• 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

I favor three things

1) all federal income tax rates should go up five points
2) stop applying discriminatory preferences for different sources as income and simply tax all money an individual makes as income according to the standard rate applicable on the progressive chart
3- stop giving the top 6% a break on FICA and pop the cap while freezing benefit levels

I do not have a proposal for corporate taxes but would endorse this from Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont

Sen. Bernie Sanders: End Tax Breaks for Profitable Corporations

1. Okay, 5% revenue increase from income tax, that's about 55 billion dollars
2. Historically, raising capital gains causes neutral or declined revenue because people will stop selling houses and not move money
3. You want an 11% increase in all incomes over 106k? It sounds extreme to me.
3a. Does this mean you want FICA applied to the general fund after it pays for retirements or do you want everyone's SS distributions to go up?

Regarding the corporate idea, that is a large shift that is debated elsewhere extensively and I see a huge derailment if I get into the specifics.

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

You ignore the tremendous benefit of living in a just and more equitable society which buys long term peace for all Americans -and that includes you Turtle.

but I shouldn't pay thousands more when others are paying nothing in FIT and CAN pay something. and I suspect your desire for equitable society is not something you and I will ever agree on. My Idea-everyone benefits from government-everyone pays the same rate (which still means we pay more than most for the same benefits_
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

I forgot to mention that the government is spending about 9 billion a day. That 5% increase in revenue will get us through less than a week. This is why I feel we have a spending problem far bigger than a revenue problem.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

I forgot to mention that the government is spending about 9 billion a day. That 5% increase in revenue will get us through less than a week. This is why I feel we have a spending problem far bigger than a revenue problem.

which is why I advocate a tax system that will make this sort of government spending distasteful to most americans
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

What matters is how you vote. If you vote for the people - the vast majority of people who work for a living and are struggling right now, that is what the people notice first. Your own personal finances rank down the list unless you constantly vote against the people then they merely confirm your bias.

Working Democrats are NOT against rich folks. They are against rich folks who are against them.
So as long as they pander to the poor and continue to toss crumbs...as long as they throw out populist tripe...they 'feel' ya...I get it. Believe me...I get it.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

I forgot to mention that the government is spending about 9 billion a day. That 5% increase in revenue will get us through less than a week. This is why I feel we have a spending problem far bigger than a revenue problem.

It is haymarket's proposal, not mine, but just to clarify something- increasing the tax rates 5% isn't just a 5% increase in revenue. The average American pays about 13% in federal taxes, so if you increase that 5%, that would be 18%. So that's actually a 38% increase in revenues (5/13).

The elimination of the capital gains tax break and the FICA contribution cap would also dramatically increase revenue.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

It is haymarket's proposal, not mine, but just to clarify something- increasing the tax rates 5% isn't just a 5% increase in revenue. The average American pays about 13% in federal taxes, so if you increase that 5%, that would be 18%. So that's actually a 38% increase in revenues (5/13).

The elimination of the capital gains tax break and the FICA contribution cap would also dramatically increase revenue.

that assumes that it would have no other effect

why not jack up taxes on the rich until they have no more disposable income than the average voter?

you just don't seem to understand that as long as most people think its the duty of others to pay down the deficit most people will demand more government
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

which is why I advocate a tax system that will make this sort of government spending distasteful to most americans

I understand your point about everyone feeling the pain when taxes are levied. To a degree I even feel the same. However, it won't ever pass. Even if the burden is 1% to 15% and all taxes have to be lowered or raised equally, it removes way too much political ground. Plus, the politicians will always find a way to get around it, 535 people's full time job is figuring out how to get elected again.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

I understand your point about everyone feeling the pain when taxes are levied. To a degree I even feel the same. However, it won't ever pass. Even if the burden is 1% to 15% and all taxes have to be lowered or raised equally, it removes way too much political ground. Plus, the politicians will always find a way to get around it, 535 people's full time job is figuring out how to get elected again.

the country is going to end up like Greece because as long as most people want more government handouts there is no way to stop it
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

I definitely agree with Haymarket, so I won't bother repeating what he already pointed out, but I would add that even for a Democrat being megarich does kind of make it harder for them to connect with the voters. Kerry struggled with that for example. But when you add on top of that a candidate who is campaigning on things like cutting programs the middle class rely on and further reducing the tax burden on the super rich, that's a lot bigger problem. Especially during a year like this where awareness of the rich/working people gap is so high.
Maybe...just maybe...a candidate (regardless of their income bracket) that sees a national debt that is at 15.5 trillion and climbing and a congress that has spent 1.4 trillion more a year than what they bring in and cant agree even to minor cuts in deficit spending over 10 years, MIGHT just realize that none of this is sustainable and that cuts MUST be made before we become Greece. Perhaps candidates simply differ on the notion that jacking up taxes on the investing classes for the sake of dumping more money into the hands of congress who in turn spend all and more and continue to increase the debt that our GRANDCHILDREN are going to have to pay as being a BAD idea. The president isnt supposed to run around tossing skittles and candy bars and pretend thats going to fix things. Bush was terrible on the debt spending and increases he authorized by signing those spending bills. Obama has been worse and has promised to spend even MORE. That may make you feel all warm and squiggly inside...great. Your grandkids are going to be less than thrilled.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

you just don't seem to understand that as long as most people think its the duty of others to pay down the deficit most people will demand more government

TD, your speculations about people's motives are irrelevant. When you talk about that stuff we all just ignore your rambling. You need policy arguments, not just ad hominems. You need to make the case that A is better than B, you can't just rely on saying "people who want A want it for reasons I don't like".
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

Maybe...just maybe...a candidate (regardless of their income bracket) that sees a national debt that is at 15.5 trillion and climbing and a congress that has spent 1.4 trillion more a year than what they bring in and cant agree even to minor cuts in deficit spending over 10 years, MIGHT just realize that none of this is sustainable and that cuts MUST be made before we become Greece. Perhaps candidates simply differ on the notion that jacking up taxes on the investing classes for the sake of dumping more money into the hands of congress who in turn spend all and more and continue to increase the debt that our GRANDCHILDREN are going to have to pay as being a BAD idea. The president isnt supposed to run around tossing skittles and candy bars and pretend thats going to fix things. Bush was terrible on the debt spending and increases he authorized by signing those spending bills. Obama has been worse and has promised to spend even MORE. That may make you feel all warm and squiggly inside...great. Your grandkids are going to be less than thrilled.

The notion that we owe so much that we should stop paying for what we spend makes zero sense. It's just one of those Republican mantras that you guys repeat over and over so many times that you forget it makes no sense... The debt is a reason to raise taxes, not to lower them... Obviously... If you want to pay down your credit card debt, do you do it by reducing your payments or by increasing them?
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

It is haymarket's proposal, not mine, but just to clarify something- increasing the tax rates 5% isn't just a 5% increase in revenue. The average American pays about 13% in federal taxes, so if you increase that 5%, that would be 18%. So that's actually a 38% increase in revenues (5/13).

The elimination of the capital gains tax break and the FICA contribution cap would also dramatically increase revenue.

Good point! I was multiplying the total revenue, which is just not right. Makes a huge difference if you do .05 * total income. That adds a total of around 617 billion. That's two months of additional spending. It does alter my point, but does not completely rebuke it imo.

The FICA is important to decide if the excess goes into the general fund or to SS distributions. I don't have the figures of how much it adds, but taxing anyone over 100k at an additional 20.3% (employer and employee side plus the 5% mentioned above) or 13.4% while the current tax break holds would add a lot of revenue.

I still say that historically, capital gains increases don't generally add much or can even reduce cap gains tax revenue. I could probably dig up a few links and (iirc) even President Obama said it was more about fairness than revenue in 2008. I think most people on the cap gains train (currently I'm kinda with them) feel that it's more about what investments are encouraged.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

TD, your speculations about people's motives are irrelevant. When you talk about that stuff we all just ignore your rambling. You need policy arguments, not just ad hominems. You need to make the case that A is better than B, you can't just rely on saying "people who want A want it for reasons I don't like".

great

start by eliminating unconstitutional programs. The Department of Education is a good place to really start some serious pruning. The IRS could use some major reductions, same with the ATF, and if we got rid of the moronic war on drugs we could save billions in incarceration and court costs. The federal government does not need to own near as much land as it does now
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

Whoever cures cancer doesn't need to be that magnanimous, but demanding 1/4 of the world's GDP is obviously absurd.

I *hate* that word demand....but, guess what? China is offering me a better deal (smart labor, solid infrastructure, potential customers, etc, etc)

You can take the 99% and shove it :lol:
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

I still say that historically, capital gains increases don't generally add much or can even reduce cap gains tax revenue.

It's a mixed bag. Sometimes decreasing capital gains tax rates have increased revenue overall. Somewhere there is an optimal rate. That optimal rate changes over time as our needs for consumer spending fluctuate relative to our needs for investment. If you're below the optimal rate you would gain revenue by increasing it, if you're above that rate, you would gain revenue by decreasing it. In Reagan's time we had "stagflation" meaning high demand, low supply. We had plenty of consumer spending, but not enough investment. So, lowering the capital gains rate was a good move to stimulate investment. The last 15 years or so we've been having out of control bubbles. That means too much investment capital relative to consumer spending. Company's stock prices keep going up because more and more investment capital if flowing into the stock market, but they ultimately can't justify those inflated valuations because their revenues are low due to low consumer spending. The bubbles pop. That means that our economy is crying for consumer spending and no so much for investment. So, today we need to be shifting things back a bit to rely more on taxing capital gains and less on taxing the middle class.

Some times in our history we've taxed investment more and then we run into stagflation, sometimes we've taxed wages more and we run into bubbles. Keeping them matched seems to maintain the balance about right.

I could probably dig up a few links and (iirc) even President Obama said it was more about fairness than revenue in 2008.

That's a severe misrepresentation people peddle. He said very clearly if you listen to the whole interview that he wants to increase capital gains, but only to the extent that it makes sense to do economically and increases revenue, and that he thinks fairness is also a reason to do it, but that he certainly wouldn't do it if it was doing a lot of economic damage or decreasing revenues. Their reaction wasn't triggered by him saying fairness was the most important consideration, they were upset that it was any consideration at all.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

It's a mixed bag. Sometimes decreasing capital gains tax rates have increased revenue overall. Somewhere there is an optimal rate. That optimal rate changes over time as our needs for consumer spending fluctuate relative to our needs for investment. If you're below the optimal rate you would gain revenue by increasing it, if you're above that rate, you would gain revenue by decreasing it. In Reagan's time we had "stagflation" meaning high demand, low supply. We had plenty of consumer spending, but not enough investment. So, lowering the capital gains rate was a good move to stimulate investment. The last 15 years or so we've been having out of control bubbles. That means too much investment capital relative to consumer spending. Company's stock prices keep going up because more and more investment capital if flowing into the stock market, but they ultimately can't justify those inflated valuations because their revenues are low due to low consumer spending. The bubbles pop. That means that our economy is crying for consumer spending and no so much for investment. So, today we need to be shifting things back a bit to rely more on taxing capital gains and less on taxing the middle class.

Some times in our history we've taxed investment more and then we run into stagflation, sometimes we've taxed wages more and we run into bubbles. Keeping them matched seems to maintain the balance about right.

I don't disagree with the principles you put forth. However, we have to be careful walking that line. I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more revenue out of cap gains tax, but if we go too far in an economy already damaged with the housing bubble and hurt the RE market again, it might get ugly.

That's a severe misrepresentation people peddle. He said very clearly if you listen to the whole interview that he wants to increase capital gains, but only to the extent that it makes sense to do economically and increases revenue, and that he thinks fairness is also a reason to do it, but that he certainly wouldn't do it if it was doing a lot of economic damage or decreasing revenues. Their reaction wasn't triggered by him saying fairness was the most important consideration, they were upset that it was any consideration at all.

I haven't seen the text of the speech in a long time. I will take your word for it that, in context, it has a very different meaning.

Again, cap gains isn't going to be the sticking point for you and I, I'm guessing. I wouldn't mind some increase (though we'd probably differ on the numbers). I just don't know how much additional revenue it provides.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

Again, cap gains isn't going to be the sticking point for you and I, I'm guessing. I wouldn't mind some increase (though we'd probably differ on the numbers). I just don't know how much additional revenue it provides.

Yeah, nobody does really. It's a big guessing game. But personally I think our economy is pretty clearly gasping for revenue and consumer spending, not investment. IMO that's where we should be concentrating. That's why I think things like the payroll tax cut make a whole lot more sense right now than things like breaks for capital gains.

One indicator that gives at least some idea of whether we're more in need of investment or consumer spending is the price to earning ratios on the stock market. That's basically the ratio of investment capital to actual revenues in the economy. If it gets really high that means we have a lot of investment capital, not much for consumer spending and if it gets low, it means the opposite. When Regan was in office the average P/E ratio on the S&P was around 10. The conventional wisdom is that about 15 is optimal. That's where it has been for most of our history except for three huge spikes- one right before the great depression, one right before the dot com crash and one right before the Bush recession. So, he was right to try to increase investment even at the expense of consumer spending. We're currently at an average P/E ratio or 22. So, that's a pretty good indication that we need to be increasing consumer spending even at the expense of investment capital. That's a very, very, rough indicator, but it gives you a general idea IMO.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

The notion that we owe so much that we should stop paying for what we spend makes zero sense. It's just one of those Republican mantras that you guys repeat over and over so many times that you forget it makes no sense... The debt is a reason to raise taxes, not to lower them... Obviously... If you want to pay down your credit card debt, do you do it by reducing your payments or by increasing them?
No one is suggesting we stop paying what we spend...but there is a MASSIVE difference of opinion re how much we should be spending in the first place. We should be cutting spending. I personally believe in increasing taxes on EVERYONE once we have mandated spending cuts with the intent to reduce the debt. But not solely to be able to spend more. Thats just plain foolish. Welcome to your democrat and republican parties and their supporters.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

Yeah, nobody does really. It's a big guessing game. But personally I think our economy is pretty clearly gasping for revenue and consumer spending, not investment. IMO that's where we should be concentrating. That's why I think things like the payroll tax cut make a whole lot more sense right now than things like breaks for capital gains.

I'm cutting the last paragraph not because I disagree, but because I have very little to add.

On the first one, I get a bit nervous on the FICA tax cut. That money still needs to be paid out in SS unless we change the system. It's still more debt spending. I like that it helps those in the lower brackets, but I would really rather it came out of the general fund and that spending was decreased in proportion (or even better at 2/1).

The fact that it helps me at least double as a private business owner and employer who hasn't topped 106k profit margin yet probably factors in ;) Unfortunately, that is a short term assistance, since it will still have to be paid back.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

But not solely to be able to spend more.

How much revenue we collect and how much we spend have no relationship at all. That's why we have a $1.4 trillion deficit. The only thing revenue determines is how much of what we spend we have to borrow to cover.

Personally I would like to see us reduce the deficit by about $600 billion/year. Increase revenues by about $200 billion/year, cut about $200 billion/year from the military and cut about $200 billion/year from domestic spending. That should put us about on track to be balanced as we come out of the recession.

But from a deficit perspective, fighting tax increases is exactly the same thing as fighting against spending cuts. A $1 tax break means $1 more deficit just like $1 of spending does.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

I like that it helps those in the lower brackets, but I would really rather it came out of the general fund and that spending was decreased in proportion (or even better at 2/1).

It does. They are haggling over how to fund it, but it isn't coming out of the social security trust. They're likely to fund it with a mix of closing tax loopholes and spending reductions.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

How much revenue we collect and how much we spend have no relationship at all. That's why we have a $1.4 trillion deficit. The only thing revenue determines is how much of what we spend we have to borrow to cover.

Personally I would like to see us reduce the deficit by about $600 billion/year. Increase revenues by about $200 billion/year, cut about $200 billion/year from the military and cut about $200 billion/year from domestic spending. That should put us about on track to be balanced as we come out of the recession.

But from a deficit perspective, fighting tax increases is exactly the same thing as fighting against spending cuts. A $1 tax break means $1 more deficit just like $1 of spending does.

tax hikes hurt those subjected to them

spending cuts hurts no one if the spending cuts are properly targeted. and much of the government spending is outrageous.

I take that back, those who gain political power from the idiotic spending would be hurt
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

tax hikes hurt those subjected to them

spending cuts hurts no one if the spending cuts are properly targeted. and much of the government spending is outrageous.

I think of it exactly backwards from that. Tax hikes on the rich don't hurt anybody. Romney isn't even going to notice if the balance on his Swiss bank account dropped by a few million so he certainly couldn't be considered to be hurt by that. On the other hand, "cutting spending" is a euphemism for people losing their jobs and people who rely on services having to pay for whatever the service provided out of pocket. It is essentially the same as putting a tax on the middle class. Say you cut subsidized student loans, that means middle class people need to save up more for their kids' college each month. Same impact as if you just taxed them for that amount. And middle class people who are living much closer to the line already actually are hurt by that. Now, military cuts aren't as bad. They also mean people losing their jobs, but that's pretty much the extent of the harm.
 
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

How much revenue we collect and how much we spend have no relationship at all. That's why we have a $1.4 trillion deficit. The only thing revenue determines is how much of what we spend we have to borrow to cover.

Personally I would like to see us reduce the deficit by about $600 billion/year. Increase revenues by about $200 billion/year, cut about $200 billion/year from the military and cut about $200 billion/year from domestic spending. That should put us about on track to be balanced as we come out of the recession.

But from a deficit perspective, fighting tax increases is exactly the same thing as fighting against spending cuts. A $1 tax break means $1 more deficit just like $1 of spending does.

I like that you have a plan. I disagree with its effectiveness when balancing all effects of those changes, but I like that you have a plan.

There is far too much bloated government and we have a lot of room for cuts. Of course, I'm libertarian, I want to see less government. Far, far less. I would like to see military reduced, social programs restructured (better managed and planned, not removed), education completely redone (I don't remember the figures, but we could save thousands per student an
d get better results through vouchers or alternative school structuring). If it moved things forward, though, I would vote for a 3/1 cut in spending to tax increase.

Btw, to avoid total derailment, if you disagree with any of the programs I mentioned above, please simply say you disagree and don't let us get into it :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom