RomneyRyan 2012!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

That makes absolutely zero sense. Is it your assertion that without welfare, wages for the unskilled would actually increase? :bored:

---

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 Lewkowski

Romney pays taxes. He supports the government programs with his tax dollars. The 47% do not.

---

In America, like most countries, there's this thing called "Sales tax".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

In America, like most countries, there's this thing called "Sales tax".

---

There's also a thing called "payroll tax".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

In America, like most countries, there's this thing called "Sales tax".

---

America does not have a Sales Tax.

Individual States do, and some do not. Just like some do not have an Income Tax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

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.

---

1. Because there's a debate about Taxation, who pays what and how much.
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.

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Do you believe that any time someone makes a general statement, they intend to apply that statement to every member of the group they are describing? Not going to defend the ineptness of the NPR piece you linked to by the way?

---

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)

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

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.

---

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 Steely Glint

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

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.

---

"Red states" tend to have lower costs of living, arguably because they also have fewer regulations and lower property taxes compared to "blue states".

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

1. Because there's a debate about Taxation, who pays what and how much.
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.

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.

---

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.
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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

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.

---

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 Lewkowski

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.

---

Are those two of the entitlements Romney was ranting about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Do you believe that any time someone makes a general statement, they intend to apply that statement to every member of the group they are describing? Not going to defend the ineptness of the NPR piece you linked to by the way?

---

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

That makes absolutely zero sense. Is it your assertion that without welfare, wages for the unskilled would actually increase? :bored:

---

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...

---

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.

Also, if the point is bloated government, wouldn't the target be even less people paying taxes? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

5. Eh?

---

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).

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.

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...

---

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:

---

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.

---

It's "communal money" like any other insurance pooling. :rolleyes:

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!

---

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.

:popcorn:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

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.

---

A) Sales taxes go to local/state governments, not the federal one.
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:

A) I am aware, but since I'm not so familiar with the way your government's finances are run on several levels, I can't really comment (as in, I don't know which services are paid by which level, etc.)
B) didn't say high, I said highER
C) Need may have been the wrong choice if words, but the point remains that the workers are prepared to do a certain job for a certain wage. If they keep less of the wage, they'll want more for the same job, or fewer people that are qualified will want to do the job. Or, to put it in supply and demand terms: say you have a demand for cheese, and a supply, they meet at a certain price. If the price remains the same, but the package shrinks because mice eat bits of it (so you get to keep less), you will have fewer customers who are prepared to pay that price. So, either price goes down, or the package size has to increase to compensate what the mouse eats, or there will be fewer customers (or of course a combination). Replace cheese with netto wages, the price with labour, and mice with the government (seems appropriate :p ).
Of course the demand will be pretty inelastic, but you are talking about half your country, so the effects will be big.
My point was that the argument was about not paying income tax, and you shifted it into welfare. That 47% doesn't pay taxes is a progressive taxing issue, wealth redistribution, not welfare or bloated government. It's not the.same.
Also your last point is stupid, because living standards and price indexes are also wide apart. and if you think that getting on fine with slightly lower wages is okay, I'm sure you don't mind extra tax for the super wealthy. After all, billions manage just fune on wages far, far, FAR lower than them ;)
D) I never said that. Taxes are necessary, but should be neither too high nor too low. The discussion is about what the right level is, and in this discussion, how to spread it among the population. Also, if you say lower for everyone, that seems somewhat awkward after saying you want to raise them for 47% (:

On the one hand, lower net wages would mean fewer people wanting to work for those wages. On the other hand, no welfare means that not working means starving, which sends a pretty damn strong signal in the opposite direction. :noob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

On the one hand, lower net wages would mean fewer people wanting to work for those wages. On the other hand, no welfare means that not working means starving, which sends a pretty damn strong signal in the opposite direction. :noob:

---

Welfare != tax distribution.

And, of course, if net wages drop enough, even working means starving ;) Leaving criminality as an option, of course, but I duobt that's what you want.

Why would wages "drop enough"? Pretty sure people can survive on $5-6 an hour. Besides, only something like 1-2% of the population works for the minimum wage, which suggests that slightly higher taxes wouldn't make all that much of a difference.

Again, so why are you opposed to higher taxes on the rich? :p And thanks for still ignoring my main point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

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.

---

So you're saying that by and large Republican voters do all pay income tax and so Romney's stand on that point may not be off the mark.... But what do you think about the rest of it? If someone doesn't make enough to pay income tax, do you think it is fair or accurate to label them with a victim mindset, irresponsible and uncaring of their own lives? And does it make sense to you to base policy on those character assumptions?

I think the speech was given at a fundraiser, and some things need to be embellished to get your point across.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

So you're saying that by and large Republican voters do all pay income tax and so Romney's stand on that point may not be off the mark.... But what do you think about the rest of it? If someone doesn't make enough to pay income tax, do you think it is fair or accurate to label them with a victim mindset, irresponsible and uncaring of their own lives? And does it make sense to you to base policy on those character assumptions?

---

The way he phrased the statement was bad. A lot of folks (like me at the start of my career) didn't pay income tax for awhile. I'm sure some folks are in the very same position I was in right now. And some people who have worked all of their lives and paid income tax now no longer do so based on being in retirement. However I agree with the general gist of the statement. Folks who don't pay income taxes don't see a benefit in tax cuts. They don't pay them in the first place! This should be obvious. Secondly as to the victim mentality - your damn right there is a huge victim mentality. Its far easier for a person who is not doing well to say "Its because of X Y and Z not because of anything I did!" People it seems, prefer to be a victim then a screw up. Those people who view their present circumstances as those that are forced upon them will never change their lifestyle and will keep their hand out waiting for government assistance until their attitude changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The way he phrased the statement was bad. A lot of folks (like me at the start of my career) didn't pay income tax for awhile. I'm sure some folks are in the very same position I was in right now. And some people who have worked all of their lives and paid income tax now no longer do so based on being in retirement.

---

That's how a progressive tax system is designed to work, allowing for people to move between different brackets. You made a blanket statement about some who NEVER pay income tax, without a citation. Care to show how that group isn't a fairly small percent of the population? :donkey:

Quote:

---

However I agree with the general gist of the statement. Folks who don't pay income taxes don't see a benefit in tax cuts. They don't pay them in the first place! This should be obvious.

---

That's a public perception and awareness gap, not a character flaw. Same thing happened when 1/3 of stimulus dollars were used as tax cuts instead of direct rebates. Plenty of benefits are "buried" in tax code, invisible to most folks. (Surveys show a majority don't consider having used a "govt program" when it comes as Education tax credits, SBA loans, or even Medicare.)

Quote:

---

Secondly as to the victim mentality - your damn right there is a huge victim mentality. Its far easier for a person who is not doing well to say "Its because of X Y and Z not because of anything I did!" People it seems, prefer to be a victim then a screw up. Those people who view their present circumstances as those that are forced upon them will never change their lifestyle and will keep their hand out waiting for government assistance until their attitude changes.

---

Yeah, we know you believe that, but haven't backed it up with anything but your gut feelings and stereotypes. Those People is like your "code" for loathing poor people (instead of poverty), and a round-about way to loathe gov't assistance as nothing but welfare or a hand out. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

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.

---

In a word, Yes.

Something not mentioned so far is that our 'war on poverty' of the 60's turned into re-structuring Welfare during the 70's *and beyond*. There were bi-partisan efforts under both (R) and (D) administrations (imagine that!) that led to Welfare-to-Work programs, raising federal minimum wage, razing public housing 'projects' and replacing them with Section 8 Housing tax incentives....basically using the tax code to engineer social change. Much of it came from traditional conservative ideas (including Milton Friedman's theories) to incentivize work, participation in the economy, and get rid of "welfare checks".

That's how the Earned Income Tax Credit came about. Those working low-middle wage jobs would keep more money in their pockets, and not need gov't supplement checks. I'm pretty sure every administration increased the EITC as low-mid wages failed to keep up with rising COL. Then things like Child and Dependent Care tax credits were added, and the Marriage Penalty tax was removed, to encourage two-income families with children. There was the Credit Card Interest tax deduction to induce credit-debt buying (later cancelled). The Home Mortgage Interest tax deduction to induce home-buying (and grow construction industry employment). Plus a whole host of other tax deductions whose goals were to let workers keep more of their wages, and not need federal assistance/welfare.

Of course, those tax/fiscal policies also benefitted the employers who could keep wages on the low side....effectively "subsidizing" larger profits for certain corporations. <Insert the history of union activism here, then the 'mandate' for employer-subsidized health insurance with its tax deductions. Even Bain Capital.> All these things played nicely into our American history of hating both taxes and welfare, while rewarding definitions of American "success", upward mobility, and The Great American Dream.