Register to reply

Mitt Romney's candidacy

by ThomasT
Tags: candidacy, mitt, romney
Share this thread:
Oltz
#37
Jan9-12, 12:07 PM
P: 12
Quote Quote by Jack21222 View Post
The reason the top 1% and the top 10% pay such a large percentage of the taxes in the country is because they are so fantastically wealthy. Forget making a million dollars a year. There are people making HUNDREDS of millions of dollars a year. They make in one year what most of us can only hope to make in a dozen lifetimes.
You missed the point 1% was only $343,000 a year in AGI if you will not make that in dozens of lifetimes I am sorry to hear that. 10% was only 112K.

This is why "percent of the total national tax" is an irrelevant figure. Even if you had an actual regressive tax, with lower incomes paying a higher percentage, you could still end up with a situation where the top 1% pays FAR MORE than 1% of the taxes.
Again you missed the point you need to compare percent paid to percent made. I think we should look at that ratio more I do not know what is the "right" number but it certainly is not fair for it to be even higher. currently the 1% make 17% of the money and pay 36 percent of the tax so a 36/17 = 2.11 (simple rounding. ) the bottom 50% pay 2.3% of the total taxes but make 13.5% of the AGI. 2.3/13.5 = 0.17 so for every "income unit" the 1% pay 2.11 "tax units" and the bottom 50% pay 0.17 "tax units" per equal "income unit".

The numbers do not lie you tell me what is a fair relationship. That is a 12.4:1 relationship. What is fair?

I haven't verified this number, but I'll take your number at face value, that the top 1% pays on average 24.01% of their income. If the top 1% paid, say, 26% of their income instead, it would have a far smaller effect on them than if you bumped up the bottom 50% to say 3%.
Correct but people are allowed to be rich you could tax the top 1% at 100% and we would still be running a defecit in less then a month.

If you support a balanced budget, in my opinion, you must also support higher taxes, particularly on the only group of people who can afford higher taxes. You cannot cut enough spending without causing economic catastrophe to balance the budget. It must come from a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. Proposing tax cuts, particularly tax cuts only on the wealthy, while cutting government benefits on the poor, and still not balancing the budget... that's just silly. And that's Romney.
I am fine with increasing revenue temproraily acorss a broad base the problem is every "temporary" tax raise in history that was supposed to have cuts with it has happened and then the cuts never come. Make the cuts first so I belive you will actually do it then ask me for more money.

Say we have reduced spending to these levels and the programs we have running will be sustainable. Now we would like to raise income for the next 2 decades to pay down our debt and then rates will reset to a fair level. The government has proven that if you give them money they will spend it on something new not use it to reduce anything.
mheslep
#38
Jan9-12, 12:08 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,098
Also consider that a union might negotiate the owners into thinking the best place for the job is elsewhere all together (right to work state or Mexico) or to spend lavishly instead on automation which doesn't negotiate, or in the case of teacher's unions the union might well negotiate away large salaries and bonuses for stellar teachers especially for new teachers in order to hold on to a seniority system, or the union might negotiate the municipality into bankruptcy eventually causing school closings or a default on pensions for the retired.
Oltz
#39
Jan9-12, 12:17 PM
P: 12
Quote Quote by Jack21222 View Post
I just read a bunch of conservative talking points, but no actual substance. You didn't actually point out any specific problems, nor propose any specific solutions. Would you like to try and think for yourself, rather than regurgitating what you've heard on talk radio?

Jack how is SS rate cuts are silly not a specific comment? How is the pay in to pay out ratio of greater the 5:1 not a specific problem? How is saying we need to narrow the target of people who are entitled to these entitlements not a specific solution ?

I think you may have reading comprehension problems when you are ready to actually read the words and not just make blanket statements about regurgitating I would like to know your opinions on what is fair and how to prevent entitlments from bankrupting this country in 25 years no matter what the tax rates are.
Jimmy Snyder
#40
Jan9-12, 12:33 PM
P: 2,179
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
When I got promoted, they had to split my work up between three union workers. It's the unproductive union workers that are getting the free ride. My work ethics got me into management and my pay tripled within a few years. The union negotiated pay and benefits were crap compared to what I was able to negotiate on my own when I was no longer in the same classification as union workers and no longer limited to union contract terms.
Management is almost never union and almost always makes more than rank and file union members. Did Oltz mean that his wife is management and will negotiate the same contract as the union?
daveb
#41
Jan9-12, 12:41 PM
P: 925
Quote Quote by Oltz View Post
I can not more ardently disagree. My wife is a teacher and can not teach in PA with out being a member of the local, state and Federal Union. Period no questions asked you either pay them or do not work. They then take that money you have no say in giving them and use ~70 for political activites with out any form of input from the "members" that is wrong. What point 45 means is that if your union forces membership (non right to work state) it can not use those "dues" for political purposes. If you have voluntary membership your union can do as it pleases. This applies to teaches mailmen whatever if you do not support the political cause of the union leaders they should not be able to force you to pay for the campaign.

By the same not my wife would happily not be in the union given the option amd she would negotiate to have the same contract as the union but instead of paying dues that she has no control over to an entity we do no agree with most of the causes they support the school could keep that $248 a month.

Union contract - Dues = non union employee
You do get a say in how your unions dues are spent - it's called voting on your union representative.
MarcoD
#42
Jan9-12, 12:49 PM
P: 98
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
When I got promoted, they had to split my work up between three union workers. It's the unproductive union workers that are getting the free ride. My work ethics got me into management and my pay tripled within a few years. The union negotiated pay and benefits were crap compared to what I was able to negotiate on my own when I was no longer in the same classification as union workers and no longer limited to union contract terms.
You posted once whether reducing working hours is a solid economical strategy. It has been noted by economists that the German model of reducing payment and working hours a bit during recessions (sharing the burden) has also helped them to recover quickly in periods of growth, since the working force didn't lose their abilities and intelligent workers weren't laid off.

It is diametrically opposed to the US model, and I don't think anybody really knows what really works.
Jack21222
#43
Jan9-12, 12:54 PM
P: 772
Quote Quote by Oltz View Post
You missed the point 1% was only $343,000 a year in AGI if you will not make that in dozens of lifetimes I am sorry to hear that. 10% was only 112K.
Even that doesn't work, because the top 1% still includes the top 0.001%, which are the ones making 100m+ a year, which will skew any data which includes them. I have missed no point. The important number is the number which you quoted, that the top 1% only pay 24% of their income in taxes. The least important number is what percentage of the total they paid.

Again you missed the point you need to compare percent paid to percent made.
No. That number is irrelevant for many reasons.

I think we should look at that ratio more I do not know what is the "right" number but it certainly is not fair for it to be even higher. currently the 1% make 17% of the money and pay 36 percent of the tax so a 36/17 = 2.11 (simple rounding. ) the bottom 50% pay 2.3% of the total taxes but make 13.5% of the AGI. 2.3/13.5 = 0.17 so for every "income unit" the 1% pay 2.11 "tax units" and the bottom 50% pay 0.17 "tax units" per equal "income unit".

The numbers do not lie you tell me what is a fair relationship. That is a 12.4:1 relationship. What is fair?
Once again, this is an artifact of the great wealth disparity (and income disparity) in this country. Included in your bottom 50% are the 14.6% living below the poverty line [census.gov, 2009 stats]. Many of those living above the poverty line are quite close to it. For you to claim that poor people are given "unfair" tax advantages is incredibly absurd. Every single one of those in the bottom 50% DREAM of one day being taxed at "unfair" rates.

Correct but people are allowed to be rich you could tax the top 1% at 100% and we would still be running a defecit in less then a month.
Nobody once said that people aren't allowed to be rich. If you're reduced to attacking such unbelievable strawmen, perhaps you should quit now. I also never said that taxes alone would balance the budget. In fact, if you had bothered to read my post, you would have seen where I said both tax increases and spending cuts are needed.

I am fine with increasing revenue temproraily acorss a broad base the problem is every "temporary" tax raise in history that was supposed to have cuts with it has happened and then the cuts never come. Make the cuts first so I belive you will actually do it then ask me for more money.
Why raise taxes across a broad base? How about you raise taxes among those who can actually afford it, rather than raising taxes on lower-class families struggling to survive? And why should the tax increases be temporary? Top tax rates in this countries are the lowest they've been in decades, and wealth disparity in this country is greater than it has ever been in all of United States history.

Say we have reduced spending to these levels and the programs we have running will be sustainable. Now we would like to raise income for the next 2 decades to pay down our debt and then rates will reset to a fair level. The government has proven that if you give them money they will spend it on something new not use it to reduce anything.
You keep using the word "fair," but I suspect you have a rather twisted definition of that word.

Jack how is SS rate cuts are silly not a specific comment? How is the pay in to pay out ratio of greater the 5:1 not a specific problem? How is saying we need to narrow the target of people who are entitled to these entitlements not a specific solution ?

I think you may have reading comprehension problems when you are ready to actually read the words and not just make blanket statements about regurgitating I would like to know your opinions on what is fair and how to prevent entitlments from bankrupting this country in 25 years no matter what the tax rates are.
You are confusing the issue by rolling many different programs under the label "entitlements." Unemployment, food stamps, welfare, medicare, and social security are all VERY DIFFERENT programs, with different benefits, targeting different people, and each with their own problems.

You mentioned no specifics in any of those in your post. You DID NOT SAY anything about a 5:1 pay in to pay out ratio in your post, yet you're accusing me of a lack of reading comprehension? Read your own post, and point out where you said anything about that. Even in your clarification you aren't being specific. You said we need to "narrow the target of people" who are entitled to "these entitlements." Which entitlements? Who is qualifying for which entitlements who don't deserve them, and how do you propose they change it?

THOSE would be specific answers. Instead, you drone on about how it's not "fair" that "those people" are getting "those entitlements." These aren't specifics. They are talking points.
Oltz
#44
Jan10-12, 11:27 AM
P: 12
Quote Quote by Jack21222 View Post
Even that doesn't work, because the top 1% still includes the top 0.001%, which are the ones making 100m+ a year, which will skew any data which includes them. I have missed no point. The important number is the number which you quoted, that the top 1% only pay 24% of their income in taxes. The least important number is what percentage of the total they paid.
OK so what percent should they pay if 24% is to low?

Once again, this is an artifact of the great wealth disparity (and income disparity) in this country. Included in your bottom 50% are the 14.6% living below the poverty line [census.gov, 2009 stats]. Many of those living above the poverty line are quite close to it. For you to claim that poor people are given "unfair" tax advantages is incredibly absurd. Every single one of those in the bottom 50% DREAM of one day being taxed at "unfair" rates.
Your right it does include those below the poverty line who actually have a negative tax burden. I never said it they had unfair tax advantages I said I think tax rates should be more in line with income below the top 25%. I am ok with the bottom 20% having a 0 or Negative tax burden.
I would like to see everyone above that point at least pay something more in line with AGI weighted income percent. You could then easily come up with normalized income units each year and subsequently tax units.
Those values would be used for the following year.
Fine you want the top 0.1% to pay 20 tax units per income unit fine and the top 0.2%-1% to pay 17:1 ok and the top 10%-9% to pay 12:1 sure but I want the 21%-40% to pay 1:1 and the 41-50 1.5:1 51-60 2:1 61-70 3:1 71-80 5:1 81-90 9:1

Make an income unit anything form the median income to the pverty rate or do it as a percent anywhere between 0.01%-1% of the total AGI of all filers. Depending on what you want a "Tax unit" to be $2 $10 $100 $1000 $2500 whatever.


Nobody once said that people aren't allowed to be rich. If you're reduced to attacking such unbelievable strawmen, perhaps you should quit now. I also never said that taxes alone would balance the budget. In fact, if you had bothered to read my post, you would have seen where I said both tax increases and spending cuts are needed.
At what tax rate are you actually saying its great that you are good at what you do but we do not think you actually deserve to keep what somebody willingly gave you?


Why raise taxes across a broad base? How about you raise taxes among those who can actually afford it, rather than raising taxes on lower-class families struggling to survive? And why should the tax increases be temporary? Top tax rates in this countries are the lowest they've been in decades, and wealth disparity in this country is greater than it has ever been in all of United States history.
If you actually look at the numbers the "rate" is lower but the actual amount paid by the highest bracket is considerably higher becuase incomes have grown far faster then inflation so the GDP ratio is pretty constant. Plus with population growth the number of actual people in the 1% has grown greatly by sheer law of averages. So 1940 12 people paying the top rate of 65% (or whatever I do not have time to look now) is way less %GDP then you currently get from the 1%.

You keep using the word "fair," but I suspect you have a rather twisted definition of that word.
My defenition of fair is everyone participates equally. Understanding that a flat rate is of itself unfair a Fair system in my eyes would be one tied to a consistent metric based on a unitless relationship that could be evenly applied to all.

You are confusing the issue by rolling many different programs under the label "entitlements." Unemployment, food stamps, welfare, medicare, and social security are all VERY DIFFERENT programs, with different benefits, targeting different people, and each with their own problems.
You mentioned no specifics in any of those in your post. You DID NOT SAY anything about a 5:1 pay in to pay out ratio in your post, yet you're accusing me of a lack of reading comprehension? Read your own post, and point out where you said anything about that. Even in your clarification you aren't being specific. You said we need to "narrow the target of people" who are entitled to "these entitlements." Which entitlements? Who is qualifying for which entitlements who don't deserve them, and how do you propose they change it?

THOSE would be specific answers. Instead, you drone on about how it's not "fair" that "those people" are getting "those entitlements." These aren't specifics. They are talking points.
The problem is the pay out to in ratio has become so skewed
Actually I seperated SS and medicare as Pay in Programs and referenced the unsustainable ratio but you are right I did not cite 5:1 and Greater ratios specifically.

The reamaining programs are well entitlements. Food stamps welfare and unemployment are entitlements. They need to be brought under control in one of 3 ways or a balance of the 3. I said.
need reform to better target the correct recpients and be made sustainable with propper controls that will keep them from ballooning beyond our capacity to support them
Those 3 ways are
1. Reduce Benefits.
2. Reduce Number of recipients.
3. Reduce Duration.

I am not in position to actually make any changes but drug testing sounds like a good start and will help alot with number 2. Madatory Job Training and perhaps unskilled labor positions would help with number 3. Maybe reduce the amount of checks by 75% and give people direct food allocations purchased in bulk and how about direct payment of mortgage/rent/utilties That would cut some waste from number 1.
Jack21222
#45
Jan10-12, 12:28 PM
P: 772
Oh look, more talking points. The whole "deserve to keep what somebody willingly gave you" schtick won't work on me. I used to use that all the time a decade ago when I was a Libertarian. Fact is, for society to function, taxes must exist, and taxes should come from those with the means to pay without sacrificing food or medicine or shelter.

I cannot parse your "tax units" plan. Get to the bottom line... who will pay more and who will pay less under your plan?

In your last point about giving people direct food and direct payment of rent... those programs already exist.
Jimmy Snyder
#46
Jan10-12, 01:56 PM
P: 2,179
My take is that eventually the 5 'conservatives' are going to have to get behind Romney and once they do, he will pick his VP from among them. He can't win without the conservative wing of his party. So they are really running against each other. In order to make this work though, they have to stop harping on the Bain Capital thing. What the heck kind of conservative blames a capitalist for being a capitalist?
Evo
#47
Jan10-12, 01:57 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,541
Quote Quote by Jimmy Snyder View Post
My take is that eventually the 5 'conservatives' are going to have to get behind Romney and once they do, he will pick his VP from among them. He can't win without the conservative wing of his party. So they are really running against each other. In order to make this work though, they have to stop harping on the Bain Capital thing. What the heck kind of conservative blames a capitalist for being a capitalist?
Romney/Huntsman?

Seems Republicans are unhappy with the current candidates.

Poll: 58% of Republicans want more presidential choices

The nominating process may officially be underway, but Republicans have yet to enthusiastically embrace a potential nominee for president - and despite the late date, most would like to see other candidates enter the race, according to a new CBS News poll.

The survey finds that 58 percent of Republican primary voters want more presidential choices, while just 37 percent say they are satisfied with the current field. The percentage of Republican primary voters that wants more choices has increased 12 percentage points since October.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...ntial-choices/
Jimmy Snyder
#48
Jan10-12, 02:22 PM
P: 2,179
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Romney/Huntsman?
That's not what I had in mind, but it might work. He would have to hope that the center outvotes the wings. They sure would lock up the Mormon vote.
Evo
#49
Jan10-12, 02:24 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,541
Quote Quote by Jimmy Snyder View Post
That's not what I had in mind, but it might work. He would have to hope that the center outvotes the wings. They sure would lock up the Mormon vote.
Oh, I forgot they're both Mormans.

Who would be your choice?
Char. Limit
#50
Jan10-12, 02:28 PM
PF Gold
Char. Limit's Avatar
P: 1,951
If I were Romney, I'd want to get Gingrich or Santorum as the VP. Either one would get you the evangelical vote.
Tosh5457
#51
Jan10-12, 02:45 PM
P: 239
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYo8KNmZZuk

Just another candidate who sells his soul to get votes. With US's current economic and debt situation, Mitt Romney and the other candidates are worried about how they're going to spend more money on Israel? Americans have to go through austerity measures, while Israelis can keep their universal healthcare and live better than americans with USA's money?
Oltz
#52
Jan10-12, 03:34 PM
P: 12
Quote Quote by Jack21222 View Post
Oh look, more talking points. The whole "deserve to keep what somebody willingly gave you" schtick won't work on me. I used to use that all the time a decade ago when I was a Libertarian. Fact is, for society to function, taxes must exist, and taxes should come from those with the means to pay without sacrificing food or medicine or shelter.

I cannot parse your "tax units" plan. Get to the bottom line... who will pay more and who will pay less under your plan?

In your last point about giving people direct food and direct payment of rent... those programs already exist.
I support Taxes I was in the Army I want us to have a government. The problem is the current "non-essential" Government programs have grown out of control and are a cumbersome burden. I am not its not a schtick somebody did willingly pay all those evil rich people those 100's of millions of dollars a year.

Paying taxes for a highway or research or even a new air craft carrier are very different then paying the government to donate money to the needy while borrowing $0.40 of every dollar it gives out. Nobody needs to starve nobody needs to go homeless.

My question is how much of our GDP should be dedicated to supporting the bottom 20%?

Its your turn to say somethign concrete as I have given you multiple posts with actual numbers and opinions and all you do is call it talking points. I want some hard numbers of what you want. WHo pays who gets it what rate? how do we stop these programs from becoming the entire annual budget?
mheslep
#53
Jan10-12, 03:48 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,098
Quote Quote by Jimmy Snyder View Post
My take is that eventually the 5 'conservatives' are going to have to get behind Romney and once they do, he will pick his VP from among them. He can't win without the conservative wing of his party. So they are really running against each other. In order to make this work though, they have to stop harping on the Bain Capital thing. What the heck kind of conservative blames a capitalist for being a capitalist?
Plenty of other stellar conservatives from which to choose who are not candidates, esp. Rubio, Ryan, Christie. Rubio, in particular, has gained respect across the isle:
During a lengthy Rubio floor speech:
Sen Rubio: ......

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): “Will the Senator yield for a question?”

Sen. Rubio: “Yes, I'll yield.”

Sen. John Kerry: “I thank the Senator for doing that. That's become somewhat unusual in the Senate today. So I truly appreciate it. ...
http://northfloridanow.com/senator-m...s-p4242-92.htm
Evo
#54
Jan10-12, 03:49 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,541
Quote Quote by Oltz View Post
I support Taxes I was in the Army I want us to have a government. The problem is the current "non-essential" Government programs have grown out of control and are a cumbersome burden. I am not its not a schtick somebody did willingly pay all those evil rich people those 100's of millions of dollars a year.

Paying taxes for a highway or research or even a new air craft carrier are very different then paying the government to donate money to the needy while borrowing $0.40 of every dollar it gives out. Nobody needs to starve nobody needs to go homeless.

My question is how much of our GDP should be dedicated to supporting the bottom 20%?

Its your turn to say somethign concrete as I have given you multiple posts with actual numbers and opinions and all you do is call it talking points. I want some hard numbers of what you want. WHo pays who gets it what rate? how do we stop these programs from becoming the entire annual budget?
Please stop harrassing Jack. I don't see anywhere in your posts that you have cited any sources to back up anything you have posted.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Ron Paul's candidacy Current Events 578