Romney and the tax thing

[quote name='Knoell']Maybe just maybe, if the government had some sort of plan ONCESOEVER to put a higher tax rate to good use, I could be behind a temporary increase. However all I hear is we need to raise taxes to spend more. Even the money that is now free from the Iraq war, Obama is already planning to spend. Give me a god damn break.[/QUOTE]

Whatsoever. The term is 'whatsoever.'

For fuck's sake.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']There is no money that is being freed up from the war, seeing as the two wars are being paid for by debt.[/QUOTE]

Not to mention the additional wars we're in now...
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']I already did! I'm in MA though. We'll see how it pans out.[/QUOTE]
Didn't like Marisa DeFranco huh? That's who I'm voting for.
 
[quote name='camoor']I didn't bother reading your whole post but you absolutely are a lackey of the rich.

Whatever else we can talk about fairness, flat tax rates, whatever - it won't change the fact that you are a lackey of the rich.

It's just undeniable that you stick up for the rich in every conceivable situation - you are a lackey of the rich.[/QUOTE]

Name a situation besides taxes that I have even posted about that can be considered a lackey for the rich.

I don't think anyones taxes should be raised but since we are talking about the rich right now you tend to forget that. Not to mention I am pro getting rid of loopholes that give the rich millions of dollars. But sure put me into your little categories because you cannot argue with the statistics.

[quote name='Msut22']Also, I am not getting into this again but the lower/middle class cons are definitely bootlickers. It is the peasant mentality, they would rather lie about it then own it for some reason. [/QUOTE]

Show me something, ANYTHING that says differently.
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']Whatsoever. The term is 'whatsoever.'

For fuck's sake.[/QUOTE]


Get over yourself, it was a rant.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']There is no money that is being freed up from the war, seeing as the two wars are being paid for by debt.[/QUOTE]

That is the point. I am arguing through their imaginary world in which the wars were the MAIN contributing factor to the rising deficit before because they were unpaid for, but now suddenly there is money to be spent!

I realize it is wrong, however it is the way they see these type things especially involving the deficit. They split issues down the middle, and for some odd reason every penny they spend is like robin hood, and every penny they attribute to their opponents is for evil purposes.

It is really entertaining. Now instead of wasting my time with those fools, I will go calculate my tax rate which is probably less than a quarter of what $1million+ pay, and submit my tax return.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Name a situation besides taxes that I have even posted about that can be considered a lackey for the rich.

I don't think anyones taxes should be raised but since we are talking about the rich right now you tend to forget that. Not to mention I am pro getting rid of loopholes that give the rich millions of dollars. But sure put me into your little categories because you cannot argue with the statistics.[/QUOTE]

Wade through your trash? No thanks.

I'm not saying you get up every morning and say "I'm going to kiss some rich ass"

You're more like the trained monkey who dances to the organ grinding of the Koch brothers. Wake up man, there's a reason people are laughing at you.
 
[quote name='Knoell']The reason I didn't answer your question was because I didn't read past that point. See the part where I said I stopped there? That is where I stopped reading. If you don't understand that then it is pointless to even continue.

As for you insisting that I am fighting for the rich? I am fighting for fair taxation. Just because someone makes 20,000 and I make 80,000 does mean that I should pay a higher amount of taxes. However somewhere in that you all lose the ability to decipher the fact that a percentage of the higher of two numbers is already more. But beyond that little fact is that in addition to paying a higher amount, they are paying twice that higher amount, and you want them to pay more. Sorry but the wealth in this country is not the governments property to do with as it will, or even decide that someone has TOO much. WE allow the government to centralize a portion of OUR money to make the country around us stronger and more prosperous. The government does NOT control the money and decide we can have our allocated amounts.

Maybe just maybe, if the government had some sort of plan ONCESOEVER to put a higher tax rate to good use, I could be behind a temporary increase. However all I hear is we need to raise taxes to spend more. Even the money that is now free from the Iraq war, Obama is already planning to spend. Give me a god damn break.

And also like I said why don't we close a few loopholes before deciding to raise the rates on the vast majority of millionaires who really do pay their fair share.[/QUOTE]

Fairness huh, you wanna talk fairness.

It's the economy, it's taxes, there's no such thing as fairness.

If our economy was "fair" the people who created the crash in the first place would be the ones being foreclosed on. If it was about "fairness" the results of their failed risks would effect them, and only them, not the entire economy forcing unprecedented layoffs, foreclosures, and hardship for millions of Americans who never even so much as dabbled in investing.

