Thank you QM for that thoughtful reply.

It just seems that the imbalance right now is in demand, not the availability of capitol to invest.


>> ^quantumushroom:

Your logic isn't flawed per se, just incomplete.
In an unstable environment like the one created by Obama and his ilk, no sane wealthy person is going to expand businesses or invest.
Lower tax rates mean more investing and more lending to entrepreneurs. It also means less "hoarding" by the wealthy, who in an electronic world can transfer monies rapidly and keep them parked elsewhere.
The idea is that even though the tax rate is lower, there is more economic activity, and thus greater revenue.
Taxation is only half of the equation, the other is spending. Government spending will certainly not stop under a Romney Administration; a continuing taxocrat-majority Congress means spending will barely slow down.

Outrage over the Ryan proposal is selective at best. His Earness has already screwed the middle-class. Here are the new taxes the middle class will be paying for Obamacare. The ink is already dry.
>> ^TheFreak:
Give me $2500 over a year and it will all be spent on household expenses in the bat of an eye, directly into the economy. Give $250,000 to a millionaire and what exactly is it going to do? How is that money going to stimulate the economy better than the millions they're already hoarding?
Someone give me a coherent argument for how an extra fraction of wealth is going to encourage these people to invest and grow anything. Show me the flaw in my logic.

I've paid some attention to this.

The Republican Maths on Taxes 2012?
-20% Tax Rate
+4% limit tax deductions to $17000/yr cap (charitable contributions, mortgage interest tax breaks)
+?% growth from -20% Tax Rate (a.k.a. magic)
+$ ???
+$ kill funding to states
+$ kill environmental protection agency
+$ kill dept of education
+$ kill dept of uhm... er...
= budget "neutral"?
+ we got shit done in congress(unlike that obama sneer, sneeeeer)
+ purer capitalism?

Unfortunately, even if you LIKE all of these things... Mitt Romney's "positions" are hardly worth believing.

Your logic isn't flawed per se, just incomplete.

In an unstable environment like the one created by Obama and his ilk, no sane wealthy person is going to expand businesses or invest.

Lower tax rates mean more investing and more lending to entrepreneurs. It also means less "hoarding" by the wealthy, who in an electronic world can transfer monies rapidly and keep them parked elsewhere.

The idea is that even though the tax rate is lower, there is more economic activity, and thus greater revenue.

Taxation is only half of the equation, the other is spending. Government spending will certainly not stop under a Romney Administration; a continuing taxocrat-majority Congress means spending will barely slow down.


Outrage over the Ryan proposal is selective at best. His Earness has already screwed the middle-class. Here are the new taxes the middle class will be paying for Obamacare. The ink is already dry.

>> ^TheFreak:

Give me $2500 over a year and it will all be spent on household expenses in the bat of an eye, directly into the economy. Give $250,000 to a millionaire and what exactly is it going to do? How is that money going to stimulate the economy better than the millions they're already hoarding?
Someone give me a coherent argument for how an extra fraction of wealth is going to encourage these people to invest and grow anything. Show me the flaw in my logic.

It's all about redistribution, it's the only explanation. It's a game to shift the burden around.>> ^bareboards2:

The big question is -- if you cut deductions while cutting the tax rate, how does that promote growth? It is tax neutral.

The big question is -- if you cut deductions while cutting the tax rate, how does that promote growth? It is tax neutral.

flat tax is another giveaway to the rich. Which is precisely why the rich and the ignorant tend to be the ones advocating it.

Either the tax rate is too low and you don't have enough revenue to pay the bills, or it's too high which yeah, the rich can afford, but completely fucks over the middle/lower class

progressive tax is the only actual fair tax since the wealthy have much more need of gov't services than the poor ever will.

The rich depend on infrastructure and education so that their workers can do the job, they depend on diplomacy and the military to ensure profitable and safe overseas commerce.

The poor do not, thus, the rich should pay more.

Now, that perspective/wording makes sense. IF his goal is tax reform, then he's doing a horrible job.

The thing is, if tax reform were his priority, I think he would put together a tax reform roadmap first, not start off with his plan to distribute as yet uncalculated benefits (20% is just a number out of thin air). If this is just a bad campaign, it's the worst I've heard of. Given that he's a politician, and I think the best financed politician ever, it's more likely that he's got a hidden agenda, and those who can read the wind are figuring it out, testing their theories, and coming up positive.

Sincerely, if he's all about tax reform, then by now he should have identified at least ONE loophole that he could find general agreement on as a good candidate to close. No? If not, then on what basis does he think tax reform is necessary? You can't realize the floor needs sweeping unless you have seen seen some dirt. So why not mention just one?

What has he ever done or said that gives you the impression he may care about anything other than the wealthy? He can't even identify with the middle class. He thinks his wife owning two Cadillacs and being friends with Nascar owners will get him in with the working class. He's really that disconnected. It's just blind faith you're going on, and in politics, that doesn't meet with a high success rate when compared with analysing behaviour.

No, the reason he isn't making it clear is that this is a tax gift to the wealthy first (including himself), and later he's going to finance that gift from the pockets of the middle class and poor.>> ^bareboards2:

I get that. Although I don't think that Rmoney is only about the wealthy. It's hard to tell with Rmoney, since he is the King of Flip Flopping -- what the hell does he really believe and want to do? I honestly don't know. If he gets into office (GOD FORBID, INCLUDING THE MORMON VERSION OF GOD PLEASE), I don't know how hard he would push for lower tax rates for the wealthy. He is such a flip flopper, I can see him letting that go.
The goal of reforming our tax code is a laudable one. I personally think it is impossible -- there are too many vested interests in the pieces where "I got mine" and nobody is going to want to let "theirs" go.
However, my original point remains -- if Rmoney's goal is to reform the tax code, which people have been wanting to do for decades, HE ISN'T MAKING IT CLEAR.
I am starting to feel sorry for the man. He has wanted to be President for so long. To be running such a poor poor campaign, unable to make a single smart step... I feel for him as a fellow struggling human being.
And relieved that he is so piss poor at it.

@messenger, I get that. Although I don't think that Rmoney is only about the wealthy. It's hard to tell with Rmoney, since he is the King of Flip Flopping -- what the hell does he really believe and want to do? I honestly don't know. If he gets into office (GOD FORBID, INCLUDING THE MORMON VERSION OF GOD PLEASE), I don't know how hard he would push for lower tax rates for the wealthy. He is such a flip flopper, I can see him letting that go.

The goal of reforming our tax code is a laudable one. I personally think it is impossible -- there are too many vested interests in the pieces where "I got mine" and nobody is going to want to let "theirs" go.

However, my original point remains -- if Rmoney's goal is to reform the tax code, which people have been wanting to do for decades, HE ISN'T MAKING IT CLEAR.

I am starting to feel sorry for the man. He has wanted to be President for so long. To be running such a poor poor campaign, unable to make a single smart step... I feel for him as a fellow struggling human being.

And relieved that he is so piss poor at it.

Rather than a return to Clinton-era tax rates, I would have liked to see him pledge a return to Reagan-era tax rates. It's not that I think it would necessarily be a good plan, but it would have been fun to watch the wingnuts try to simultaneously hold up the Gipper as The Superpresident while trying to trash his 50% tax rate on people making over $70k as anti-American class warfare.

False, the court has ruled many times that the sixteenth amendment grants the federal government the right to collect a direct income tax. Arguments to the contrary have been routinely ruled as frivolous resulting in additional frivolity fines for wasting the court's time. That's how dumb these arguments are.

The IRS is just a bureau of the treasury. The treasury doesn't need a law telling it how it can organize itself. So long as it operates within the scope of its powers, it can create any bureaus it wants. Congress passes income tax rates any time they pass a tax bill, often with the annual budget (with the powers granted to it by the sixteenth amendment to the constitution). The IRS is part of the executive and thus is charged with enforcing congress' laws. It's as simple as that. These arguments hold no water whatsoever.

>> ^MonkeySpank:

I agree!
I know of the Snipes story. It's sad.
I would value everyone's opinion with regards to this, but personally, I think this is a non-law that is strictly enforced.
>> ^skinnydaddy1:
Right. Ok As nice as this sounds if you try not to pay you could end up in jail. There have been thousands of people who have tried it and thousands are now having to deal with the consequences of that stupidity. Wesley Snipes is one such person.

its nice hearing a presidential candidate simply state their position on so many important policies.
I think all of his positions are better for the country in the long run, except for going to a regressive tax structure. It'd be better just to lower income and corporate tax rates across the board, while removing all the loopholes.

You can't legally shelter funds from taxation in Swiss bank accounts. You are taxed on your worldwide income when you are a resident of the US.

The olly olly oxen deal was for Corporations -- businesses that aren't US residents, that only do business in foreign countries with lower tax rates. They can't bring the cash back to America without paying US taxes. The olly olly deal was to let the corporations bring cash back into America at lower rates than normal.

I understand that Rmoney doesn't want his tax returns to be picked apart.

But he can easily provide Page one and page two, which have no details, just totals. Then we can see what rate of tax he paid. But he isn't doing that. And that makes me think that he probably did pay very low taxes for some of those years.

His earnings on his Swiss bank accounts were taxed in America though -- they were on his tax return and that is why we all found out that he had a lot of money parked over there. And that is why he doesn't want to release his full tax returns -- folks read "Swiss bank accounts" and get all in a tizzy. I can understand him wanting to avoid that kind of ignorance. So? Release page one and page two.




>> ^ObsidianStorm:

I suspect that Romney was one of the guys who sheltered massive amounts of money in Swiss bank accounts to avoid US taxes and then took advantage of the 2009 ollyollyoxenfree that allowed that money to be moved back into the US without penalties.
Just my guess...

In his line of work the actual salary is kept low so that his income tax rate stays very low. The bulk of the money is made via investments which have a much lower tax rate. It's just another way our lovely congress puts in tuns of loopholes so the billionaires amongst us get to pay the smallest percentage of their income.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^bobknight33:
Germany is the most financially secure country and that's because of their thrift.
So this would be the same Germany that has the world's oldest universal health care system, a top tax rate of 45%, some of the most liberal laws in europe for homosexuals and has a socialist party as one of the two main parties?
Sounds like a republican heaven!

Right, it couldn't be their policies... It's because they clip so many coupons!


That would be awesome if there was coupons for international trade that we're losing in the couch and such. President holds a news conference "Everyone in America look around your immediate areas for this coupon, or we're gonna have a trade deficit this month."

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^bobknight33:
Germany is the most financially secure country and that's because of their thrift.
So this would be the same Germany that has the world's oldest universal health care system, a top tax rate of 45%, some of the most liberal laws in europe for homosexuals and has a socialist party as one of the two main parties?
Sounds like a republican heaven!


Right, it couldn't be their policies... It's because they clip so many coupons!