Romney's tax plan- raise taxes on the middle class, cut them for the rich[W:13]

Re: Romney's tax plan- raise taxes on the middle class, cut them for the rich

AdamT said:

You wouldn't know it listening to the mainstream media -- and God knows not from listening to conservative media -- but the truth is that there are far fewer federal employees today than there were 50 years ago ... despite the fact that the population has increased by 60%.

Total Government Employment Since 1962

Click to expand...

Now add a chart for government contractors numbers since 1962 so we actually can have real statistics.

Re: Romney's tax plan- raise taxes on the middle class, cut them for the rich

Keridan said:

I hate the "over ten years" stuff. It's 100 billion a year. If you want to say over 10 years, then it's 1 trillion measured against current spending of over 36 trillion dollars. That's a little over 2%.

Click to expand...

Teamosil missed the mark by a fair margin. In fact the cost of extending all the Bush tax cuts for 10 years is estimated to be about $5 trillion, or $500 billion/yr. I assume you meant to say that current spending is $3.6 trillion and not $36 trilion, so in fact letting the Bush tax cuts expire would save about 13% -- not 2%.

Re: Romney's tax plan- raise taxes on the middle class, cut them for the rich

AdamT said:

Teamosil missed the mark by a fair margin. In fact the cost of extending all the Bush tax cuts for 10 years is estimated to be about $5 trillion, or $500 billion/yr. I assume you meant to say that current spending is $3.6 trillion and not $36 trilion, so in fact letting the Bush tax cuts expire would save about 13% -- not 2%.

Click to expand...

Teamosil was talking about the highest income bracket being dropped (the democrat platform), not the whole of the tax cuts. That's where he came up with his number, which sounds like what I have read. Your number sounds like the one that is supposed to happen if all brackets get increases, which is highest for the poorest.

I also stated that the 36 trillion was over ten years, which does equate to 3.6/year.

So, the 2% is what we were talking about. The 13% is just plain letting the cuts expire. Both numbers are also based on the assumption that people handle their money exactly the same now as they would with a dramatically higher rate. It also doesn't account for the damage the reduced demand would have on the economy.

Re: Romney's tax plan- raise taxes on the middle class, cut them for the rich

AdamT said:

I agree with you there, except in response to violations of WTO orders by trading partners.

Click to expand...

And, I'll agree with you, that tariffs should be used in terms of punishment for violations...

AdamT said:

A flat tax would have to be far higher than 15% and would amount to an enormous tax hike on the poor and middle class and a huge tax cut for the moderately wealth.

Click to expand...

Only if you look at current spending rates, and low employment/workforce participation rates...

Given the other policies I've espoused you'd get major growth for companies, and more people desiring to get back to work... which would both increase revenue and decrease expenditures... as well as other revenue sources, such as the conversion to fee for service for many governmental services, the sale of naming rights, and the sale of public land not being used which has been requested for use by fracking companies which could lead to massive flooding of the fossil fuel market, dropping prices dramatically, enough to spur more growth, and less personal finance trouble for many Americans...

You'd also have to cut spending in many areas... which I think should happen...

However, even during the Obama adminstration there have been numerous studies which have shown that a 12% flat tax is doable...

I'm also not against letting those who have earned the money keep it and spend it the way they've earned the right to...

AdamT said:

Our effective corporate tax rate is already quite low relative to OECD countries. I would have no problem lowering the marginal rate and eliminating loopholes in a revenue neutral manner.

Click to expand...

We have the highest nominal rate, and one of the lowest purchase to power parity rates in the world... making it an awful spot to do business in the new global economy... we need to drop our corporate rate down to be more competitive with the countries like China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Brazil, etc.

This would also involve closing the loopholes most corporations take to get around it... The large corporations that are meant to be punished by the high corporate tax rate get around it, and the small companies struggling to get by pay it...

Dropping the corporate tax rate to 20% would allow you to eliminate all those loopholes as well...

AdamT said:

So you claim to be against progressivity and you accuse others of class warfare ... but want to maintain this tax only on the wealthy? Where is the logic?

Click to expand...

I'm against punishing the rightful acquisition of wealth based off of success of ones actions here on this earth... I also know many small businesses use capital gains to grow their businesses, and dont deserve to be taxes as highly as they are currently...

However, far too many rich use capital gains to use their existing wealth to grow wealth, without actually earning it, and they use the capital gains to enhance the lives of their children, and set them up where they have unfair advantages at earning wealth... That's not what America is about...

AdamT said:

Drop --> Bucket. I can hardly wait for the first session of the K-Y Jelly Congress at the Hyundai Capitol Building.

Click to expand...

Right... because the Capital Building is the only federal property... :roll:

First off, the sale of public lands that have been shown to be excellent locations for the extraction of oil shale is a win-win-win, by recovering revenue with the sale of the land, creating growth for the economy which will lead more revenue, and by dropping fuel prices for people so they're less cash strapped and dependent on the government for assistance with heating/ac

Secondly, the US Government happens to own the largest collection of interconnected highways and bridges of anywhere in the world... Many local state transportation departments and metropolitan transportations systems are already using sale of naming rights to increase revenue... The US Government could do the same thing... You're right, it would likely only be a drop in the barrel... but with all the potential nameable roadways, bridges, etc. I'm sure you could general $100B/yr... enough to offset that bogus healthcare plan... (and I mean Medicare Part D... the other one has to go)

Thirdly, the US Government could make use of an official car company, an official airline, and an official such and such... and cut deals with those companies for exclusive travel, purchase, etc. at discounted rates... saving operating costs, etc.

AdamT said:

Examples?

Click to expand...

Well simply, rather than taxing everyone so there is money for a service... only provide the service for those who pay for it optionally...

The USPS and AMTRAK are along these lines... making stamps and parcel costs cover the true cost of postal service, making train fares cover the true cost of rail transport, etc.

However, there are numerous things the government does as services for people, that cost the government operating costs...

The National Park system has fees for camping permits. It's meant to cover some of the cost of the clean-up and maintenance of the facilities.

The Social Security Administration, for instance... create fees for issuing Social Security cards, raise the fee as a penalty for losing and needing a duplicate copy of your Social Security card.

IRS choses who they audit, and often nothing is found wrong... but if you're found guilty in an audit of purposeful tax evasion, you should have to pay for the cost of the audit (more of a tax penalty there). However, if you need duplicate copies of your tax returns from the IRS, or other such forms that are above the required form for filing taxes, have a fee for that service.

There's numerous other things that I'm sure could be found if I dragged a fine tooth comb over the budget...

It's definitely more applicable at the local level, though... for licensing, beach stickers, parking stickers, gun permits, hunting licenses, marriage licenses, etc. However, with most states borderline bankrupt atm... encouraging states to become more fee for service oriented will cover their own revenue troubles, in order to cut the demand on federal assistance...

AdamT said:

There is already a work requirement, two year limit, and five year lifetime limit for TANF. I think community service is worth exploring, but there would be many problems (child care, interfering with permanent job search, education, etc.).

Click to expand...

As much as I like that TANF came into being... since it cut down on a lot of the abuse that was happening... it was really just a first step, that needs more strict requirements, and stricter enforcement...

The work requirement in TANF is so weak, it's ridiculous. Also, they just kick you off, and then when you reapply, they treat it like a new case... Besides, they have a 2 year requirement to get a job... but there's no requirement to be actively looking for that job. They should have to prove 5 verifiable legitimate job searches within their field for each day of the work week.

20 hrs performed over the 7 day week does not interfere with a permanent job search... in fact it only provides incentive to get the job, and get off assistance, so they only have the job and no community service hours...

So you don't get it... TANF has a work requirement, but not a strict from the get go insistence on proving that you truly do NEED the assistance, and that you aren't going to the government as a first choice option, rather than the last choice option it ought to be...

AdamT said:

Welfare is a very minor part of the budget and minor improvements won't do much to alleviate our debt problems. This is typical Republican pap of demonizing the poor and less fortunate while bending all the rules against them.

Click to expand...

Wrong... Welfare, Unemployment, etc. makes up over $500B of the US budget... The third largest chunk, behind Social Security and Defense... And there's a lot of fat and abuse which can be elimated from all 3...

I'll guarantee you that $350B of that is unecessarily given out, to people who are not taking the first job offer, or applying for every job they could be working, while sitting on extended unemployment benefits... or people who sit around doing drugs all day, living off section 8 and food stamps...

Section 8 = $18B/yr... (with a maximum voucher rate of $2200/mo, which is over twice my rent!!!)

Food Stamps = $80B/yr... (has been $50B, & I don't have a problem w/ it if there's a work search & community service requirement)

AdamT said:

Right, like Romneycare? Obama has done absolutely nothing to expand welfare that Romney didn't do in Massachusettes.

Click to expand...

CommonwealthCare as constituted under Romney actually cut MA healthcare expenses from $415M to $115M... While allowing impoverished who could not afford health insurance to purchase health insurance at subsidised rates, so they could take part in paying for a pool coverage that allowed them individual insurance rather than stiffing the hospital emergency rooms with the bills... or letting people who had enough money to pay for the health services they received to do so either...

Obama's plan is only minimally like the plan Romney created in MA... and we don't even know yet, because it hasn't been tested... Part of the major problem with the bill... taking a chance with the governments finances on an untested program...

AdamT said:

Romney represents a culture of entitlement and greed -- full stop.

Click to expand...

You've even been off your normally poor game tonight... and that still rates as the most ridiculous thing you've said on this site by far...

I'll give you a chance to retract it... before responding to it...

Re: Romney's tax plan- raise taxes on the middle class, cut them for the rich

teamosil said:

Kiddo, that you don't understand that consumption taxes are regressive is pretty bad, but that you still deny that they are in the face of the data about how state taxes drop off as you get richer is just baffling... Look, if you can find a source that says that state taxes aren't regressive, and somehow everybody who has ever studied the question got it wrong, post it. Heck, don't even bother posting it, just go collect your noble prize in economics because that would be a hell of a feat.



None of this has anything to do with anything we're talking about. We're talking about how the tax burden is distributed. If you want lower taxes, whatever, that doesn't mean those lower taxes should be disproportionately put on the middle class.

Click to expand...

To start, bolded is bait, if you want to have an honest conversation stop with that nonsense.

Secondly you have presented data that shows what the regressive rate for consumption taxes is at a certain income level, what you havent done is prove your assertion that it is 3% or lower at the income level you are putting forward. Present data and prove it.

Your complaint about what is fair for a tax burden has not led you to present a concrete answer on how much is enough. You keep sticking on the fair share argument without actually presenting anything that says what you would consider to be fair. Right now, taxes on the middle class are not truly that high. Taxes on small businesses and regulatory compliance are the highest in the history of our country. That is a problem. Middle class taxes from all the sources you presented dont show an abnormally high level of taxation. Its pretty much all within 1 or 2 percent. The highest bracket you claim pay the lowest amount but its not quantified in their total tax bill as a percentage but when you consider the median income they are paying at a minimum 6.5million plus/year. Im lowering it in aquiesance to your insistence because I want a direct answer from you, isnt that enough? If not, then how much?

Re: Romney's tax plan- raise taxes on the middle class, cut them for the rich

Keridan said:

I hate the "over ten years" stuff. It's 100 billion a year. If you want to say over 10 years, then it's 1 trillion measured against current spending of over 36 trillion dollars. That's a little over 2%.

Click to expand...

Well, the 10 year stuff is more relevant on the budgetary side than the revenue side, but they need to do it that way on the budget side because things aren't the same year to year. We have different amounts of bonds coming due, wars winding down, projections about the economy, etc. Just looking at a single year in isolation would be extremely misleading. So, they use the 10 year thing for everything so it is apples to apples.

Keridan said:

I didn't bring up welfare.

Click to expand...

I know. I'm just saying that as a society, some of us seem to be seriously considering denying kids food, shelter and clothing for 1/7th as much money. Kind of hard to say that the rich being slightly richer is more than 7 times as important as millions of kids having the basics needed for survival. Not a dig on you personally at all.

Keridan said:

Yes, I am still referring to the relevant tax and not taxes from other governments or contributory programs.

Click to expand...

Then don't say "all taxes", say "federal income taxes other than FICA" unless you actually mean all taxes. Not that you're doing this intentionally, but pretending that those figures relate to all taxes is a right wing distortion designed to glorify the rich and insult the rest of the people.

Keridan said:

Giving the government more money does not equal giving the middle class more money.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say "equals", but certainly they are closely related. Running a deficit or cutting domestic spending both equate to taking money from the middle class. So, if the government gets more money from somewhere other than the middle class, which means some combination of less debt and/or less spending cuts, then that does boost the middle class up.

Keridan said:

Wealth disparity is not inherently evil. It's okay if some people have more.

Click to expand...

"Inherently evil" is too simplistic, but certainly a severe wealth disparity can be devastating. If, as a country gets richer, the benefits are distributed exactly equally, that is bad because then nobody has an incentive to work hard. But, then again, if they are distributed exclusively to a small number of people, then you still have no motivation to work hard unless you're in that small group. Everybody else gets nothing for their hard work, so there is still no incentive. In terms of incentives, the goal has to be a moderate disparity where everybody has a shot at getting in on some of that benefit. Not just the 1 in a 10 million shot that you'll become a billionaire, but like the shot that if a janitor works really hard, he might get a $3/hour raise. That has broken down in our society. The rich are taking so much that everybody else is no longer being rewarded for hard work really. The median income hasn't risen much for about 15 years. It has gone up slightly and it has fallen slightly, but overall, it's pretty much the same. But during that time, our median productivity and hours worked went up dramatically. The wealth disparity is eating up nearly all the growth in our GDP, and that is a serious problem.

Or, put another way, what kind of society do we want to be? Do we want to be the kind of place we were in the 60s where we had the highest intergenerational income mobility in the world? A society where, while certainly there were incredibly rich people, we were not split into have and have-nots to the same extent we are today. The middle class wasn't on the "have-not" side of that equation like they are today. Or, do we want a society like we have today where we have the lowest intergenerational income mobility of the first world? The wealth of one's parents determines one's economic standing more in the US than in any other first world country. Currently, 70% of Americans retire in the same ten percent of the income range as their GRANDFATHER was in when he retired. Like 90% of the people in the highest paying jobs went to private high schools that cost $30k a year and up that are really only accessible to the children of wealthy parents. I am part of that 10% that slipped in, although it took me 15 more years than it took them to get there. I work at a top notch law firm and went to public school as a kid and had middle class parents. But I am very aware that I am the oddity. The vast majority of people at the firm, or the people who went to my law school attended one of a list of about 15 super elite private schools for high school. Many of them have known each other since they were 14 years old, and almost all of them have extremely wealthy parents. That's the world we're in now. The kids of the rich have 100 times the opportunities that the kids of the poor do. Or, do we want to go even further down the wealth disparity path towards something like Saudi Arabia where it is essentially a third world country with an absurdly wealthy class of people? Saudi Arabia has a GDP per capita about the same as Alabama, but huge portions of its populations live in shanty towns because the wealth disparity is so severe?

I think it is a no-brainer- we should try to get back to the "land of opportunity" days of the 1960s and before.

Keridan said:

If you use the government to ensure equal outcome or even moving that direction, then you are headed towards communism.

Click to expand...

Keridan, that is absurd. Everybody agrees that both ends of the spectrum- feudalism and communism- are bad places to be. If you're unwilling to move one millimeter towards equality because if you moved a mile that way you would land at communism, then you would also need to be unwilling to move one millimeter towards higher disparity because if you went a mile that way you would land at feudalism. Trying to boil down economic policy to this simplistic binary thinking is absurd. It does nothing other than to block any actual analysis from taking place.

Keridan said:

You can't lump the states together. Some are progressive, some are flat, some are income based, some are asset based. Compensating the same across all states won't help the people of NYC much, but it will make the middle class of Alaska uber-wealthy.

Click to expand...

I don't think there is any state with progressive taxation. At least I'm not aware of it if there is. Property and sales taxes typically overwhelm progressive income taxes, even if the income taxes are steeply progressive, and almost all states have either flat or barely progressive income taxes. The regressivity doesn't actually vary much from state to state, and it is the overwhelmingly prominent characteristic of the average. Somebody who makes $1 million a year pays almost half of the percentage somebody in poverty does on average. It is too big of a deal to ignore on the premise that it is too complicated to figure out.

Keridan said:

Your analogy is flawed here. You would have to get pizza with one small group of people, get beer with a far larger crowd of people who got pizza somewhere else, then pay your share at each of those items. Then you get together with a thousand people who were going to the movies or watching football or flying to Vegas during that time. Now you are all building a house together and you want to divide the costs associated with building that house based on what some people contributed to pizza, another group contributed to beer and factor in who contributed what to the Vegas trip and football games.

Your analogy does nothing to account for the different places that money was spent, how it was divided and who it was divided among.

Click to expand...

No, it is one big crowd- the people of the US. The middle class are paying much more for the state level government and the rich are paying much more for the federal level. If you want to account for the variation between states in the analogy, it would be that some of the pizzas had more toppings than others so some folks paid $18 for the pizza and some paid $22 for the pizza... But is that really an excuse to split the beer evenly and refuse to talk about the pizza?

Keridan said:

I'm glad you understand the difference. Many people here don't care about the difference and many "libertarians" muddy it up by using the lean without meaning it.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I'd say that more than half of people who claim they are libertarians today think that that means "really conservative"... But really it means economically conservative/socially liberal.

Keridan said:

Anyway, thanks for the discussion and good night to ya!

Click to expand...

Yeah, great discussion!

Re: Romney's tax plan- raise taxes on the middle class, cut them for the rich

OpportunityCost said:

Secondly you have presented data that shows what the regressive rate for consumption taxes is at a certain income level, what you havent done is prove your assertion that it is 3% or lower at the income level you are putting forward. Present data and prove it.

Click to expand...

I am taking the position that since the taxes are regressive, they continue to be regressive all the way up the spectrum. That seems pretty obvious, no? If you think that for some bizarre reason that isn't the case, lets see YOUR source.

OpportunityCost said:

Your complaint about what is fair for a tax burden has not led you to present a concrete answer on how much is enough. You keep sticking on the fair share argument without actually presenting anything that says what you would consider to be fair. Right now, taxes on the middle class are not truly that high. Taxes on small businesses and regulatory compliance are the highest in the history of our country. That is a problem. Middle class taxes from all the sources you presented dont show an abnormally high level of taxation. Its pretty much all within 1 or 2 percent. The highest bracket you claim pay the lowest amount but its not quantified in their total tax bill as a percentage but when you consider the median income they are paying at a minimum 6.5million plus/year. Im lowering it in aquiesance to your insistence because I want a direct answer from you, isnt that enough? If not, then how much?

Click to expand...

Again, taxes on the middle class are higher than they are on the super rich. How can that lead you to believe that they are too high for the super rich, but not too high for the middle class? That makes no sense.

Again, there is no cap on how many dollars a person should pay. Obviously. It is a percentage of what they make, not a fixed amount... If a super rich person decides to take $100 million for himself, in my opinion, he should have to pay $35 million in taxes, just like the employees would have to if he used that money to give them bonuses instead. We don't somehow exempt money from taxation just because it went to a really rich person instead of a working person.

Re: Romney's tax plan- raise taxes on the middle class, cut them for the rich

I don't think there is any state with progressive taxation. At least I'm not aware of it if there is

Click to expand...

Look harder.

2010 May at Reports from the Economic Front
What is a Federal Income Tax? | Patriot Tax Solutions

Any state that doesnt have what is deemed to have a "flat" income tax or none at all has a progressive one. How they are bracketed would be more study than Im honestly willing to commit to with 50 states, lets be realistic

I am taking the position that since the taxes are regressive, they continue to be regressive all the way up the spectrum. That seems pretty obvious, no? If you think that for some bizarre reason that isn't the case, lets see YOUR source.

Click to expand...

You making an assumption on how regressive they are with no data. I dont know how much they are or are not, you say you do. Back it up with some data.

Again, there is no cap on how many dollars a person should pay. Obviously. It is a percentage of what they make, not a fixed amount... If a super rich person decides to take $100 million for himself, in my opinion, he should have to pay $35 million in taxes, just like the employees would have to if he used that money to give them bonuses instead. We don't somehow exempt money from taxation just because it went to a really rich person instead of a working person.

Click to expand...

Pick a percent. So I know where you stand.

Re: Romney's tax plan- raise taxes on the middle class, cut them for the rich

OpportunityCost said:

Look harder.

2010 May at Reports from the Economic Front
What is a Federal Income Tax? | Patriot Tax Solutions

Any state that doesnt have what is deemed to have a "flat" income tax or none at all has a progressive one. How they are bracketed would be more study than Im honestly willing to commit to with 50 states, lets be realistic

Click to expand...

OpportunityCost, you need to concentrate. You're losing details that we've been over many times now.

Income taxes are only a smallish portion of state taxes. They are sometimes flat, other times mildly progressive, but as far as I know they are always overwhelmed by the regressive taxes like property and sales and car registration fees and unemployment or disability taxes that only apply to the first $x of income and so on.

OpportunityCost said:

You making an assumption on how regressive they are with no data. I dont know how much they are or are not, you say you do. Back it up with some data.

Click to expand...

No, I gave you the data for every 20 percent bracket, the top 10%, the top 5% and the top 1%. It is steeply regressive across all those brackets. I don't have data on the top 0.1%, but if you think that somehow they are going to buck the trend, well, you'd need to have some kind of basis for making that leap. Lets see it.

OpportunityCost said:

Pick a percent. So I know where you stand.

Click to expand...

Well, there is not like line in the sand where taxes should never be higher than x%. It's a policy analysis. If next year we figured out a way that the government could increase our GDP by $10 trillion by spending $7 trillion, we should raise taxes by $7 trillion the next day.

But, in the current situation, what I would do is put all income in one bucket- including investment income, wages, and inheritance over $1 million- and I would tax that all on a progressive scale something like we tax wages at now.

Re: Romney's tax plan- raise taxes on the middle class, cut them for the rich

teamosil said:

OpportunityCost, you need to concentrate. You're losing details that we've been over many times now.

Income taxes are only a smallish portion of state taxes. They are sometimes flat, other times mildly progressive, but as far as I know they are always overwhelmed by the regressive taxes like property and sales and car registration fees and unemployment or disability taxes that only apply to the first $x of income and so on.

Wrong: https://www2.illinois.gov/budget/Pages/budgetbasics.aspx the big 3 of sales tax, income tax and corporate tax make the majority of Illinois revenue to make up the budget.

No, I gave you the data for every 20 percent bracket, the top 10%, the top 5% and the top 1%. It is steeply regressive across all those brackets. I don't have data on the top 0.1%, but if you think that somehow they are going to buck the trend, well, you'd need to have some kind of basis for making that leap. Lets see it.

You are making the exact percent assertion of 3%. Back that up with something. I already have said I dont know what it is but I think its not quite that low.

Well, there is not like line in the sand where taxes should never be higher than x%. It's a policy analysis. If next year we figured out a way that the government could increase our GDP by $10 trillion by spending $7 trillion, we should raise taxes by $7 trillion the next day.

But, in the current situation, what I would do is put all income in one bucket- including investment income, wages, and inheritance over $1 million- and I would tax that all on a progressive scale something like we tax wages at now.

Click to expand...

I would agree that a simpler tax code is needed and would be ideal to make avoidance a non issue. But only that far.

Re: Romney's tax plan- raise taxes on the middle class, cut them for the rich

OpportunityCost said:

Wrong: https://www2.illinois.gov/budget/Pag...getbasics.aspx the big 3 of sales tax, income tax and corporate tax make the majority of Illinois revenue to make up the budget.

Click to expand...

So income taxes AND TWO OTHER TAXES make up the majority of the taxes, so you are assuming that income makes up the majority? Uh...

OpportunityCost said:

You are making the exact percent assertion of 3%. Back that up with something. I already have said I dont know what it is but I think its not quite that low.

Click to expand...

Well, that's about what it would be if the trends continued. From middle class to top 1% it dropped 4%, so I'm guessing it drops roughly the same amount between 1% and super rich. Guess that's the best data we have to go on.

Re: Romney's tax plan- raise taxes on the middle class, cut them for the rich

teamosil said:

So income taxes AND TWO OTHER TAXES make up the majority of the taxes, so you are assuming that income makes up the majority? Uh...

Well, that's about what it would be if the trends continued. From middle class to top 1% it dropped 4%, so I'm guessing it drops roughly the same amount between 1% and super rich. Guess that's the best data we have to go on.

Click to expand...

One of the other two is corporate taxes :roll: and the other comes from sales taxes which could largely be described as a flat tax.

As to sentence two you are assuming your right with NO data to back you up, I seem to remember you have negative reactions to anyone else doing that. Go find some data.

Re: Romney's tax plan- raise taxes on the middle class, cut them for the rich

That is exactly what the 2012 election is all about:

If you believe that the answer to our economic problems is giving the rich more money and hoping that it will "trickle down" and balancing the budget on the backs of the working poor, the middle class and the elderly....then Romney/Ryan is your obvious choice.

However....if you believe that the answer is asking those who have benefitted the most from our nation to pay a little more....then Obama/Biden should get your vote.

It really IS that simple.

Re: Romney's tax plan- raise taxes on the middle class, cut them for the rich

disneydude said:

That is exactly what the 2012 election is all about:

If you believe that the answer to our economic problems is giving the rich more money and hoping that it will "trickle down" and balancing the budget on the backs of the working poor, the middle class and the elderly....then Romney/Ryan is your obvious choice.

However....if you believe that the answer is asking those who have benefitted the most from our nation to pay a little more....then Obama/Biden should get your vote.

It really IS that simple.

Click to expand...

Except that raising the tax rate on the rich 3% does nothing to address the economic problems facing this country. Nothing. So a vote for Obama is a vote to ignore our problems, not address them.

Re: Romney's tax plan- raise taxes on the middle class, cut them for the rich

disneydude said:

That is exactly what the 2012 election is all about:

If you believe that the answer to our economic problems is giving the rich more money and hoping that it will "trickle down" and balancing the budget on the backs of the working poor, the middle class and the elderly....then Romney/Ryan is your obvious choice.

However....if you believe that the answer is asking those who have benefitted the most from our nation to pay a little more....then Obama/Biden should get your vote.

It really IS that simple.

Click to expand...

You really do live in disneyland. your entire world is a fantasy.

This election is about the USA becoming a carbon copy of failed european socialism, or returning to freedom, fiscal responsibility, and smaller government.

Re: Romney's tax plan- raise taxes on the middle class, cut them for the rich

OpportunityCost said:

One of the other two is corporate taxes :roll: and the other comes from sales taxes which could largely be described as a flat tax.

Click to expand...

No. Sales tax is the most regressive tax out there, and corporate taxes aren't even taxes on people... So, yeah, your source doesn't say anything like what you claimed it did.

OpportunityCost said:

As to sentence two you are assuming your right with NO data to back you up, I seem to remember you have negative reactions to anyone else doing that. Go find some data.

Click to expand...

I'm assuming that the trend is consistent with the data, which I did present to you. If you think there is some exception in there hidden away, by all means, lets see your evidence.

They Ryan budget also would have raised taxes on the middle class and cut them dramatically for the rich.

Middle class would face higher taxes under Republican plan - The Washington Post

Tax Policy Center: Yes, Romney’s Plan Does Raise Middle-Class Taxes

Here is the 5 goals of the Romney Plan:

1. cut current marginal income tax rates by 20 percent,
2. preserve and enhance incentives for saving and investment
3. eliminate the alternative minimum tax,
4. eliminate the estate tax, and
5. maintain revenue neutrality

Read more: