Should the poor pay more taxes to fund tax breaks for the rich? (Romney tax plan)

[[serious]]

The brookings institute has published an article analyzing the effects of Romney's tax plan.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/08/01-tax-reform-brown-gale-looney

To put their findings in a single sentence,

Our major conclusion is that a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed ... would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers.

 

[Rion]

Hmm... *writes down a new idea for a card*
Behold, the Straw Man!

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

A further question -

Should a person pay in taxes the equivalent of their usage of government provided resources?

 

[kermit]

Romney tax plan for the rich.

What's there's is there's and what's yours is there's.

 

[[serious]]

A further question -

Should a person pay in taxes the equivalent of their usage of government provided resources?

For some services this makes sense, for others it doesn't. in general, largely optional services that can be funded directly by use would work well under such a system, while good-of-the-group services would not. Roads being funded largely through tolls and gas taxes works, but charging border communities more for military and INS services would not.

 

[Viren]

Tax consumers more to lower demand while pumping more money up to the top to increase speculation and profits that can sent to offshore bank accounts. It seems to be working well for Greece. Ofcourse this is what Romney wants because it will help businesses like the one he created. The only problem is who will build the actual businesses that produce products? Not everyone can make a living off cutting up companies into little pieces and selling them for a profit. There wouldn't be any businesses left.

 

[Amber Bird]

The GOP has been invested for awhile from the legislative standpoint in protecting themselves and their rich contemporaries from footing the tax burden for this nations survival.
They put it all on the working class, so that they're the masters and we are in as much as slaves to the net wage.


Higher taxes for the rich would be a great turn around. However, all it would really accomplish is to give more money to an out of control spending monster, that has proved time and again it's not fiscally responsible enough to spend within limits with the monies already available as the tax laws now stand.


Rather than services and benefits to the middle and lower classes of society being axed or cut, I'd like to see the D.C. power brokers take a hit. Cut their perks, like private jets, car services, etc... along with pay cuts, and enforcing the chamber rules that do not pay any member of the legislature that isn't in their seat at roll call.

This government is so out of control and corrupt nothings going to clean it up. Everything that's proposed to try to make it better, or lessen the burden on those it's elite have fed on for generations, are just band-aid proposals that amount to the language afforded in; same screw - different window dressing.

 

[RedPaddy]

Tax consumers more to lower demand while pumping more money up to the top to increase speculation and profits that can sent to offshore bank accounts. It seems to be working well for Greece. Ofcourse this is what Romney wants because it will help businesses like the one he created.

According to obama, somebody else made that happen, not Romney.

The only problem is who will build the actual businesses that produce products? Not everyone can make a living off cutting up companies into little pieces and selling them for a profit. There wouldn't be any businesses left.

obama, of course. maybe professor warren will help as well, she is the saviour of capitalism, but you know this.

 

[BoltNut]

The brookings institute has published an article analyzing the effects of Romney's tax plan.

I'll try to stay "on-topic" and pose my opinion.

Since tax revenue are to be used for the good of the citizens of this country, shouldn't all citizens pay into that system? I am not suggesting the amount of that contribution, only that it should be shared by all. For the moment, I'm not talking about anyone's specific tax proposals. I am speaking about each citizens 'contribution to the cause' so to speak.

Since wealthier Americans are being 'targeted' for increases in their tax burdens because "they can afford it", doesn't it seem fair to expect every American citizen to contribute part of their income to this same cause? Why should a large segment of American citizens be exempt from income tax and yet be allowed to tell those who already contribute a disproportionate amount to income tax, that they must pay more? With all this talk about "fairness", how can anyone justify this practice?

To many who are considered "wealthy", the idea of paying more in income tax isn't necessarily distasteful, but when they are being told that they don't pay a "fair" share, by those who pay nothing, "fairness" seems to have taken on a rather distorted meaning.

 

[RedPaddy]

I'll try to stay "on-topic" and pose my opinion.

Since tax revenue are to be used for the good of the citizens of this country, shouldn't all citizens pay into that system? I am not suggesting the amount of that contribution, only that it should be shared by all. For the moment, I'm not talking about anyone's specific tax proposals. I am speaking about each citizens 'contribution to the cause' so to speak.

Since wealthier Americans are being 'targeted' for increases in their tax burdens because "they can afford it", doesn't it seem fair to expect every American citizen to contribute part of their income to this same cause? Why should a large segment of American citizens be exempt from income tax and yet be allowed to tell those who already contribute a disproportionate amount to income tax, that they must pay more? With all this talk about "fairness", how can anyone justify this practice?

To many who are considered "wealthy", the idea of paying more in income tax isn't necessarily distasteful, but when they are being told that they don't pay a "fair" share, by those who pay nothing, "fairness" seems to have taken on a rather distorted meaning.

 

[Grizzly]

To many who are considered "wealthy", the idea of paying more in income tax isn't necessarily distasteful, but when they are being told that they don't pay a "fair" share, by those who pay nothing, "fairness" seems to have taken on a rather distorted meaning.

This is a great victory for the elite. They've convinced a sizeable number of the non-elite that since the poor don't pay one type of tax that it means that the poor pay no taxes whatsoever. But its just not true. For example, the working poor pay payroll taxes just like everyone else. They pay sales taxes and property taxes like everyone else too.

 

[RedPaddy]

This is a great victory for the elite. They've convinced a sizeable number of the non-elite that since the poor don't pay one type of tax that it means that the poor pay no taxes whatsoever. But its just not true. For example, the working poor pay payroll taxes just like everyone else. They pay sales taxes and property taxes like everyone else too.

the tax under discussion is income tax. obama wants it raised on one group. he wants them to pay their "fair share" yet 50%+ pay no income tax. If one group pays nothing, then what is fair for the other group?

 

[BoltNut]

This is a great victory for the elite. They've convinced a sizeable number of the non-elite that since the poor don't pay one type of tax that it means that the poor pay no taxes whatsoever.

Did I say that?... No.

I said income tax.

But its just not true. For example, the working poor pay payroll taxes just like everyone else.

They have income tax "deducted" from their paychecks, yes. At the end of the year, when they file their 1040 form, they get back all that was deducted throughout the year and, in some cases, more than was deducted.

They pay sales taxes and property taxes like everyone else too.

They do indeed pay sales taxes whenever they buy something. They also pay auto registration fees, fuel taxes and other more localized taxes. They only pay property taxes if they own property. Many who are working poor do not own property. Especially in places like California.

Income tax is the biggest and most cited "tax" that everyone points to. I am trying to focus on it since that is the topic of conversation.

 

[Viren]

They do indeed pay sales taxes whenever they buy something. They also pay auto registration fees, fuel taxes and other more localized taxes. They only pay property taxes if they own property. Many who are working poor do not own property. Especially in places like California.

Many poor people rent and property taxes on the rentals are paid by them indirectly.

 

[BoltNut]

Many poor people rent and property taxes on the rentals are paid by them indirectly.

I wouldn't deny this, although renting doesn't mean the renter IS paying enough to cover property tax either. There are also cases where the renter is paying more than enough to cover the property taxes, such as cases where the property is owned outright by the landlord. Bottom line is that it is somewhat irrelevant. In most cases, renters also do not pay for the maintenance of the property that they rent. When the water heater goes out, they call the owner to fix it. If the renter pays for the repair, they simply deduct the cost from their rent payment.

 

[Illuminaughty]

If the rich are jealous of the poor not having to pay income tax they can give all their wealth away and join the other poor people in that coveted spot. Cry me a river. No one told them they had to suffer the indignity of being rich if its too much of a hassle for them.

 

[HalfoffSale]

BoltNut, would you say there is an income level low enough such that someone receiving it should be exempt from income taxes?

 

[BoltNut]

If the rich are jealous of the poor not having to pay income tax they can give all their wealth away and join the other poor people in that coveted spot. Cry me a river.

Who then would be left to pay the income taxes that pay for the subsidies that the poor use for their survival? Too bad, no relief payments for you. Your point makes no sense. "Jealousy" has nothing to do with it, but you know this of course.

 

[Illuminaughty]

The poor person they gave their millions to would take their place. I'm sure they would be happy to take it and wouldn't whine about taxes and how bad the 1 percenters have it.

 

[Illuminaughty]

People seem to have this bizzare idea that the rich are underrepresented and taken advantage of. Oh its so hard to be rich. Its horrible because you have to pay more taxes. Who will stand up for disenfranchised one percenters? The poor are using there commie powers to keep the rich down.