• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

To be more precise, my position is that all types of income should be taxed on the same rate scale. Just treat all income alike and use the tax rates we use for wages for all of it. So, interest income would just be added on to whatever wages or investment income you have, that'd be your total income, and you'd be taxed the same way as if it had all been wages.

I get your point.
I was asking should everyone earn the same rate on savings, investments. i.e. interest earn. Right now there is a variety of interest rates paid.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

I get your point.
I was asking should everyone earn the same rate on savings, investments. i.e. interest earn. Right now there is a variety of interest rates paid.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking whether banks should all pay a standardized rate of interest? If so, I don't see how that is related to what we're talking about, but no, I don't think they should. Or at least I don't think the government should force them to.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking whether banks should all pay a standardized rate of interest? If so, I don't see how that is related to what we're talking about, but no, I don't think they should. Or at least I don't think the government should force them to.

Yes that is what I am asking,
It is relevent. You want all types of income taxed at the same rate. Through this long thread I have not seen any evidence that doing so would be benifical to the economy or lead to the creation of more jobs. Your own link showed that the top 5 earning groups pay a lot of taxes and more than the bottom 2 or 3 groups. I believe some think it would give the govt. more money. My concern is Congress does not manage what they get now very well. Until Congress gets their financial house in order, they do not deserve any more tax revenue. Balance the budget, show us how they will reduce/rid us of the debt, and then any new spending tell us what it is for and the costs.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

Yes that is what I am asking,
It is relevent. You want all types of income taxed at the same rate. Through this long thread I have not seen any evidence that doing so would be benifical to the economy or lead to the creation of more jobs. Your own link showed that the top 5 earning groups pay a lot of taxes and more than the bottom 2 or 3 groups. I believe some think it would give the govt. more money. My concern is Congress does not manage what they get now very well. Until Congress gets their financial house in order, they do not deserve any more tax revenue. Balance the budget, show us how they will reduce/rid us of the debt, and then any new spending tell us what it is for and the costs.

Certainly it would generate more revenue for the government, but the question of whether the government "deserves" more money doesn't really make sense. The government is a proxy for the people. The people working for the government don't get the money you pay in taxes, it is spend according to the laws that the people, through their representatives, choose.

But, putting that aside for a moment, spending doesn't seem to have any correlation to revenues. We have a $1.4 trillion deficit. So, it's pretty much impossible to argue that lower revenues means lower spending. They just borrow whatever they want to spend if there isn't enough revenues. So it just becomes a question of how much debt we have. The more revenues, the less debt.

So, it seems obvious to me that revenues are good in and of themselves. So the question goes back again to- why should people who work have to dedicate so much higher of a percentage of what they earn to taxes than rich investors? One way or another, somebody is going to have to bear the burden of that debt. Why should it be disproportionately put on the shoulders of working people and investors get a pass?
 
Last edited:
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

Certainly it would generate more revenue for the government, but the question of whether the government "deserves" more money doesn't really make sense. The government is a proxy for the people. The people working for the government don't get the money you pay in taxes, it is spend according to the laws that the people, through their representatives, choose.

But, putting that aside for a moment, spending doesn't seem to have any correlation to revenues. We have a $1.4 trillion deficit. So, it's pretty much impossible to argue that lower revenues means lower spending. They just borrow whatever they want to spend if there isn't enough revenues. So it just becomes a question of how much debt we have. The more revenues, the less debt.

So, it seems obvious to me that revenues are good in and of themselves. So the question goes back again to- why should people who work have to dedicate so much higher of a percentage of what they earn to taxes than rich investors? One way or another, somebody is going to have to bear the burden of that debt. Why should it be disproportionately put on the shoulders of working people and investors get a pass?

Can you show that by doing so to capital income will not harm the economy or lead to more jobs?

Capital income is a risk, labor income is a known return. Please explain why someone who looses money when selling a capital asset have that income taxed at the same rate as non capital income. Even if you take a lower paying labor job, you have not lost anything. Your earning capability just went down. that is not the case when a capital investment looses money.

Think we have run to an end. Neither of us are going to change our opinion.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

Can you show that by doing so to capital income will not harm the economy or lead to more jobs?


How did the higher capital gains rate under Reagan and Clinton harm the economy? We created 22 million jobs under Clinton.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

Can you show that by doing so to capital income will not harm the economy or lead to more jobs?

Well there are tons of studies that show that people still invest their money regardless of capital gains rates. So the only real impact is that the amount of their future investments is reduced by whatever amount you increase the tax by. Like any tax, that is a hit to the economy for sure. All things being equal, more investment is better. But, all things being equal, less debt is also better. All things being equal, more consumer spending is better. Etc. We need to try to balance all those things. We should aim for the right balance of debt, consumer spending and investment. The way to decrease debt is by raising income taxes or capital gains taxes. The way to increase consumer spending is to decrease income taxes or increase programs the middle class relies on at the expense of either debt or raising capital gains. The way to increase investment is to decrease capital gains taxes at the expense of either debt or raising income taxes. It's all tradeoffs.

So, the question isn't "is investment good?" the question is "right now do we need investment more, or consumer spending more or debt reduction more?"

I would say that at present both the debt and the lackluster consumer spending are bigger economic problems than any shortage of investment. When you have more investment and not enough consumer spending, what you get is stock bubbles. Money floods into the stock market causing prices to shoot up, but the companies can't ultimately justify those inflated valuations with their actual revenues, so the market eventually corrects and it comes crashing back down. The entire economy has just gotten through two massive, devastating, bubbles, so I think that's a pretty safe bet that our problem isn't too little investment capital, it is too little consumer spending.

Our current tax scheme is tweaked all the way to maximize investment at the expense of debt and consumer spending. IMO we need to nudge it back a bit towards equilibrium. In my estimation, taxing both income and capital gains equally is about the sweet spot. That would mean income taxes a bit lower than they were in the 90s, capital gains taxes about the same as they were in the 90s. Seems about right to me. And it would start to nudge our deficts back down as well, so that's always a good thing.

Capital income is a risk, labor income is a known return. Please explain why someone who looses money when selling a capital asset have that income taxed at the same rate as non capital income.

You don't. If you lose money not only do you not pay taxes for the sale, but you can offset other earnings you made.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

Well there are tons of studies that show that people still invest their money regardless of capital gains rates. So the only real impact is that the amount of their future investments is reduced by whatever amount you increase the tax by. Like any tax, that is a hit to the economy for sure. All things being equal, more investment is better. But, all things being equal, less debt is also better. All things being equal, more consumer spending is better. Etc. We need to try to balance all those things. We should aim for the right balance of debt, consumer spending and investment. The way to decrease debt is by raising income taxes or capital gains taxes. The way to increase consumer spending is to decrease income taxes or increase programs the middle class relies on at the expense of either debt or raising capital gains. The way to increase investment is to decrease capital gains taxes at the expense of either debt or raising income taxes. It's all tradeoffs.

So, the question isn't "is investment good?" the question is "right now do we need investment more, or consumer spending more or debt reduction more?"

I would say that at present both the debt and the lackluster consumer spending are bigger economic problems than any shortage of investment. When you have more investment and not enough consumer spending, what you get is stock bubbles. Money floods into the stock market causing prices to shoot up, but the companies can't ultimately justify those inflated valuations with their actual revenues, so the market eventually corrects and it comes crashing back down. The entire economy has just gotten through two massive, devastating, bubbles, so I think that's a pretty safe bet that our problem isn't too little investment capital, it is too little consumer spending.

Our current tax scheme is tweaked all the way to maximize investment at the expense of debt and consumer spending. IMO we need to nudge it back a bit towards equilibrium. In my estimation, taxing both income and capital gains equally is about the sweet spot. That would mean income taxes a bit lower than they were in the 90s, capital gains taxes about the same as they were in the 90s. Seems about right to me. And it would start to nudge our deficts back down as well, so that's always a good thing.



You don't. If you lose money not only do you not pay taxes for the sale, but you can offset other earnings you made.

I know that, but I figured that since you propose that all income is treated/taxed the same, this option would not be available. So what other tax things are you saying would stay the same?
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

I know that, but I figured that since you propose that all income is treated/taxed the same, this option would not be available. So what other tax things are you saying would stay the same?

Well it isn't income if it's a loss. Loss is the opposite of income. Investment income is your investment profits minus your investment losses. So I don't really see how that is an exception or something.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

And why shouldn't he? Is there a law against it? And since it was HIS HARD WORK that yeilded the $800k in salary shouldn't he now be able to enjoy the fruit of his labor? Since he now is in the 1% he is not the 'discriminated' class. Why would YOU want to deprive him the JUST reward for HIS hard work?

O have no idea what you are talking about.

Why does that sort of meaningless pap make somebody feel better about paying 35% while somebody else pays 15% on the same amount? There is not enough kool-aid to make that possible.

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

So it reveals that it is NOT discriminatory. But of course opinions vary as I pointed out previously and is obvious.



Well no $800k is $800k. But if I made $800k in wages then invested it, kicked back and profited $800k in cap gains on it I would then have $1.2m. If I had worked hard and made another $800k in wages I would have $1.04m. So yes, in the end they DO spend differently as the net sum is greater.

But you are changing the entire reality of what I gave you. Why would you do that? That is intellectually dishonest.

The point is that a pile of 800K looks like any other pile of 800K.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

So what? Anyone can have a capital gain, that is what you just said, even though you tried to diminish the significance of that revelation from you by being snarky about it. The fact remains that ANYONE can enjoy a capital gain. Which means that the Tax on a capital gain for you is the same for Romney on his capital gain. So your claim of it being discriminatory is patently false. Therefore, a lie.



I think you fully understand the how of why your path with this is deceitful. However, if you truly don't then I suggest you educate yourself on the difference between wage, and investment.

I will however provide you with this...



This was the finding of our elected representatives. So, from this point on if you continue to label this falsely, I will continue to call you on it every time. Your lie will not stand.

j-mac

you would not know the meaning of the word LIE if it bit you in the posterior and spat out the contents on a plate presented to you with your name engraved upon it. If you have two stacks of $800K in front of you - how do you tell the fundamental difference between the one earned in wages and salary and the one earned in capital gains before they are taxed?

Answer that.......... if you can.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

How did the higher capital gains rate under Reagan and Clinton harm the economy? We created 22 million jobs under Clinton.

I know you are not asking me, but, I don't think that the economic climates are the same, so how can the two be accurately compared?


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

Well it isn't income if it's a loss. Loss is the opposite of income. Investment income is your investment profits minus your investment losses. So I don't really see how that is an exception or something.

You don't see the potential risk in investment vs a know income from labor?
We again differ in the way we look at things and how they should be handled.
I do thank you for your explainations and replys.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

Sorry to interrupt. I'm soooo anxious for Romney to disclose his income tax return. It just may be his undoing. And, as Haymarket has pointed out, a lightening rod for tax reform.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

Sorry to interrupt. I'm soooo anxious for Romney to disclose his income tax return. It just may be his undoing. And, as Haymarket has pointed out, a lightening rod for tax reform.


Should be out tomorrow right? BTW....Anyone know which Obama media channel the debate is on tonight? I checked on my guide, and can't find it anywhere....Have the affiliates finally given up on debates?

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

Should be out tomorrow right? BTW....Anyone know which Obama media channel the debate is on tonight? I checked on my guide, and can't find it anywhere....Have the affiliates finally given up on debates?

j-mac

It's on NBC -- and thanks for the reminder. I'd'a forgot.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

People roll the dice every hour of every day knowing that the house wins 80% of the time.

