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