Fairness? Forgive the alliteration but fairness is a farce.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Fairness huh, you wanna talk fairness.

It's the economy, it's taxes, there's no such thing as fairness.

If our economy was "fair" the people who created the crash in the first place would be the ones being foreclosed on. If it was about "fairness" the results of their failed risks would effect them, and only them, not the entire economy forcing unprecedented layoffs, foreclosures, and hardship for millions of Americans who never even so much as dabbled in investing.

Fairness? Forgive the alliteration but fairness is a farce.[/QUOTE]

I only speak of fariness because of the consistant nattering coming from so many people saying the tax situation is not fair. Then people blatently mislead people by using examples that are proven to be the exception not the rule.

I mean the way you are talking, you could easily justify taking excessive amounts from people who make 1 million + simply because they can afford to lose it. It isnt the governments job to determine these things.

It is hilarious how you people consistantly go on and on about private citizens, entities having too much power, greed etc, but then you turn around and want to centralize the power in a government that has proven itself not to be trusted on both sides of the aisle. People are the problem here, and centralizing the power will not fix that problem.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Get over yourself, it was a rant.[/QUOTE]

Response: lol.

[quote name='dohdough']Didn't like Marisa DeFranco huh? That's who I'm voting for.[/QUOTE]

DeFranco has no chance mannnnnnn. I'm glad that you're giving her some love, but she's got no chance.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Is "rant" now code for pile of fact free garbage?[/QUOTE]

That is interesting. I would be interested to see something in which the majority of 1 million plus earners pay the same or less than middle income earners.

I am not holding my breath though.

For someone so interested in facts, you think you would concede this point and reject the nonstop BS that the media is capitalizing on.
 
[quote name='Knoell']That is interesting. I would be interested to see something in which the majority of 1 million plus earners pay the same or less than middle income earners.[/QUOTE]

Who gives a shit? That's a symptom, not the real problem.

Of course folks earning millions should pay more taxes then middle income earners. Of course!

If just one person earning millions pays less taxes then a middle income earner then we should have a system in place to lock him up for a long time.

The fact that we have several million+ earners who are paying less, and doing so completely legally, is a symptom of a failed system.

The fact that we have someone running for President who does not pay his fair share of taxes in what is labeled as a progressive income tax system, and who seems to have a legitimate shot at walking away with the nomination, well that's just a sick joke.
 
Why are people so fixated on tax rates? Even at a lower tax rate, Romney pays more taxes in aggregate than most people do. People don't start paying an income tax until they earn a certain amount. You don't even have to file a return if you don't make enough money. You can file, however, to get an earned income tax credit or other benefits, which means a lot of people get more tax benefits than they receive. These benefits are made possible by people like Romney. They are encouraged to save and invest by a lower tax rate on investments (investments = saving).

What's the problem?

Comedians can often offer insight on these matters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeyyDD3gQMo
 
[quote name='Knoell']I only speak of fariness because of the consistant nattering coming from so many people saying the tax situation is not fair. Then people blatently mislead people by using examples that are proven to be the exception not the rule.

I mean the way you are talking, you could easily justify taking excessive amounts from people who make 1 million + simply because they can afford to lose it. It isnt the governments job to determine these things.

It is hilarious how you people consistantly go on and on about private citizens, entities having too much power, greed etc, but then you turn around and want to centralize the power in a government that has proven itself not to be trusted on both sides of the aisle. People are the problem here, and centralizing the power will not fix that problem.[/QUOTE]

What do you think of the capital gains tax rate? Do you think the government should tax certain types of income at a lower rate? Should someone who makes a million dollars a year as a lawyer be taxed at a higher rate than someone who makes a million dollars through investments (or managing someone else's investments)?
 
[quote name='chiwii'] Do you think the government should tax certain types of income at a lower rate?[/QUOTE]

Yes, if you want to accomplish specific goals. If you want to encourage investment, you would tax income from investments at a lower rate.
 
[quote name='camoor']Who gives a shit? That's a symptom, not the real problem.

Of course folks earning millions should pay more taxes then middle income earners. Of course!

If just one person earning millions pays less taxes then a middle income earner then we should have a system in place to lock him up for a long time.

The fact that we have several million+ earners who are paying less, and doing so completely legally, is a symptom of a failed system.

The fact that we have someone running for President who does not pay his fair share of taxes in what is labeled as a progressive income tax system, and who seems to have a legitimate shot at walking away with the nomination, well that's just a sick joke.[/QUOTE]

These clowns are basically claiming it is not fair to tax rich people more, they focus on rates but the same stupid arguments could be used for total amount paid (some guy paid 200 dollars in taxes why should Bill Gates pay more than that?).

I find that rather then explain it to them (your patience will never be rewarded) tell them life isn't fair.

Since the ones arguing the above are the same people who argue poor sick people should be denied medical treatment you do not have to worry about hurting their feelings.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Leave it to my old employer, PwC to fuck up his tax return to the tune of $44k, which was about my salary with them.[/QUOTE]

If it makes you feel better, that's less than Romney's average daily income over the past two years.

[quote name='Spokker']Why are people so fixated on tax rates? Even at a lower tax rate, Romney pays more taxes in aggregate than most people do. People don't start paying an income tax until they earn a certain amount. You don't even have to file a return if you don't make enough money. You can file, however, to get an earned income tax credit or other benefits, which means a lot of people get more tax benefits than they receive. These benefits are made possible by people like Romney.[/QUOTE]

People are fixated on tax rates because our supposedly progressive income tax is being shown to be closer to a de facto flat tax or, worse, regressive.

And yes, the wealthy are subsidizing benefits for those with lower incomes. But that's the only way the system is going to work, so it's rather silly to imply the tax system/wealthy taxpayers are above criticism for that reason alone.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']If it makes you feel better, that's less than Romney's average daily income over the past two years.
[/QUOTE]

44k is still a pretty large fuckup. I bet that PwC's fees are more than that, but still, it would be nice fodder for the other Big 4 to try to woo him as a client.
 
[quote name='Msut77']These clowns are basically claiming it is not fair to tax rich people more, they focus on rates but the same stupid arguments could be used for total amount paid (some guy paid 200 dollars in taxes why should Bill Gates pay more than that?).

I find that rather then explain it to them (your patience will never be rewarded) tell them life isn't fair.

Since the ones arguing the above are the same people who argue poor sick people should be denied medical treatment you do not have to worry about hurting their feelings.[/QUOTE]

This is the same old tired flawed thinking that is riling up people. The left is the true master of scare tactics.

Noone is arguing that someone making $40,000 should pay the same amount as someone making $40,000,000,000. The closest argument to that is the flat tax argument, which isn't even close to that way of thinking.

Like I said before, somehow it gets lost in your heads that the same percentage of two numbers(one high and one low) is not the same amount. 20% of 2,000,000 is 400,000, which is not the same as 20% of 40,000 which is 8,000. But even beyond that in reality it is more like 300,000 to 2,800 on adjusted gross income.

Can the person making 2,000,000 afford to pay 500K? 6? 7? 8? The deciding factor for the government should not be that they can do without the extra cash because that argument can be made for every income level.

The tax tables are fine, close the loopholes, end some subsidies, and cut our expenses. If we lowered the deficit alone, we could be using the interest we are wasting for some good. It is finance 101.
 
[quote name='chiwii']What do you think of the capital gains tax rate? Do you think the government should tax certain types of income at a lower rate? Should someone who makes a million dollars a year as a lawyer be taxed at a higher rate than someone who makes a million dollars through investments (or managing someone else's investments)?[/QUOTE]

I think it should be altered into a way in which to be taxed at that rate, you have to of invested it at some point.( i.e. getting rid of the loopholes.) None of this earning money on investments that you are managing and being taxed at the lower rate. If it isn't your money, then you aren't taking risk, and its a normal job. You have to understand the reasoning behind why the capital gains tax is lower. It isn't because the power hungry rich people made it so, it was to spur rich people into investing their money here to make more instead of just sitting on it or going to other countries..

Obama wants to make a new capital gains tax at 20% for people who make 250,000+. The tradeoff for the extra revenue would be our competitiveness. Some would say the investment of that extra revenue for the current rate is the better option. In a global economy it is important that we stay competitive in these things. It isn't a simply free ride for the rich the way the media reports it. Even Canada has a lower capital gains tax than ours currently.
 
[quote name='Knoell']This is the same old tired flawed thinking that is riling up people. The left is the true master of scare tactics.[/QUOTE]

What scare tactic? I saw no scare tactic in his post.

Methinks you dost protest too much :lol:
 
I support a simple flat tax but about the best argument for a progressive tax system is the marginal utility of income and I have not seen it argued for yet. Someone who supports a progressive tax system should look it up and explain it to the rest.
 
[quote name='Spokker']I support a simple flat tax but about the best argument for a progressive tax system is the marginal utility of income and I have not seen it argued for yet. Someone who supports a progressive tax system should look it up and explain it to the rest.[/QUOTE]

Name a non third world country with a flat tax before asking someone to post evidence (which you will just ignore in favor of con pixie dust anyway).
 
[quote name='camoor']What scare tactic? I saw no scare tactic in his post.

Methinks you dost protest too much :lol:[/QUOTE]

I don't know, maybe the part where someone who doesn't know about taxes looks at his post and says "they are really arguing that rich people should pay the same dollar amount as me? Wow, that is ridiculous, I think they should pay more!"

I don't even know where he gets that comparison to even bother posting such nonsense.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']44k is still a pretty large fuckup. I bet that PwC's fees are more than that, but still, it would be nice fodder for the other Big 4 to try to woo him as a client.[/QUOTE]

You're certainly right; I was just noting that this was the same guy who describes $374k as "not very much."
 
[quote name='Knoell']I don't know, maybe the part where someone who doesn't know about taxes looks at his post and says "they are really arguing that rich people should pay the same dollar amount as me? Wow, that is ridiculous, I think they should pay more!"

I don't even know where he gets that comparison to even bother posting such nonsense.[/QUOTE]

He's theorizing on a matter of moral philosophy, not employing a "scare tactic"

So let's get to the heart of the matter - why are you scared of that idea?
 
[quote name='Spokker']I support a simple flat tax but about the best argument for a progressive tax system is the marginal utility of income and I have not seen it argued for yet. Someone who supports a progressive tax system should look it up and explain it to the rest.[/QUOTE]

Try looking on page 2 of this thread.
 
[quote name='camoor']He's theorizing on a matter of moral philosophy, not employing a "scare tactic"

So let's get to the heart of the matter - why are you scared of that idea?[/QUOTE]

What the hell are you talking about?
 
[quote name='camoor']He's theorizing on a matter of moral philosophy, not employing a "scare tactic"

So let's get to the heart of the matter - why are you scared of that idea?[/QUOTE]

I pointed out that is the logical conclusion to their position.

The apologia boils down to "yeah, but we would never say it". I would not be surprised if it were their ultimate goal.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I pointed out that is the logical conclusion to their position.

The apologia boils down to "yeah, but we would never say it". I would not be surprised if it were their ultimate goal.[/QUOTE]

Right. Will be interesting to see the next post (if there even is one).
 
[quote name='Msut77']I pointed out that is the logical conclusion to their position.

The apologia boils down to "yeah, but we would never say it". I would not be surprised if it were their ultimate goal.[/QUOTE]

That is the equivilant argument to you guys inevitably saying "why don't we all set everyone at the same income level?".

I mean it is just the logical conclusion to your position isn't it?
 
[quote name='camoor']Right. Will be interesting to see the next post (if there even is one).[/QUOTE]

It made a response, there was never any chance of it being interesting or insightful.
 
[quote name='Knoell']That is the equivilant argument to you guys inevitably saying "why don't we all set everyone at the same income level?".

I mean it is just the logical conclusion to your position isn't it?[/QUOTE]

I never saw that. Maybe as part of a hypothetical, but I doubt it. Also lolz @ McCarthyism

Enough stalling - what scares you so much about a progressive income tax code that's applied evenly across all types of income?
 
I am genuinely curious to see if a con will step up to the plate and defend back-of-a-napkin economics as policy that is good for anyone.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Name a non third world country with a flat tax before asking someone to post evidence (which you will just ignore in favor of con pixie dust anyway).[/QUOTE]

Does your progressive tax keep away aliens too?
 
[quote name='Msut77']cons can only go so long before the thin veneer of rationality falls off.[/QUOTE]

I have to agree.

Summarizing the responses so far:
1. lol wut
2. Reds!
3. Aliens
4. Optical correction devices and lexical borrowing

I really want to use a funky CAG emoticon, hopefully the next crackpot response mentions robots or falling refrigerators.
 
camoor,

I am probably going to get a lot of butt hurt for my con artist comment.

But what you posted is basically what every con "argument" concerning actual policy boils down to.

You see it any "argument" about universal healthcare, in wall street reform, jobs, global warming you name it.
 
[quote name='camoor']I never saw that. Maybe as part of a hypothetical, but I doubt it. Also lolz @ McCarthyism

Enough stalling - what scares you so much about a progressive income tax code that's applied evenly across all types of income?[/QUOTE]

Name your definition of evenly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top