Republican 2012 Nomination Thread

[southsider2k5]

Continues to be completely untrue, and illustrates a particularly annoying truth here since only the first $112k of Mitt Romney's income is subject to the payroll tax, while for that 45%, their entire income is subject to payroll taxes.

 

The effective tax rate thing is a left wing myth. No "secretary" is paying more in effective tax rates than any millionaire.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/18/news/econo...rate/?hpt=hp_t1

 

If you consider income tax liability alone, the average effective federal tax rate for people with incomes between $40,000 and $50,000, for instance, is just 3.2%, according to Tax Policy Center estimates. (In measuring income, the center uses gross income and adds to it other forms of compensation, such as the money your employer contributes to your retirement savings.)

 

The lowest income families actually have negative average effective tax rates when income tax liability alone is measured.

 

For families making $50,000 to $75,000, the effective tax rate is 5.7%. From $75,000 to $100,000, it's 7.2%. And if you make $200,000, it goes up to 9.9%.

[Balta1701]

If you consider income tax liability alone

You gave away the game right there.

 

I'm going to play the same game and not count taxes paid on investment income. Thus, Mitt Romney pays 0% tax rates and is part of those lazy bums you whine about constantly.

 

It's equally fair.

[southsider2k5]

You gave away the game right there.

 

I'm going to play the same game and not count taxes paid on investment income. Thus, Mitt Romney pays 0% tax rates and is part of those lazy bums you whine about constantly.

 

It's equally fair.

 

The Buffet secretary is pure mythology.

[Balta1701]

The Buffet secretary is pure mythology.

Says the person who keeps repeating the "45% of Americans pay no taxes" bullplop.

[StrangeSox]

You gave away the game right there.

 

I'm going to play the same game and not count taxes paid on investment income. Thus, Mitt Romney pays 0% tax rates and is part of those lazy bums you whine about constantly.

 

It's equally fair.

 

LOL "if you exclude the vast majority of millionaires' incomes, the part that features a heavily regressive tax, why, it's hardly regressive at all!"

 

Edited January 24, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

LOL "if you exclude the vast majority of millionaires' incomes, the part that features a heavily regressive tax, why, it's hardly regressive at all!"

If you wanted to be really, really rigorous, the payroll tax is even a harder hit at low incomes, because 1/2 of it gets paid by employers. That number is still a "tax paid on earned income", but 1/2 of it doesn't even show up on a wage earner's W-2's.

[southsider2k5]

If you wanted to be really, really rigorous, the payroll tax is even a harder hit at low incomes, because 1/2 of it gets paid by employers. That number is still a "tax paid on earned income", but 1/2 of it doesn't even show up on a wage earner's W-2's.

 

And it never gets included when people refer to the tax burdens of the corporations...

[StrangeSox]

And it never gets included when people refer to the tax burdens of the corporations...

 

Tax policy analysis can be quite lazy in general.

 

edit: lazy isn't the right word, intentionally shallow so as to obfuscate is more accurate.

Edited January 24, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

And it never gets included when people refer to the tax burdens of the corporations...

It really should get counted as a tax that is being paid by the employee anyway, because it really is, it's just hidden.

[StrangeSox]

It really should get counted as a tax that is being paid by the employee anyway, because it really is, it's just hidden.

 

I doubt that the tax incidence is 100%, but it is reflected in wages.

[Balta1701]

I doubt that the tax incidence is 100%, but it is reflected in wages.

It's reflected in "lower wages by the employee", but if you want to be rigorous and ask the question "are people who earn $10k a year on minimum wage getting off too easy or are people who earn $40 million a year getting off too easy", then failing to consider that 6% is pretty important.

 

Anyway, the real issue we should be asking is "Does having Mitt Romney pay 14% in taxes make this a more effective economy or society". That's why this would matter in the first place. I feel like I've failed to stress that.

[StrangeSox]

It's reflected in "lower wages by the employee", but if you want to be rigorous and ask the question "are people who earn $10k a year on minimum wage getting off too easy or are people who earn $40 million a year getting off too easy", then failing to consider that 6% is pretty important.

 

Some quick googling seems to show on the balance that it actually is 100% or damn close to it, and that it's entirely reflected in wages and not employment.

 

Anyway, the real issue we should be asking is "Does having Mitt Romney pay 14% in taxes make this a more effective economy or society". That's why this would matter in the first place. I feel like I've failed to stress that.

 

Mitt Romney paying 14% is punishing success, mere politics of envy.

[EvilMonkey]

Anyway, the real issue we should be asking is "Does having Mitt Romney pay $6 MILLION in taxes make this a more effective economy or society". That's why this would matter in the first place. I feel like I've failed to stress that.

$6 MILLION. Do you think he gets $6 million in benefit for his tax dollars? $6 million bucks he paid. That's a lot, no matter who you are. But everyone glosses over that because the percentage isn't high enough. but when it comes to the lower 45%, percentage doesn't seem to matter.

[StrangeSox]

Tax rate is the entire point. Or should everyone just pay a flat dollar amount regardless of income?

 

EDIT: and $6M isn't a lot when you're making $40M+ and are already worth hundreds of millions. It has zero impact on your life. When you're making $20k a year, an extra $1000 makes a huge difference to your life and essentially zero difference to federal revenues even when spread out over say 20M people.

Edited January 24, 2012 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

$6 MILLION. Do you think he gets $6 million in benefit for his tax dollars? $6 million bucks he paid. That's a lot, no matter who you are. But everyone glosses over that because the percentage isn't high enough. but when it comes to the lower 45%, percentage doesn't seem to matter.

The whole reason regressive vs progressive vs flat tax structure is even a discussion is the sliding scale of utility of each dollar. The first $10k someone makes is one heck of a lot more important to them that than the 10th $10k. It is the transition from absolute needs, to marginal needs, to reasonable wants, to luxury items. I am sure you must realize this.

 

And let's stop with the talk that 45% of the country doesn't pay taxes, which is 100% false. Not only do they pay sales taxes (and at a much higher relative rate), along with property taxes and other non-payroll-based fees and taxes, they also pay the SS payroll tax (which is regressive), and Medicare, and often state income tax.

 

That all said, I have no problem with the fact that Romney pays only about 15% in taxes. There are very good, valid reasons why the cap gains, dividend and interest taxes are set lower than the top line income taxes. I'd also be OK with him paying 20%, as part of a broader plan to get the deficit and debt under control. But not much more than that.

 

One other bit of nonsense is that people are all up in arms about that he insists on paying only the minimum amount of taxes he can. EVERYONE should do that.

 

Can we get past the hyperbole nonsense now?

 

[StrangeSox]

That all said, I have no problem with the fact that Romney pays only about 15% in taxes. There are very good, valid reasons why the cap gains, dividend and interest taxes are set lower than the top line income taxes. I'd also be OK with him paying 20%, as part of a broader plan to get the deficit and debt under control. But not much more than that.

 

No, there's not really good reasons to have those at the low rates they're currently at. It's a recent policy and there's no evidence that it's encouraged investing. These were the promises behind Bush's tax cuts on these categories but they completely failed to pan out.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2012 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

The whole reason regressive vs progressive vs flat tax structure is even a discussion is the sliding scale of utility of each dollar. The first $10k someone makes is one heck of a lot more important to them that than the 10th $10k. It is the transition from absolute needs, to marginal needs, to reasonable wants, to luxury items. I am sure you must realize this.

 

And let's stop with the talk that 45% of the country doesn't pay taxes, which is 100% false. Not only do they pay sales taxes (and at a much higher relative rate), along with property taxes and other non-payroll-based fees and taxes, they also pay the SS payroll tax (which is regressive), and Medicare, and often state income tax.

 

Once you take into account all taxation, our system is barely a progressive one. Yet every single GOP candidate would love to significantly cut the taxes for the wealthy, even to the point of having an overall regressive system.

[MexSoxFan#1]

I'm not sure if he's right, but he's the kind of guy who would know what the "insiders" are saying, as this Steve Schmidt guy was one of McCain 08's top 2 strategists.

I'm not sure if I want to see this happen or not.

As a democrat, Yes please!!

[StrangeSox]

$6 MILLION. Do you think he gets $6 million in benefit for his tax dollars? $6 million bucks he paid. That's a lot, no matter who you are. But everyone glosses over that because the percentage isn't high enough. but when it comes to the lower 45%, percentage doesn't seem to matter.

 

By the way, it'd take the average American family about 400 years to earn what Romney earned in 1. That's why people talk about percentages instead of dollar amounts.

[Balta1701]

The effective tax rate thing is a left wing myth. No "secretary" is paying more in effective tax rates than any millionaire.

Present for you.

Billionaire Warren Buffett's longtime secretary will be joining first lady Michelle Obama in her box at tonight's State of the Union, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer announced on Twitter.

 

Debbie Bosanek, who has worked for Buffett for nearly two decades, has become a symbol in the White House's fight over the tax code and economic fairness. Obama is expected to renew his push for the so-called "Buffett rule" that would bring investment taxation levels into line with income taxation levels — and ensure that upper income earners pay rates as high as middle-class Americans.

 

"Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett," President Obama said in September, when he unveiled his American Jobs Act proposal. It's a trope that Buffett himself has repeated, as he has campaigned for higher taxes on investment income.

 

It's common practice for presidents to invite guests to sit next to the first spouse that fit with the theme of their address — and Bosanek's presence is a big hint that the address will tilt heavily towards economic issues of fairness.

 

Annie Lowrey, writing in Slate, reports that Bosanek has traditionally been very wary of the limelight — acting as a gatekeeper to the billionaire investor, not as a newsmaker. While she does acts as the press liaison for Buffett and his company, she's tight-lipped. She reportedly once wore a t-shirt with the caption: "Hi, I'm Debbie B. Warren is not available, and I have no comment."

[EvilMonkey]

Present for you.

I think both her and Warren need to release their taxes or STFU.

[StrangeSox]

Serious question for the Republicans and conservatives here: do you believe Gingrich could beat Obama in the national election (barring any unknown circumstances and assuming the economy keeps at its current sluggish pace)?

[lostfan]

That's more in taxes than the entire OWS movement probably EARNED, combined.

Yeah that's kinda the point actually

[lostfan]

$6 MILLION. Do you think he gets $6 million in benefit for his tax dollars? $6 million bucks he paid. That's a lot, no matter who you are. But everyone glosses over that because the percentage isn't high enough. but when it comes to the lower 45%, percentage doesn't seem to matter.

‎"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

 

-Adam Smith, noted socialist

[EvilMonkey]

Yeah that's kinda the point actually

Go check out his returns and see what percentage he donated to charity. And then compare that to Obama's percentage donated to charity. Or to any other Democratic politician that wants to be generous with other people's money, but not their own.