If I win a million and the government claims a third, I am more than happy to keep that 2/3 I won. I would be one very happy citizen.

and if the government said that you had successfully "invested" in your pension fund, and that an additional 1/3 of your pension now belonged to them?
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

Sorry to interrupt. I'm soooo anxious for Romney to disclose his income tax return. It just may be his undoing. And, as Haymarket has pointed out, a lightening rod for tax reform.

the reactions to Romney's tax returns will basically break down into two types of people:

1. "Wow, look at all the taxes he paid. He sure is supporting government services."
2. "Wow, look at all the money he was able to keep. That greedy bastard I could have spent some of that on (insert favorite government project here)."


Conservatives on this board have generally agreed to tax income from investments similarly to income from labor - which means ending the double taxation on it. When Haymarket et.al. are willing to actually tax income from investment similarly to income from labor, I'll take their claims that we should do so at face value. Until then, claims that we should bump up a nominal combined 50% rate to a nominal combined 70% rate remain simple demagoguery.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

you would not know the meaning of the word LIE if it bit you in the posterior and spat out the contents on a plate presented to you with your name engraved upon it. If you have two stacks of $800K in front of you - how do you tell the fundamental difference between the one earned in wages and salary and the one earned in capital gains before they are taxed?

one of the sacks represents 65% of my actual earnings from that income. So I would know which sack has already paid federal taxes.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

I know you are not asking me, but, I don't think that the economic climates are the same, so how can the two be accurately compared?


j-mac

So what proof do you have that slightly higher capital gains tax rate hurts economic growth? And, how does the higher national debt that results from the lower capital gains rate help our economy?
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

But you are changing the entire reality of what I gave you.

How so? Have we moved on beyond Greg and Wesley?

The point is that a pile of 800K looks like any other pile of 800K.

To which I agreed by saying '$800k is $800k'.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

How so? Have we moved on beyond Greg and Wesley?



To which I agreed by saying '$800k is $800k'.

Why should the American people support a law and system which permits one person earning $800K and paying a tax rate of 35% with a tax bill of $280,000.00 while another person earns $800K and pays a tax rate of 15% and a tax bill of 120,000 if all other conditions are equal other than the source of the money?

How is that not discriminatory?
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

It doesn't sound like you have a defense on this point, but if you can lay one out, I'm all ears.



That consumption taxes are regressive is not a controversial point. Everybody knows that. It's been firmly established always. Just look it up for yourself if you don't believe me. There is no economist in the world that would disagree with me on that.



Dishonesty? Again, you seem to completely misunderstand the whole issue. The issue is that Romney advocates on behalf of lowering taxes for the rich and cutting spending on the middle class. But there he is, a fat cat rich dude that doesn't pay much in taxes. His own example undermines his policy position. You see? Nothing to do with honesty or whatever.



You understand that just screaming "communist" isn't an actual argument, right? It's just right wing moronism running rampant.

left wing moronisms being claims that average workers pay higher rates than top one percent taxpayers or that state taxes somehow are relevant when discussing federal taxes
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

Yes that is what I am asking,
It is relevent. You want all types of income taxed at the same rate. Through this long thread I have not seen any evidence that doing so would be benifical to the economy or lead to the creation of more jobs. Your own link showed that the top 5 earning groups pay a lot of taxes and more than the bottom 2 or 3 groups. I believe some think it would give the govt. more money. My concern is Congress does not manage what they get now very well. Until Congress gets their financial house in order, they do not deserve any more tax revenue. Balance the budget, show us how they will reduce/rid us of the debt, and then any new spending tell us what it is for and the costs.

Helping the economy or America in general has no relevance to those who whine for more and more and more taxes on the rich. what they want is to punish those who are more successful than they are or to use the money of the wealthy for their dem leaders to buy votes and elections. most of them are clueless about investing wealth and don't understand it and resent those who do
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom