Page 116 of 192 FirstFirst ... 1666106114115116117118126166 ... LastLast
Results 1,151 to 1,160 of 1914

Thread: Romney reveals he pays about 15% in taxes(edited)

  1. #1151
    Guru

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In a Blue State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,732

    Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    You have shown zero connection between an investor getting a capital gains break and any actual real world job creation which helps Mr. Bartlett and gain his support for that discriminatory preference.
    I am not sure you can be helped then.
    We went from sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me to safe spaces.

  2. #1152
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Romney reveals he pays about 15% in taxes(edited)

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Sleep well. Get a good rest. And in the morning awake refreshed and please do find that section of the Constitution that you claim guarantees the pursuit of happiness.

    All right, so you are going to hang your hat on this type of BS eh?

    the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence and considered by some as part of one of the most well crafted, influential sentences in the history of the English language.[1] These three aspects are listed among the "unalienable rights" or sovereign rights of man.

    Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The relationship between the DoI, and the U.S. Constitution is not only remarkable, but the first of its kind, and to date, to my knowledge, the ONLY one of its kind in the world. Consider....

    Throughout history, people have viewed the relationship between government and citizen as one of master and servant. It was always assumed that man’s rights came from government and, therefore, that it was entirely legitimate for government to regulate or even take away the “rights” that had been given the citizenry.

    If the king, for example, decided to confiscate a farmer’s crops, there was nothing the farmer could do but obey, because the farmer held his land and grew his crops through the good graces of the king. If the king imposed a maximum price that could be charged for the farmer’s crops, the citizen obeyed because the king, as sovereign, was ultimately the owner of everything.
    then along came 'we the people' and the person became sovereign, in life, liberty, and property.

    Let’s consider an example — Placido Domingo. Here is a person who was born with a voice that is different from everyone else’s. It is such a good voice that thousands of people are willing to exchange a large amount of money to listen to it. As Domingo performs in an increasing number of opera productions, his income or property increase. And he uses this property to pursue happiness in his own way, either through saving it, spending it, donating it, investing it, or some combination thereof.

    Obviously, government officials are not responsible for Domingo’s voice or the fact that others place a high value on listening to it. What then is the role of government with respect to Domingo? To punish any person who inflicts violence against him, either in the form of a personal assault or in the form of a theft of the property that he has justly acquired through mutual trades.

    This is what Jefferson was referring to when he wrote in the Declaration that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. It is the process of engaging in economic enterprise, trading with others, and accumulating wealth that we call “economic liberty.” Of course, there are other aspects of human liberty besides the economic one, such as intellectual, religious, and procedural (due process of law), but the overall principle is the same: rights such as life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness preexist government and it is the duty of government to protect their exercise.

    It is interesting to note that Adam Smith published his monumental work, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, in the same year — 1776 — that the Declaration of Independence was written. In that work, Smith argued that economic liberty was the key to rising standards of living, especially for those on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder.
    In order to ensure these God given rights, and protect them our founders of this nation came up with a Constitution to run this nation...

    the people of the United States brought into existence the Constitution, which in turn brought into existence the federal government. Therefore, there is no question, at least here in the United States, that the federal government is entirely a creation of the people, that the people preexist the government, and that the people have the right to dismantle it, abolish it, reform it, or limit its powers in any way they see fit.

    And this was exactly what the Constitution was — an express limitation on the powers of government. After all, the people could have called into existence a government whose powers were total and absolute.

    The Constitution established the federal government but, by its express terms and its express nature, it also limited its powers to those enumerated in the document. If the intention had been to establish a government of unlimited powers, there obviously would have been no need to enumerate powers or expressly restrict powers. The fact that powers were enumerated and restricted conclusively establishes that our Founding Fathers were not establishing a government with unlimited powers.

    The Declaration and the Constitution
    To attempt to uncouple, or deny that the DoI, has any relationship to the Constitution is an utterly dishonest, and frankly transparent, insulting track for you to take in making your argument that the Obama administration can just wave a hand and take what he wants. Including taxation.

    There are methods, and proper ways for the people to change their constitution, and they are spelled out, however as most liberal progressive ideas go, I understand that you feel you must go outside these proscribed by law methods, because you know full well they wouldn't fly.

    Now hopefully, you can be honest from here out, because I think you are a very smart person, and probably have an education that on paper out does mine, however any claim of academic pedigree does not outweigh the strength of my argument.

    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  3. #1153
    Sage
    mike2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    arizona
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,997

    Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

    Haymarket/other who support the position.

    Please provide evidence that your stance on taxing will grow the economy and provide more jobs than the current regulations.

    Please provide evidence that Congress has violated laws by establishing the current tax system we have.

    Stating all type of income should be taxed at the same rate is not an answer, its an opinion.
    Stating the average American does not have disposable income to take advantage of all of the tax rules is not an answer, its an opinion.
    Last edited by mike2810; 01-23-12 at 10:33 AM.
    "I can explain it to you but, I can't understand it for you"

  4. #1154
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-17 @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,878

    Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    That is the theory of trickle down economics, where is the beef???
    Actually it comes from a 2006 US Treasury department report…beef? MY BANK ACCOUNT…

    Where are the jobs that were supposed to be created by the last decade of tax cuts?
    They were created but then lost to the recession but I’m sure you know this as typically happens. The larger question is where they are NOW as the recession has been over for about two years.


    No evidence of that in the 90's. We created 22 million jobs.
    Yes and one could argue (but I’m sure not you) those 22 million were based on the supply side principals enacted in the late 80’s. Surely you don’t believe that economic activities/actions undertaken by government have IMMEDIATE effects on it, do you? You understand that the policies that BHO has implemented in the last three years will take a few more to expose their success/failure.

  5. #1155
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-17 @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,878

    Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post

    None of that provides a single reason why an American would support such discriminatory preferences for capital gains which primarily benefit the wealthy over working people.

    I await actual reasons why they should.
    I have given three but still you continue to post this question...you remind me of Conservative...

  6. #1156
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    I'm not really sure I even know what you mean... We need taxes so that we can keep our society strong. It's in everybody's interests. You aren't an anarchist, so you agree, no?
    Ofcourse we need revenue from taxation, and from a purely citizenship standing it is up to EVERY citizen to contribute taxes to the Government for the purposes of powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution. It is the level of taxation that is in question.

    Again, you pay a higher percentage in taxes overall than the super rich investor. It doesn't matter that the taxes you pay more of have different names.
    Ah, but it does. See we are a nation known as a Representative Republic, NOT a pure Democracy, or for that matter a Monarchy, or Dictatorship. We are a nation of laws, not mob rule.

    There are thousands of studies finding that... And it's just obvious common sense. So, yeah, that argument is not remotely persuasive.
    And with such abundance you choose to cite not one of them. Look, is the tax code screwed up? Hell yeah. Do we disagree how, also Hell yeah! Don't be fooled into thinking that I must persuade you of anything, that is not my reason for being here.

    Legal? Yeah of course that's legal. That's the law I am saying should be changed.
    So, if I understand your argument, it is absolutely legal for Mitt Romney's taxation level to be at 15% due to the fact that his 'income' is derived solely from investment return, but you think that is wrong and Romney is somehow doing something wrong? Why is it Romney's fault, or anyone's fault that gets their income from that method that they follow the law? Do you think your own personal taxes are too low, then in turn send in more than you legally have to so that you can 'feel better' about your own participation in this country?

    Look, ask yourself this. If we ony had one tax and it was an income tax that covered both wages and investment income, and they set the rates as follows- people in the bottom 20% pay 16%, the average person pays 27%, upper middle class pays 32%, and super rich people pay 15%, would you think that was a good plan? If not, why do you support something that works out to exactly the same thing just because they obscure what they're doing by having multiple different taxes instead of just rolling it together?

    Well, one reason is largely because I know as I get older, at some point I will not be working anymore, and will hopefully, if I have done the right things, derive my own income off of the investments that I make now while I work. And for the years that I did the right things and socked money away for that time, why should at that point in my life have more than double of my real income taken from me?

    Second, the problem with the 'progressive' taxation system are inherently flawed as such

    1. a progressive tax system is a plank in the Communist manifesto....

    A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
    Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".

    Communist Manifesto 10 Planks
    The link I gave you earlier also linked a progressive tax to a method of shifting America to a socialist nation. We are NOT supposed to be such.

