemployed, working poor, senior citizens, college students, and military personnel. I'd like to see a chart showing how much Federal Revenue actually comes from Federal Income Tax.
Both candidates acknowledge that we have a huge deficit that needs to be paid off. Hell, everyone knows that. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't know we're spending more than we take in with revenue, especially after The Great Recession. Their approaches are very different, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I think it's a big mistake for Romney and the GOP to frame their ideology the way they have, using pejorative terminology like Food Stamp President, Welfare President....Makers vs Takers....wealth redistribution, SSSocialism, etc. Painting the picture that millions of Americans are just moochers and loafers, with a "victim" mentality and "expectations" that teh gummint should take care of them.
He's showing his disconnect from millions of average Americans....who want that job. That most Americans DO equate work with being self-reliant and responsible. A job (or two) that pays enough to provide food and housing for their families, send their kids to a decent school, see a doctor when they're sick, pay for the meds and treatments they need, and have some care and dignity when they're older. That if a bad patch happens, they're not labeled as moochers or slackers for needing some temporary assistance. That they won't be put out on the streets as a beggar, or viewed as a leech, when they can't keep up with costs of living -- or growing old.
Federal welfare programs, 0% income tax rates and other government safety nets effectively subsidize the low wages paid to the bottom rung of employees in an large company, low wages directly translating into increased profits for companies such as the ones Mittens made his money from, making him one of the biggest scroungers of them all.
Minx didn't miss the point. You did. Romney is dependent on government largesse (corporate welfare) AND a tax system that favors high-income tax dodging. He also benefits from our electoral process and two-party-dominant system that floods the electorate with campaign ads, filled with falsehoods and propaganda, funded by anonymous super PAC donors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
He's also being disingenuous about "China as a cheater" strategy. Romney and Bain Capital gained multiple million$ by out-sourcing and off-shoring, firing American workers, raiding their retirement funds, closing domestic plants (after he forced them into bankruptcy by loading them up with debt)....and sending them to China.
That makes absolutely zero sense. Is it your assertion that without welfare, wages for the unskilled would actually increase? :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I can't speak for Steely....but it's true that low worker wages can translate into increased corporate profits. The kind of thing that made Romney his million$ in venture capital, and corporate 're-structuring' at Bain Capital. The kind of business transaction that could just as easily be called vulture capital and/or corporate raiding.
Without federal assistance programs, those working at the bottom rungs of employment income might become the mobs with pitchforks..... at all of Romney's gated residences, and his wealthy country club and beach-side benefactors.
Ah yes, another one of those "government is the reason you are what you are" arguments. :bored:
No, just that profits wouldn't be as high. Or you'd have to spend some money to train a new hire because an employee died of starvation or exposure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Romney is the epitome of what "government" can do that way. From Utah to Mexico, and back again, using government definitions of religious freedom and marriage. Plus government exemptions from the Viet Nam War draft specifically for Mormons (he wouldn't have to claim CO status even is his draft number was called). His father built Mitt's life of privilege, one that only CEOs of auto companies and/or Governor's families enjoyed. Private schools, VIP status, special favors, a very sheltered and protected life. With stock options.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That makes no sense. No welfare would mean a higher supply of labor, which means somewhat lower cost of labor. I'm not quite sure how someone working a full time job would starve to death or not have anywhere to live...Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Romney pays taxes. He supports the government programs with his tax dollars. The 47% do not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
You're lumping "welfare" in with all "government" programs. Not really a surprise, since you're a Romney fanboy now. :donkey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Millions of Americans work full-time jobs, sometimes two or three part-time jobs, but are still living paycheck-to-paycheck, and qualify as working poor. Not because they're spendthrifts, wasting their income on booze or lottery tickets, or because they're lazy ass moochers. It's quite simply because basic COL are higher than their wages.
No, they won't starve to death, but might become obese and diabetic-prone by subsisting on the cheapest, crappiest carbs. If you've ever worked in a charitable food pantry, or seen the type of foodstuffs "the government" provides to food banks, you'd know that. And no, they won't lack shelter....if you count their cars, tent cities, homeless shelters, trailer parks, or packing 8 people into a 2 bedroom apartment.
Then he should have no reservations about sharing his tax return history with the voting public. :donkey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Including you. Using your mortgage interest, marital status, dependent child, and healthcare deductions. Didn't you brag about getting a federal tax refund a while ago? :rolleyes:Quote:
The 47% do not.
Why would you release his tax returns when asked to by liberals? So they can focus more on legal tax deductions he has taking? Its a dumb move politically.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
And I was not *bragging* about not paying any taxes. I was talking about how absurd it was that I pay no taxes. Furthermore I *do* pay taxes now. And my position on taxes has remained consistent when I wasn't paying taxes to now when I pay some income taxes (10% or less this year probably) and will continue to stay consistent when I pay more taxes in the future. Tax cuts are good but they should benefit everyone *assuming you pay taxes*. Everyone should have some skin in the game when it comes to the federal income tax.
True, fair point. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
********
Romney's remark was inarticulate, but it's merely sped-up what began last week, and what I predicted long ago:
Around the time of the conventions, the media would begin to hit Romney hard over everything, big and small. Too many members of the media are simply too culturally and politically invested in the Obama narrative to let it go, and we're beginning to see it show. I'm not really talking about the 47% thing as much as the Libya thing, the middle-income definition thing, etc.
Oddly enough, I got to see Bill Clinton speak to a semi-private gathering a few months ago where he was asked to weigh-in on the election. The gathering was about a hundred people and it was recorded, so it's not like this was a secret conclave. Clinton said that Obama would win the election for a number of reasons. His #2 reason was that, come September/October, the media would simply "wake up and begin to make the determination" that Obama had to win the presidency, and this determination would inform the coverage of the race, much as it did in 2008.
To Romney's credit, he's embracing this thing full-on and trying to direct the discussion to a question of government's size. But the media doesn't really want to play ball on this as they would if Obama was trying to direct the discussion. This will be tough.
No doubt it makes it more difficult for Romney but I still believe that the American people still believe that America is prosperous because of freedom not government. When that 47% becomes 57% we are basically screwed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Commented about this earlier. Before this point, how badly did you consider yourself a victim? In what ways were you unwilling to take personal responsibility? Why were you unwilling to care for yourself or family?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
and that 47% includes everything from millionaires to seniors. Why do you hate America so much? :bulb:
I can't predict what would happen if the government just cut all welfare tomorrow. Chaos, probably. But if $7 an hour (or whatever it is over there) is not enough to live on without also paying 0 income tax and whatever else the US government offers in terms of welfare for people who are actually in work of some kind then the Federal government is effectively subsidizing the employment of low skilled workers. If people couldn't afford to live on $7 / hour without government help then they'd not be employed at all, they'd be on the dole, and people like Romney would not be able to find people to work for $7 an hour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
In America, like most countries, there's this thing called "Sales tax".Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
There's also a thing called "payroll tax".Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
America does not have a Sales Tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Individual States do, and some do not. Just like some do not have an Income Tax
1. Because there's a debate about Taxation, who pays what and how much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
2. To follow the transparency his own father started, by releasing ten years of returns.
3. To prove he's not in that group of non-payers, using deductions or shelters available only to super wealthy.
4. To show he's got nothing to hide from the public he wants to lead.
5. As part of IRS changes and policy to cut income taxes.
That's the point of a progressive tax system --- where individual rates vary according to life stages (student, first job, new parent, mid-career, highest wage point, retirement, infirm). That flexibility in taxing percent of income doesn't penalize the very young, poor, or elderly the way a regressive and/or flat tax might.Quote:
And I was not *bragging* about not paying any taxes. I was talking about how absurd it was that I pay no taxes. Furthermore I *do* pay taxes now. And my position on taxes has remained consistent when I wasn't paying taxes to now when I pay some income taxes (10% or less this year probably) and will continue to stay consistent when I pay more taxes in the future. Tax cuts are good but they should benefit everyone *assuming you pay taxes*. Everyone should have some skin in the game when it comes to the federal income tax.
Federal INCOME tax isn't the only source of money funding the federal gov't. Everyone pays some sort of federal TAX in every state. Including poor, working poor, students, elderly, military and others with INCOME exemptions.
I believe Mitt Romney's statement is flat wrong and the misconception it represents is part of the source of all too much bad conservative policy and if it becomes the basis for more of the same will cause much harm to our country. Do you subscribe to Mitt's conception of people who don't pay income tax? (y/n)Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I buy the broad argument that people who depend on government largesse over the long term will be highly unlikely to vote for a candidate threatening to cut government spending. Given limited campaign funds, it's thus best not to focus on those people with your ads.
The irony here is that Red states have the highest percentages of people who don't pay income tax. And something like 20% of that 47% are elderly people. These are Romeny's constituents, yet in his speech he says they'll never vote for him as though its a known fact. I believe he and his campaign stragetgists know this and that his speech was really just pandering to, and of course reinforcing the ideas of, people who have no idea what the real demographics are. The question that means anything is whether a Romney administraton would pursue policies based on the idea that people whose economic situation results in no income tax paid are irresponsible. I don't believe this idea to be true and any policy put in place to address it as if it were would probably have bad results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
What I want to know is how the median income is lower in red states, and yet the break down of income distribution globally does indeed show the Democrats have an advantage amongst those on the lower end of the income distribution.
I think because tax policy is NOT in the forefront of the mind of those in that distribution.
But I do wonder...we do have a crummy voting %...of those that don't bother...what is the demographic breakdown of THAT group?
Well, I would IMAGINE people with lower incomes vote less because of a) sense of alienation from the political process and b) lack of education, as i guess people with more education are more likely to vote.
Again, look up an ecological fallacy. The fact that Red states are least likely to have income tax does not mean that Republicans in the Red states are less likely to pay income tax. In fact, the median income of a Republican voter is substantially higher than the median income of an average Democrat.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Erm, the same way that districts with more blacks had more votes for candidates affiliated with the KKK. Hint: it wasn't the blacks voting for the KKK. Similarly, if you're in the middle class yet live in a shitty state, you probably won't think very highly of the government's ability to help people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
People without an education are far more likely to vote Democrat by the way: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pag.../epolls.0.html
If that's still hard to understand, think of two states, one rich, one poor. The rich one votes 60% Democrat, and the poor one votes 60% Republican. In the rich state, all the poor people are voting Democrat, as well as a small portion of rich people. In the Republican state, all the rich people are voting Republican, as well as a small portion of poor people.
"Red states" tend to have lower costs of living, arguably because they also have fewer regulations and lower property taxes compared to "blue states".Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I'm actually not sure your second statement is true.
Look at my link above. The Democrats have a huge advantage in every income bracket up to $50k, and then the relationship gets reversed.
Yeah, but that was the midterm election of 2006 where Democrats won tons of races...so them having an avantage in many income brackets isn't so surprising. Ideally we could see more than one election over a pretty long period of time.
1. A debate about taxation can use anecdotes but most people aren't in similar situations like Romney and Obama so the merit of releasing multiple years of tax returns isn't there.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
2. So cus his daddy did it he should too? That's a great piece of logic.
3. Um everyone who is eligible to take tax deductions does so. Are you suggesting people should voluntarily pay more taxes? That's absurd and in places where you have the option to do it the take rate is incredibly small.
4. I guess he should also release his 2nd grade "when I grow up" paper.
5. Eh?
As for the progressive tax system... there are people who will NEVER pay federal income taxes for their *entire lives*. But they sure can spend money on booze, drugs, cigs, and lotto tickets...
Federal income tax is the vast majority of the money used for the federal budget. Payroll taxes go to specific items like SS and Medicare. They are basically force placed insurance policies. What you pay into SS impacts what you take out - meaning that its not really communal money.
Another way to look at it is that what reason would people have to ever DECREASE the size of the budget, programs and redistribution policies if they pay NO federal income taxes. Oh look the government wasted $3 billion dollars on a train - who cares I don't pay any taxes! Now to an actual tax payer they would care. This is the scary problem of having so many people not on tax rolls. When it reaches a tipping point then it will be next to impossible to curtail government spending since most people will see any government spending as a benefit since they don't have to pay for it!
The point isn't to look at the actual numbers. It's to look at the disparity between the votes for Democrats and Republicans at each level. You get similar results in every recent election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Are those two of the entitlements Romney was ranting about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
No, bt I do believe they intend to apply it to at least the majority of the group, usually more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I may be wrong here, but I think you're missing his point. If I understand corectly, this is about 47% that pay no (federal) income tax, right? Aside from the fact they pay plenty of other taxes, like sale tax (which is a higher portion of your budget if you are poor, no?), I think the point is that if they were to pay income tax, they'd have less money. Assuming their current wage is pretty much a capitalist solution of the money the workers are prepared to work for vs the money the company is prepared to pay them.. what do you reckon happens if the workers keep less of their money? That's right, they will need higher wages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Also, if the point is bloated government, wouldn't the target be even less people paying taxes? ;)
The point is transparency from the government 'leaders' who want to make/change/enforce policy for everyone else. It's also part of the vetting process from DNC and RNC party candidates, nominees for judicial positions, senate confirmations, etc. Candidates releasing their tax returns (and financial investments) isn't some new or strange concept. It's generally been done to show the public they're playing by the rules, to remove any doubts about conflicts of interest that could affect policy (or give the appearance of different rules for different groups).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
It's fairly arrogant of Romney to criticize some 47% of the country who don't pay federal INCOME tax because the tax code was designed that way....yet imply they're moochers, dependent on gummint hand-outs, or greedy for "free stuff".....while keeping his own tax returns secret. Those returns might show what people suspect, but he refuses to acknowledge and discuss: that his high income group (and the financial industry at large) is dependent on legislative favors, greedy for deductions and carry trades, mooching off monetary policy and public dollar valuations.
Citation? :donkey: Those who will NEVER pay federal income taxes probably have a pretty shitty life. Whether severely disabled or chronically ill, or having worked their whole life at low-wage jobs that don't lift them out of poverty before they're elderly.Quote:
As for the progressive tax system... there are people who will NEVER pay federal income taxes for their *entire lives*. But they sure can spend money on booze, drugs, cigs, and lotto tickets...
It's "communal money" like any other insurance pooling. :rolleyes:Quote:
Federal income tax is the vast majority of the money used for the federal budget. Payroll taxes go to specific items like SS and Medicare. They are basically force placed insurance policies. What you pay into SS impacts what you take out - meaning that its not really communal money.
Ah, I was wondering when you'd pull out the REDISTRIBUTION card, along with your typical hissing about those people who don't pay taxes, don't work, don't care, and just want to suck booze/cigarettes/public teats, playin' the Lotto. What's scary is that you, and a number of politicians, actually believe that those people are why we've got budget problems.Quote:
Another way to look at it is that what reason would people have to ever DECREASE the size of the budget, programs and redistribution policies if they pay NO federal income taxes. Oh look the government wasted $3 billion dollars on a train - who cares I don't pay any taxes! Now to an actual tax payer they would care. This is the scary problem of having so many people not on tax rolls. When it reaches a tipping point then it will be next to impossible to curtail government spending since most people will see any government spending as a benefit since they don't have to pay for it!
:popcorn:
A) Sales taxes go to local/state governments, not the federal one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
B) The sales tax rarely crosses 10%, and generally doesn't apply to most foods or rent. So no, it doesn't really make up that large a portion of people's budgets.
C) Prices in a capitalist system aren't set by need; they're set by supply and demand. Furthermore, much of the world manages just on fine on wages far lower than the ones here...
D) Glad you agree that taxes are bad by the way. Time to lower them for everyone. :noob: