Rant, Anti-Romney
#41
I would be much more willing vote Romney if he just manned up and took credit for the decisions he made as a governor (since I agreed with a fair amount of them). Instead he's just pandering to the increasingly conservative populous in this country.
Like wise, the outline of his tax plan (as currently defined) is not only unsustainable, it also applies a greater burden on the middle to upper middle class citizens of this country ... which I'm fine with so long as EVERYONE is taking on an burden. Dumping the capital gains tax excludes that possibility.
Tax Reform
*In for Brainy labeling Brooking's a liberal propagandist (even though it's been rated repeatedly as one of the most respected and unbiased think tanks in D.C.).
-Zach
#42
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,733
Total Cats: 4,126
What they did in mass was considered a free-market alternative to the socialization of healthcare at the federal level. Yes, they are forcing you to get coverage, but the idea was to prevent a free-rider system from going out of control and the state from going into more debt. something the federal government forced states to deal with in 1946.
The bill passed by 154-2 in the Massachusetts House and unanimously, 37-0, in the Massachusetts Senate.
Am I a fan of the idea? no. But it is not to be compared to obamacare. when you can truncate Obamacare to a one-page bill that did nothing but mandate that every American buy health insurance, then somehow be ruled constitutional, I'll begin to consider the comparison.
So until then, I'll gladly support a fiscal states-rights conservative that can manage to get granted emergency powers to save a liberal state from finacial ruin.
ugh, way too many words to read that article.
Last edited by Braineack; 08-23-2012 at 09:55 AM.
#43
First. Romneycare is not universal healthcare. Second, states can do whatever they want at a state level (like blood tests with marrage licenses, or forced to do an ultra-sound if preggers lik ehere in VA, etc. etc) ...unlike the federal governmet; which has no authority to force these sorts of things.
You can claim it's not universal healthcare, however, Mass healthcare reform clearly casts a social 'safety net' .... which is the fundamental purpose of universal healthcare (or at least that's how it's sold).
-Zach
#44
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
Like wise, the outline of his tax plan (as currently defined) is not only unsustainable, it also applies a greater burden on the middle to upper middle class citizens of this country ... which I'm fine with so long as EVERYONE is taking on an burden. Dumping the capital gains tax excludes that possibility.
• Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
• Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
#47
I agree with a lot of that sentiment. I would probably respect the Romney-as-Mass-Governor more than I do the Romney-as-Presidential-candidate.
I'll try to read through the Brooking's article a little later, but help me with the last part of your statement. From Romney's website:
• Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
• Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
I'll try to read through the Brooking's article a little later, but help me with the last part of your statement. From Romney's website:
• Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
• Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Much of the increased tax burden on the middle class comes in the form of reduced right offs/expenditure which largely impact the middle class (effectively increasing their tax rate).
Here's a snippet that basically gets to the heart of it:
"In this paper we examine the tradeoffs between rates, tax expenditures, and the progressivity of the tax schedules that are inherent in revenue-neutral tax returns. We show that plans that advance steeply lower marginal tax rate structures would require deep cuts in tax expenditures to offset the revenue losses arising from low rates. Because many of the largest tax expenditures benefit middle- and lower-income households, deep reductions tax expenditures can alter the distribution of the tax burden. To illustrate these tradeoffs, we examine as an example a set of tax rate reductions specified in Governor Romney’s tax plan. We show that given the proposed tax rates and proscription against reducing tax expenditures aimed at saving and investment, cutting tax expenditures will result in a net tax cut for high-income taxpayers and a net tax increase for lower- and/or middle-income taxpayers—even if individual income tax expenditures could be eliminated in a way designed to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible."
Granted, so much of this is speculative since the plan is so poorly defined.
-Zach
#49
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
Remember, most interest is taxable at ordinary income rates assuming they are held in non-tax favored accounts (checking, savings, CDs, most money markets, corporate bonds, non-qualified dividends, etc).
Then the question becomes, what percentage of taxpayers itemize versus take the standard deduction. Someone google that and cite a reasonable source (preferable with IRS as primary data source).
Granted, so much of this is speculative since the plan is so poorly defined.
#51
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
Quick back of the spreadsheet calculation:
If we eliminate all sales tax and real estate related deductions but kept everything else the same, including the standard exemption amount (household income under $250k) while reducing all marginal rates by 20% (taking them from 10,15,25,28,33 to 8,12,20,22,26), we would pay almost $6k more for the year in taxes using the 2011 data.
That would leave my effective rate as a percentage of taxable income unchanged (naturally) at about 20% but would raise my effective rate as a percentage of gross income from 16% to 19%.
As a household in the upper bounds of the middle-middle class or lower bounds of the upper-middle class, those changes outlined above would, in fact, raise my taxes.
If we eliminate all sales tax and real estate related deductions but kept everything else the same, including the standard exemption amount (household income under $250k) while reducing all marginal rates by 20% (taking them from 10,15,25,28,33 to 8,12,20,22,26), we would pay almost $6k more for the year in taxes using the 2011 data.
That would leave my effective rate as a percentage of taxable income unchanged (naturally) at about 20% but would raise my effective rate as a percentage of gross income from 16% to 19%.
As a household in the upper bounds of the middle-middle class or lower bounds of the upper-middle class, those changes outlined above would, in fact, raise my taxes.
#53
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
Using [the most recent IRS data I could find in a 10 second search], it appears as though less than one-third of US personal tax returns utilized itemized deductions. Spun another way, over 2/3 of American tax filers would see a tax decrease under the Romney proposal I partially made up (with the brunt of increases borne in a very progressive manner).
Compare that with letting the Bush tax cuts expire where in potentially everyone could see some tax increase: every single marginal tax rate would increase slightly (including the elimination of the 10% bracket), capital gains rate increases, dividend taxation, etc.
Last edited by Scrappy Jack; 08-23-2012 at 06:34 PM.
#54
Give some credit. Being in on the ground floor of basically getting corporations the same rights as a human being is pretty impressive. Its not that they skew stuff to market a product effectively, its that they laid the groundwork so damned throughly that makes them pioneers. Guttenberg did not have that ****.
#55
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 5,155
Total Cats: 407
All politicians are liars. Bush, Obama, Romney. Theyre all the same, they all have almost identical views that they make out to be vastly different so people will be too busy arguing to realize that the federal government is ******* you in the ***, all day, every day.
Anybody that can sit back at this point and say "I am a republican" or "I am a democrat" is either very poorly informed or mentally ill.
Anybody that can sit back at this point and say "I am a republican" or "I am a democrat" is either very poorly informed or mentally ill.
#56
No kidding.
Heres my rub with states rights though; I dont really want any jackbooted thugs messing with my life, state or federal.
If Romney is so good at getting emergency powers at a state level, and he is OK with passing a tax penalty system for those without health insurance that taxachussets liberals are almost 100% ok with, what does that indicate for behavior as president? Dubya with a twist of Carter? Ugh.
I am not sure I like that picture. Thats a bit anecdotal but then seeing into the future typicaly is.
Heres my rub with states rights though; I dont really want any jackbooted thugs messing with my life, state or federal.
If Romney is so good at getting emergency powers at a state level, and he is OK with passing a tax penalty system for those without health insurance that taxachussets liberals are almost 100% ok with, what does that indicate for behavior as president? Dubya with a twist of Carter? Ugh.
I am not sure I like that picture. Thats a bit anecdotal but then seeing into the future typicaly is.
#57
Maybe. Maybe I am an outlier, a fat cat that likes to consider himself "middle class." Or maybe I just have a boatload of real estate-related deductions.
Using [the most recent IRS data I could find in a 10 second search], it appears as though less than one-third of US personal tax returns utilized itemized deductions. Spun another way, over 2/3 of American tax filers would see a tax decrease under the Romney proposal I partially made up (with the brunt of increases borne in a very progressive manner).
Compare that with letting the Bush tax cuts expire where in potentially everyone could see some tax increase: every single marginal tax rate would increase slightly (including the elimination of the 10% bracket), capital gains rate increases, dividend taxation, etc.
Using [the most recent IRS data I could find in a 10 second search], it appears as though less than one-third of US personal tax returns utilized itemized deductions. Spun another way, over 2/3 of American tax filers would see a tax decrease under the Romney proposal I partially made up (with the brunt of increases borne in a very progressive manner).
Compare that with letting the Bush tax cuts expire where in potentially everyone could see some tax increase: every single marginal tax rate would increase slightly (including the elimination of the 10% bracket), capital gains rate increases, dividend taxation, etc.
If the rate of my household income going to the federal government was the same as mitt's released tax return I'd have somewhere around $25,000 more in my pocket.
Bob
Last edited by bbundy; 08-23-2012 at 10:41 PM.
#58
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,733
Total Cats: 4,126
He vows to repeal Obamacare, remove Bernanke, and I'm more a fan of Romney's position (remove benefits, e-verify, larger fence) than Obama's (amnesty, more benefits), among other things.
It's not like Romney is my first choice for President, but I agree with most of his positions and omfg 4 more years of Obama makes me doubt humanity plus I can't really afford him screwing up the ecomony worse so he can make his buddies rich.
Last edited by Braineack; 08-24-2012 at 09:10 AM.
#60
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
That is, getting the 2% OASDI reduction at X income in 2011 can't reasonably be compared to the Bush tax cuts if you were making 0.5X in 2003.
Anyone comparing their effective Federal income tax rate to his should account for the percentage of his income that he donates to charitable causes. I know it's a lot higher than mine, and I like to think I'm fairly generous.