Romney just cost himself the election

Thekla · Sep 19, 2012

On the matter of the disproportionate percentage of non-income taxes paid by those at the low end of the income ladder:

In PA, there is no sales tax on 'necessities' defined here as : food (unprepared, grocery store), clothing, eyeglasses (I think still), Bibles, periodicals (necessary in a democracy) and candy (enacted during the Depression, so the working poor could eat something on lunch break - though don't buy enough candy to know if that's still in force).

showing this Commonwealth's Christian roots ...

I think exempting some necessities from state tax makes sense, and is truly a help to families with limited income.

TeddyReceptus · Sep 19, 2012

EDITED TO ADD: I made a mistake, there's only 9 people in "America II". OOpsy! Sorry. The numbers still work out as I calculated them.

TeddyReceptus · Sep 19, 2012

America II Continued:

If we assume that there are 8 people in America II who make the amounts they made above and each person pays 12.5% of the total tax burden for all of America II it should work out thusly:

Let's assume that the total tax receipts in America II are $5,332,500. Each person is responsible for 11.1% of this (so it's absolutely fair. Each person pays 1/9 of the total revenues).

Top Guy pays 3% of his income in taxes
Next two people down will each pay 118% of their income in taxes
The middle three people will each pay 740% of their income in taxes
the two people below that will pay 1,480% of their income in taxes
the bottom guy will pay 5,919% of his income in taxes

Can anyone see a problem with this plan?

Here's the numbers as I calculated them:

(Please point out any errors you find, thanks!)

Thekla · Sep 19, 2012

TeddyReceptus said:
America II Continued:

If we assume that there are 8 people in America II who make the amounts they made above and each person pays 12.5% of the total tax burden for all of America II it should work out thusly:

Let's assume that the total tax receipts in America II are $5,332,500. Each person is responsible for 11.1% of this (so it's absolutely fair. Each person pays 1/9 of the total revenues).

Top Guy pays 3% of his income in taxes
Next two people down will each pay 118% of their income in taxes
The middle three people will each pay 740% of their income in taxes
the two people below that will pay 1,480% of their income in taxes
the bottom guy will pay 5,919% of his income in taxes

Can anyone see a problem with this plan?

Here's the numbers as I calculated them:

(Please point out any errors you find, thanks!)

These comparisons are truly informative - thanks

Thekla · Sep 19, 2012

Was looking for something that would show federal as well as state/local tax burden, so here's this:

MachZer0 · Sep 19, 2012

TeddyReceptus said:
EDITED TO ADD: I made a mistake, there's only 9 people in "America II". OOpsy! Sorry. The numbers still work out as I calculated them.

Unfortunately, your numbers didn't add up at all. Maybe you should give it another go

NightHawkeye · Sep 19, 2012

MachZer0 said:
Unfortunately, your numbers didn't add up at all. Maybe you should give it another go

LOL ... is this thread still going?

Seven weeks until election day. Polls remain tied.

MachZer0 · Sep 20, 2012

NightHawkeye said:
LOL ... is this thread still going?

Seven weeks until election day. Polls remain tied.

They have to keep the thread going or else they will have to discuss Obama's record

NightHawkeye · Sep 20, 2012

MachZer0 said:
They have to keep the thread going or else they will have to discuss Obama's record

LOL ... now that is a DISASTER.

:argh:

Jeffwhosoever · Sep 20, 2012

I honestly don't mind paying more taxes, if it gets people back working again in private industry long term. Hopefully the higher taxes would be short term until the economy gets rolling again. Everyone should pay their share of that, not just those above $250k/year per family. Stuff like additional training and education, for example.

I'm perfectly willing to invest in America like this. But, I am very against paying more taxes such that people become addicted to the government paychecks. I don't think most Americans want to live on the government, and would prefer a job to a handout. Give me a clear plan on that, and I'll write my Congressmen and tell them to vote for the job plan. Obama's job plan doesn't do that. It is short term jobs that last only as long as the funding, and there is no real payback to long term job growth. Yes, it helps short term, but we as a nation had better start taking long term, and get over these short term fixes.

One idea is to give companies tax breaks for R&D spending, especially in areas that will fuel long term growth in industries of the future (and solar power isn't a viable technology yet, so no more of that). More funding for college grants for those pursuing degrees in math, science, medicine, and business. These types of things are worthy of taxpayer money. If the infrastructure can really have a payback in reducing long term transportation costs, that would be acceptable to me too, but let's not repave roads just to be repaving roads. There should be an economic payback to use of taxpayer funds, such as we do in business with Return on Investment and business cases.

JoyJuice · Sep 20, 2012

Jeffwhosoever said:
I honestly don't mind paying more taxes, if it gets people back working again in private industry long term. Hopefully the higher taxes would be short term until the economy gets rolling again. Everyone should pay their share of that, not just those above $250k/year per family. Stuff like additional training and education, for example. I'm perfectly willing to invest in America like this. But, I am very against paying more taxes such that people become addicted to the government paychecks. I don't think most Americans want to live on the government, and would prefer a job to a handout. Give me a clear plan on that, and I'll write my Congressmen and tell them to vote for the job plan. Obama's job plan doesn't do that. It is short term jobs that last only as long as the funding, and there is no real payback to long term job growth. Yes, it helps short term, but we as a nation had better start taking long term, and get over these short term fixes.

One long term proposal is to provide tax breaks to bring back American industry who have left for cheaper wages.

That plan is Obama's.

The other plan is to reward industry who have taken their jobs overseas with as huge tax break.

That plan is Romney's.

....and to quote Ross Perot given NAFTA, that "swooosh" sound will be the rest of industry leaving now that Romney is offering an monetary incentive to leave.

The choice is yours, but I too see the need to revest in American, just as Obama. Romney doesn't and reinvests in his investors.

Jeffwhosoever · Sep 20, 2012

JoyJuice said:
One long term proposal is to provide tax breaks to bring back American industry who have left for cheaper wages.

That plan is Obama's.

The other plan is to reward industry who have taken their jobs overseas with as huge tax break.

That plan is Romney's.

....and to quote Ross Perot given NAFTA, that "swooosh" sound will be the rest of industry leaving now that Romney is offering an monetary incentive to leave.

The choice is yours, but I too see the need to revest in American, just as Obama. Romney doesn't and reinvests in his investors.

That's a bunch of rhetoric. Please provide the evidence for these claims about Obama and Romney.

Vylo · Sep 20, 2012

As to the title, Romney only cost himself the election if he can't get people to shut up about this. If he can move the discussion elsewhere, it will favor him greatly.

JoyJuice · Sep 20, 2012

Jeffwhosoever said:
That's a bunch of rhetoric. Please provide the evidence for these claims about Obama and Romney.

1) It appears you don't understand the very plan you dissagree with, (not suprising) for the proposal is in the Obama jobs plan that you are poo poo-ing.

2) Romney Repatriation of Foreign Profits To Bring Jobs Back Home A Sham

"Mitt Romney is promoting an ultra low tax rate for American corporations to bring their foreign profits back into the United States, saying this will allow “job creator” multi-national corporations to hire thousands of workers."

We don't need Industry profits brought back, industry is sitting on mounds of cash because demand is dead. We need jobs brought back as in the very reinvestment in America you speak of.

TerranceL · Sep 20, 2012

The problem with both plans is they are unrealistic.

Are we really going to believe that somehow giving tax breaks to companies going overseas is going to help? That's moronic, how does that bring those jobs back?

And how much of a "incentive" are we going to give companies that are only able to compete by going overseas? How much incentive will make up for the insanely higher wages they will be expected to pay here? Not to mention the added benefits and then the costs of regulations.

Apple's Jobs to Obama: jobs aren't coming back to U.S. | HeraldTribune.com

Why can't that work come home? Obama asked.
Jobs' reply was unambiguous. "Those jobs aren't coming back," he said, according to another dinner guest.

Jobs was right.... those companies wont come back.

It's globalization.

It's funny, during the 92 debates Perot got laughed at, he got called crazy, he's an old man what does he know?

He predicted exactly what would happen with more globalization.

David Sirota: Was Ross Perot Right? - Truthdig

In 1993, the Clinton White House and an army of corporate lobbyists were selling NAFTA as a way to aid Mexican and American workers. Perot, on the other hand, was predicting that because the deal included no basic labor standards, it would preserve a huge “wage differential between the United States and Mexico” that would result in “the giant sucking sound” of American jobs heading south of the border. Corporations, he said, would “close the factories in the U.S. [and] move the factories to Mexico [to] take advantage of the cheap labor.” The historical record is clear. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace reports, “Real wages for most Mexicans today are lower than when NAFTA took effect.” Post-NAFTA, companies looking to exploit those low wages relocated factories to Mexico. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the net effect of NAFTA was the elimination of 1 million American jobs.
Score one for Perot.
What about immigration? In 1993, the Clinton administration pitched NAFTA as “the best hope for reducing illegal immigration.” Perot, by contrast, said that after NAFTA depressed Mexican wages, many Mexicans “out of economic necessity” would “consider illegally immigrating into the U.S.”
“In short,” he wrote, “NAFTA has the potential to increase illegal immigration, not decrease it.”
Again, the historical record tells the story. As NAFTA helped drive millions of Mexicans into poverty, The New York Times reports that “Mexican migration to the United States has risen to 500,000 a year from less than 400,000 in the early 1990s, before NAFTA,” with a huge chunk of that increase coming from illegal immigration.
Score another one for Perot.
Clinton may continue to laugh at Perot and plead amnesia when asked about trade policy. And sure, she and her fellow Democrats in Washington can expand NAFTA and ignore the public’s desire for reform. But these politicians shouldn’t be surprised if that one other Perot prediction comes true again—the one accurately predicting that Democrats would lose the next national election if they sold America out and passed NAFTA.
Foreshadowing that historic Democratic loss in 1994, he warned, “We’ll remember in November.”
Yes, indeed, Ross. America probably will.

But we probably wont hear any of this during the debates.

The bill was bipartisan, both parties bear the blame.

mzungu · Sep 20, 2012

Thekla said:
And that, too ...

TeddyReceptus said:
I was just joking! I don't believe in any of it anyway. I was merely having fun. Apologies.

No need to apologise as I am also in violation. I also spoke in jest albeit the historical part of my post was not!

stamperben · Sep 20, 2012

Vylo said:
As to the title, Romney only cost himself the election if he can't get people to shut up about this. If he can move the discussion elsewhere, it will favor him greatly.

And that is exactly the reason you saw Mach and NHE mocking the continued discussion in this thread.

jpcedotal · Sep 20, 2012

TeddyReceptus said:
The very next time you feel "taken advantage of" by the government please get yourself off of public highways and off of public utilities right away!

There's nothing worse than getting all that advantage from your fellow citizens while despising it.

u mean the roads my tax dollars built?

I just want the slacker on the couch with 15 kids to build the roads if I am going to have to pay for them.

mpok1519 · Sep 20, 2012

Jeffwhosoever said:
Can't win by logic, so you resort to emotional appeal. Seems very common.

I grew up very unrich. We lived in a rented mobile home, I got free school lunches, and my Mom and Dad worked minimum wage jobs.

So why on earth would you vote for someone who would vote to take away free school lunches for needy children if it means more money for him?

eldermike · Sep 20, 2012

TeddyReceptus said:
Not really. Unless Mitt doesn't know the difference between the words "people" and "system". Here's the quote again:

"There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That thats an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter whatThese are people who pay no income tax[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. Ill never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. " (Emphasis added)

Seems pretty clear this was aimed at people since the "systems" can't have personal attributes like "not taking personal responsibility" and such.

No, he's telling his supporters that:

"What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like." (Emphasis added)

This is a clear indication of political planning, not a critique of the system. He's laying it out for his millionaire donors that he has written off the lost causes of people who will vote for Obama not matter what because they are lazy leeches and he can't worry about them.

If it was a critique of the system Mitt should have said he will work day and night to ensure those people know a better way.

But he didn't do that did he?

I honestly don't see any other way to read his comments. But I don't think Romney hates all poor people, because a lot of seniors who are in the 47% figure he listed will vote for him and I'm sure he likes them. Not that he'll ever know what it's like to be in their shoes or anything...but he likes their votes.

No Mitt is either appallingly incapable of expressing a thought or he expressed a very jaded view of America. But what do you expect from a guy who doesn't even like this country enough to not stash some of his money in offshore tax havens???

I think this indicates Mitt likes a portion of America. The part of America he's most familiar with: the 1%. They are "his" people. They "get" him. The rest of the Americans either don't get him or have bought the advertising campaign and think they do.

Mitt talks to his $$$$ buddies in rather clear tones and with a clear message.

I can see you spent some time on this responce, thanks for that.

Being realistic about the circumstances of this current or future elections with the circumstance of so many people on the public dime is an important discussion for the future of this country. Elections are won and lost on who can promise the most free stuff. That can't continue, it's a self correcting thing if you look at history. The correction will be horrible on all of us. If you can't see that in His comments then you can't see it.

Romney just cost himself the election

Thekla

Guest

TeddyReceptus

Guest

TeddyReceptus

Guest

Thekla

Guest

Thekla

Guest

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Work-in-progress

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Work-in-progress

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student

Senior Veteran

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student

Stick with the King!

Senior Veteran

Sarcasm is kind of an art isn't it?

INVICTUS

It's an old family tradition

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style

Veteran

Pray

Similar threads