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

[someguy14]

A tax break doesn't cost anything. It is simply the government allowing a person to keep more of the money they've earned.

Regardless of how much one earns, it is earned. Flat tax!

 

[EdwinWillers]

The title of your thread is misleading. Tax breaks are not funded.

A tax break doesn't cost anything. It is simply the government allowing a person to keep more of the money they've earned.

It's the same misleading concept that calls preventing increases in future funding a "cut."

If the government is spending $1 Trillion on something now, but they want to spend $1.5 Trillion on it next year and we say 'no' to the increase, then they complain we "cut" that thing's funding by $0.5 Trillion, when in fact we did no such thing.

But sadly, for a populace that is becoming less capable of calculating their own change on a dollar, seeds of such economic "logic" finds plenty of ripe soil in which to grow. Call it "thistle economics."

 

[Publius]

Regardless of how much one earns, it is earned. Flat tax!

I agree. Talking about taxing one group of people more when 40+% of people don't even pay any income tax is not just.

There should be an across the board 12% flat tax.

It's the same misleading concept that calls preventing increases in future funding a "cut."

If the government is spending $1 Trillion on something now, but they want to spend $1.5 Trillion on it next year and we say 'no' to the increase, then they complain we "cut" that thing's funding by $0.5 Trillion, when in fact we did no such thing.

That's how we came up with the alleged Clinton surplus the left is always telling us about.

I liken it to a woman who sees a $100 dress on sale for 50% off and then brags to her husband that she saved $100 because she bought two of them.

But sadly, for a populace that is becoming less capable of calculating their own change on a dollar, seeds of such economic "logic" finds plenty of ripe soil in which to grow. Call it "thistle economics."

I was listening to Wallbuilders yesterday and they were reading some statistics from a recent poll. According to the poll, 36% believe the quote "From each according to his "ability to each according to his needs" is found in the Declaration of Independence. Government schools are doing their job too well.

 

[someguy14]

Flat tax percentage for all, or fail!
Vengeance belongeth unto God. Deal just weights or fail.

 

[EdwinWillers]

That's how we came up with the alleged Clinton surplus the left is always telling us about.

I liken it to a woman who sees a $100 dress on sale for 50% off and then brags to her husband that she saved $100 because she bought two of them.

- because for some (including my wife), "spending" is "investing."

I was listening to Wallbuilders yesterday and they were reading some statistics from a recent poll. According to the poll, 36% believe the quote "From each according to his "ability to each according to his needs" is found in the Declaration of Independence. Government schools are doing their job too well.

I'll have to check that out - if true, that's very disturbing. And sadly, I believe it.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

- because for some (including my wife), "spending" is "investing."

Isn't that the essence of trickle down economics?

 

[jgarden]

The title of your thread is misleading. Tax breaks are not funded.

A tax break doesn't cost anything. It is simply the government allowing a person to keep more of the money they've earned.

1. One of the underlying assumptions concerning tax cuts was that they would be reinvested in the US to stimulate the American economy. Unfortunately there were never any "strings attached" to ensure that would happen.

2. Another assumption was that the additional taxes generated by the stimulated economy would more than offset the amount of revenue lost to the tax cuts - that never happened.

3. There is also the Republican "mantra" of reducing federal spending to get it under control. Ironically, the last GOP president to put that into preactice and actually preside over a balanced federal budget was Dwight Eisenhower in 1956 and 1957.

4. The only president to balance a federal budget since Reagan took office and introduced "tax cuts" was Bill Clinton - a Democrat.

 

[acropolis]

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

Tax Reform – An Analysis | Brookings Institution

To put their findings in a single sentence,

This would be terrible not only in a moral sense by making the poor poorer and decreasing their economic mobility, but also because it would hurt the economy. Taking more money away from people who spend nearly everything they have--by necessity--can only reduce consumer spending and drive down demand.

 

[Publius]

1. One of the underlying assumptions concerning tax cuts was that they would be reinvested in the US to stimulate the American economy. Unfortunately there were never any "strings attached" to ensure that would happen.

That's because the government, up until John Roberts re-wrote the Obamacare argument, did not have the power to tell you how to spend your moeny.

2. Another assumption was that the additional taxes generated by the stimulated economy would more than offset the amount of revenue lost to the tax cuts - that never happened.

That's because the economy wasn't stimulated.

3. There is also the Republican "mantra" of reducing federal spending to get it under control. Ironically, the last GOP president to put that into preac]tice and actually preside over a balanced federal budget was Dwight Eisenhower in 1956 and 1957.

4. The only president to balance a federal budget since Reagan took office and introduced "tax cuts" was Bill Clinton - a Democrat.

I should warn you before you waste any more time trying convince me Republicans are bad, I'm not a Republican.

 

[Viren]

3. There is also the Republican "mantra" of reducing federal spending to get it under control. Ironically, the last GOP president to put that into preactice and actually preside over a balanced federal budget was Dwight Eisenhower in 1956 and 1957.

The 91% top tax bracket helped him do it.

 

[ameriswede]

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?

Obama says earners in top 2% should pay more. Under Romney's suggestion, these 2% will get a couple of hundred thousand a year in tax cuts.

1% of Americas population is bathing in 37% of the wealth.
The bottom 50% that don't pay the particular tax you are targeting, share 4% of the wealth. (Rich 1% own 37%, Poor 50% own 4%).

If we are talking social justice here, this is a no brainer.

 

[Publius]

Obama says earners in top 2% should pay more. Under Romney's suggestion, these 2% will get a couple of hundred thousand a year in tax cuts.

That's a good thing.

1% of Americas population is bathing in 37% of the wealth.

And how much of the tax burden are they shouldering?

 

[ameriswede]

That's a good thing.



And how much of the tax burden are they shouldering?

I figure if you have millions and millions and millions of dollars, which the top 1% have, then you can afford to shoulder a bit more of the tax burden. Sorry, crazy way of thinking. The bottom 50% of population share the crumbs of 4% of "wealth". When trying to place myself in their position and seeing things from that perspective, I can honestly say that I would be ashamed of myself if I were not willing to exhibit a greater solidarity. Reminded of the widow in the Bible that is said to have given out of her need...gave of what she needed herself. Needed. Jesus said that this woman gave the most...even though it was just pennies. I am selfdom impressed by billionaires that are so generous that they donate a million to charity.

 

[Viren]

That's a good thing.

Unless that causes the middle class and poor to have to make up the difference.

 

[Publius]

I figure if you have millions and millions and millions of dollars, which the top 1% have, then you can afford to shoulder a bit more of the tax burden. Sorry, crazy way of thinking.

It's not crazy. It's just dishonest and wicked.

The issue is not what they can afford, but why they should be discriminated against and taxed unfairly as a result of their success.

I always find it interesting that liberals accuse us of ignoring Christ's teachings when it comes to this (even though they can never seem to show us these alleged "teachings") and yet, when we actually open the Bible, we see Jesus speaking in a parable in which three men are given money to invest and the two who made the profit are praised, while the one who didn't is rebuked and punished.

:oThe bottom 50% of population share the crumbs of 4% of "wealth".

And...? What are they currently doing to earn more wealth? And why should this make 40% exempt from taxes?

When trying to place myself in their position and seeing things from that perspective, I can honestly say that I would be ashamed of myself if I were not willing to exhibit a greater solidarity.

Just as I would be ashamed if I discriminated against people who have earned greater wealth.

But I guess with your generation, the first time somebody doesn't give you a participation trophy you get mad at those who can actually play.

 

[Publius]

Unless that causes the middle class and poor to have to make up the difference.

First of all, the poor don't pay income tax.

Second, there's nothing to "make up". That's not how it works.

Besides, if you're that worried about the middle class having to "make it up", then why aren't you suggesting spending cuts to take the burden off taxpayers in the first place?

 

[conamer]

Unless that causes the middle class and poor to have to make up the difference.

Only Congress can "cause" that. That is straight out of an Obama speech. The plan has been the same all along, no one's taxes should go up. It' the same old phoney narrative- Bush Tax Cuts= tax cuts for the rich!

 

[Publius]

Only Congress can "cause" that. That is straight out of an Obama speech. The plan has been the same all along, no one's taxes should go up. It' the same old phoney narrative- Bush Tax Cuts= tax cuts for the rich!

...when Bush tax cuts were, in fact, across the board and cut taxes for all Americans who pay taxes.

 

[abysmul]

You would think that people would just say: no tax breaks, no exception. X% flat on all income. No exceptions. I don't think you could get more fair than having everyone playing on the same field.

 

[conamer]

It's not crazy. It's just dishonest and wicked.

The issue is not what they can afford, but why they should be discriminated against and taxed unfairly as a result of their success.

I always find it interesting that liberals accuse us of ignoring Christ's teachings when it comes to this (even though they can never seem to show us these alleged "teachings") and yet, when we actually open the Bible, we see Jesus speaking in a parable in which three men are given money to invest and the two who made the profit are praised, while the one who didn't is rebuked and punished.



And...? What are they currently doing to earn more wealth? And why should this make 40% exempt from taxes?



Just as I would be ashamed if I discriminated against people who have earned greater wealth.

But I guess with your generation, the first time somebody doesn't give you a participation trophy you get mad at those who can actually play.

Preach it, bro. Hard work and profit go hand in hand. "All hard work brings a profit but mere talk leads to poverty."-Proverbs 14:23

"The sluggard craves and gets nothing, but the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied."-Proverbs 13:4 NIV

So the "mere talkers" whine about what other have and think their lives will improve if Big Brother socks it to 'em.