How fair is mitts tax cuts?
- Thread starter 888888
- Start date
888888
Council Member
Republicans want to create more wealth for those who are wealthy by cutting taxes that go mainly to the rich.
We all understand this, and this is common for the right. But why people don't think it's a little unfair that one guy gets to keep 7% more of what he pays in taxes, and next guy only gets to keep 3%, how is that fair?
We all understand this, and this is common for the right. But why people don't think it's a little unfair that one guy gets to keep 7% more of what he pays in taxes, and next guy only gets to keep 3%, how is that fair?
Arkady
President
It's similar to what happened under Bush (when the top bracket got a much bigger rate cut than the lower brackets). Only it's worse, because the gap in size of cuts is much greater at the top, relative to the bottom, under Romney's plan than under Bush's. And the crazy thing is that even a "fair" across-the-board rate cut would be far more advantageous to the rich than the middle class, in dollar terms (as opposed to a fair across-the-board tax credit, which would give the same value to everyone). So, Romney is basically further skewing a system that would have been skewed heavily to the rich even if he'd played it straight.
Arkady
President
Because they don't care. They hate Obama for racial or cultural reasons, and they'll gladly turn a blind eye to Romney screwing the middle class if that's the price for getting behind "their team." It's tribalism over reason.
1. Romney, when he made his 47% remark said "Those people pay no taxes and so won't respond to our message of tax cuts".
2. In the debate he claimed that he will make a 20% across the board tax rate cut. He said it will be revenue neutral because he will eliminate loopholes and deductions. Essentially saying revenue will stay the same and what we pay in taxes will not change.
In fact, point 2 isn't possible. The only way Romney can avoid a huge increase (about $500 billion per year) in the deficit is by raising taxes on someone. He has suggested he will "broaden" the tax base. What does that mean to you? To me it means that he will lower the poverty level to include more people at the bottom in the ranks of taxpayers so that he can lower taxes on the wealthy.
2. In the debate he claimed that he will make a 20% across the board tax rate cut. He said it will be revenue neutral because he will eliminate loopholes and deductions. Essentially saying revenue will stay the same and what we pay in taxes will not change.
In fact, point 2 isn't possible. The only way Romney can avoid a huge increase (about $500 billion per year) in the deficit is by raising taxes on someone. He has suggested he will "broaden" the tax base. What does that mean to you? To me it means that he will lower the poverty level to include more people at the bottom in the ranks of taxpayers so that he can lower taxes on the wealthy.
888888
Council Member
He said it would be revenue neutral to a point that those at the top will continue to pay the same % of what is collected.
If they collect 1 trillion less, and the top 1% is paying 50% of that as they claim then the top 1% could get a 500 billion tax cut, the next 9% would get the next 250 billion and he wouldn't be lying, and the other 90% of us would share the other 250 billion.
He plans on cutting 1 trillion a year out of taxes collected. and the only thing that can happen is 1 trillion in cuts will have to be made.
His mouth is trying to confuse you, but his brain knows what it means.
888888
Council Member
Do you think Mitt won't get his tax cut trough if he is elected?
5 trillion overall and 2.5 trillion will end up in the pockets of those at the top
Bush tax cuts have put 2.4 trillion in their pockets over the last 10 years, so with the new tax cut plus the bush tax cut it would amount to 4 trillion dollars over the next 4 years to the top 1%. And still no jobs yet. maybe we should just let the top 1% not pay any taxes and maybe they would spend some of that money.
Wahbooz
Governor
This, from The Detroit Free Press pretty much answers the question for me.
Romney would cut taxes more deeply than even George W. Bush did (a 20% additional cut, across the board) and eliminate taxes on dividends, interest and capital gains for most payers. He’d also lop the top bracket off the corporate tax rate.
A lot of millionaires, including Romney, would in effect pay little to no federal taxes. That is, in my estimation, unfair.
degsme
Council Member
he will? you forsee a romney victory then.
Not necessarily - if Obama wins, Romney doesn't get them either - Set theory Phil, Set theory
Look I'm personally fine if Romney wins. I got mine. And both my boys are done with college and I don't have girls I have to worry about getting "legitimately raped", and neither is gay. They do have gay friends and Trans Friends. And my heart goes out to those youngsters (as I've known some of them for most of their lives ) - but all it means is that in the long run the GOP digs a deeper grave for itself.
Arkady
President
It's funny that the "liberal" press dutifully calls it an "across the board" cut, as Romney does. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, from a technical perspective, but it certainly implies an even-handedness that wouldn't be implied with other technically-correct descriptions. For example:
"Romney plans to reduce the tax rate by 2 points on the bottom bracket, 3 points on the next bracket, gradually escalating up to 7 points for those earning more than $388,350."
Or, better yet, state it in dollar terms. That way people understand that what Romney's proposing would actually be NO TAX REDUCTION FOR HALF OF ALL AMERICANS (since, after deductions, they don't currently pay federal income tax, and that's the only tax he's reducing), but a $60,000 reduction for millionaires.
There are any number of ways the press could present the same proposal, but they consistently pick the way that's more favorable to Romney, by calling it and across-the-board cut. I suppose this shouldn't be surprising once you remember that the mainstream press is owned and controlled by the very rich.
degsme
Council Member
Well played!!!! .... "golf clap"...
Wahbooz
Governor
Personally I don't believe the Free Press did anything, in their assessment and endorsement of Obama, in a favorable way toward Romney. They did not hide their disapproval of him or his plans one bit.
888888
Council Member
Finally someone else understands that Romney is cutting the top rate by 7 points, the bottom rate by 2 points.
That across the board does not mean the same.
Romney is just applying for the job of Commander in Thief.
All the corruption in govt that mainly goes to the wealthy anyway, is not even close to what the Romney/Ryan plan would steal from
the govt and give it to the top 10% of our population.
That across the board does not mean the same.
Romney is just applying for the job of Commander in Thief.
All the corruption in govt that mainly goes to the wealthy anyway, is not even close to what the Romney/Ryan plan would steal from
the govt and give it to the top 10% of our population.