    I personally would like to see instead of an "income tax" a more reasonable means of taxation such as flat, or consumption taxation so that everyone participates, not just a constant attack on success.

    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  7. #1157
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-17 @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,878

    Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    So here is the challenge for any who want to take it - and even if those here are not up to the task - someone on the national stage will have to do it: lets take two people

    A - Greg Bartlet - a successful record producer who makes $800,000 a year in salary. He pays a tax rate of 35% for a bill of $280,000.00 in federal income tax minus deductions.

    B - Wesley Weston - who makes investments and this year reaped $800,000 in long term capital gains profits. He pays a tax rate of 15% for a bill of $120,000.00 minus deduction.

    Please explain to Bartlet why he should support a national tax policy which has him paying over twice as much more in federal income taxes than another American who earns the exact same amount as he did.
    Given your premise:

    Well Greg, Wesley paid 35% his salary, JUST LIKE YOU, which he then put at risk in investments. The inducement for Wesley to invest the amount sufficient to yield the $800k in profits was these reduced rates. He could have invested them in tax free municipal bonds which would be less risky and not incurred any tax liability but he would have not realized such a large gain and would have done less to increase the productivity of the economy AND increased government borrowing with would further redirect capital from the general economy.

    Greg now that you have $800k you should discuss with Wesley how to invest your money as it appears he is pretty good at it. If you as successful the you TOO can realize this increase in income at the 15% rate and contribute to overall economic growth just the same.

    Of course Greg, you COULD go on a public forum and piss and moan enviously about how the ‘system is rigged’ for people like Wesley and it is SO UNFAIR.

  8. #1158
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Penn's Woods
    Last Seen
    09-01-12 @ 09:09 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,984

    Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    For someone against taxing income you certainly changed your tune fast.
    If we are going to tax incomes and capital gains income, they should both be taxed at 15%.

    Of course, my first choice would not to have taxes on income at all. But, you know, baby steps...

  9. #1159
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Ah, but it does. See we are a nation known as a Representative Republic, NOT a pure Democracy, or for that matter a Monarchy, or Dictatorship. We are a nation of laws, not mob rule.
    No idea what relevance you think that has. I asked why it matters to you what the taxes are called.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    And with such abundance you choose to cite not one of them.
    Again- http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    So, if I understand your argument, it is absolutely legal for Mitt Romney's taxation level to be at 15% due to the fact that his 'income' is derived solely from investment return, but you think that is wrong and Romney is somehow doing something wrong? Why is it Romney's fault, or anyone's fault that gets their income from that method that they follow the law? Do you think your own personal taxes are too low, then in turn send in more than you legally have to so that you can 'feel better' about your own participation in this country?
    It isn't Romney's fault. Nobody is saying it is. But Romney is the poster child now for why the policies Romney advocates are ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Well, one reason is largely because I know as I get older, at some point I will not be working anymore, and will hopefully, if I have done the right things, derive my own income off of the investments that I make now while I work. And for the years that I did the right things and socked money away for that time, why should at that point in my life have more than double of my real income taken from me?
    Retirement savings are covered under lots of other stuff, so that isn't relevant. Regardless, even if those didn't exist, taxing investment like other income means it would be progressive. Unless you were making a ton of profit off the investments each year, you wouldn't pay higher rates than you do on income.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Second, the problem with the 'progressive' taxation system are inherently flawed as such

    1. a progressive tax system is a plank in the Communist manifesto....
    It's weird that you'd make like you were going to provide a list and then not be able to provide even one actual argument...

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I personally would like to see instead of an "income tax" a more reasonable means of taxation such as flat, or consumption taxation so that everyone participates, not just a constant attack on success.
    Consumption taxes are just a way to shift virtually the entire tax burden of the rich to the middle class. Your taxes would approximately double under a purely consumption based scheme. And for what? Just so super rich people have to pay basically no taxes at all? Why is that a good trade off?

  10. #1160
    Sage
    mike2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    arizona
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,997

    Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

    tea:
    based on your link provided Is it not supporting the fact that the top 5 income groups currently pay the highest "total effective tax rate" and "Shares of Total Taxes Paid by Each Income Group Were Similar to their Shares of Total Income in 2010"?

    So are you advicating they should pay more.
    "I can explain it to you but, I can't understand it for you"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •