Topic: A few points about Romney's tax plan. More for the rich and killing jobs.
Ks !KansasxqvM started this discussion 14 years ago #22,808
tl;dr for most of you, but I was thinking about this last night and wanted to write it down. Why not here? I haven't seen any articles about this yet. But the implications of what Romney said about his tax plan last night are startling. The few specifics Romney revealed last night about his tax plan should be what people are talking about today, because it's fucking nuts. It's like a guidebook on how to kill jobs and create more wealth for the wealthy.
No tax on capital gains! Sounds pretty okay right? No, it's fucking insane. Here's why.
The vast majority of American families do not rely on capital gains for income, specifically the money made from capital gains is not going to be spent day to day in everytown, USA. It's not going to help small businesses, it's not going to boost the economy, this idea quite simply is not going to create jobs. On paper it will save a small percentage of American families some money, but only families with enough wealth to have investments besides retirement accounts - not many. Over 80% of American families make less than $100,000 a year. These are not investment tycoons.
Okay, so it's not gonna save much money for 80% of the American people. Who will it save money for? Banks, investment firms, the wealthy, and the super-wealthy. But those are the job creators right? No, not at all. Over 90% of new jobs are created by the middle class and small businesses. Over 95% of small business owners make less than $250,000 a year - middle class people. Over 90% of new jobs come from the middle class! Not from banks, investment firms, the wealthy, or the super-wealthy.
So more will be invested in companies and this will create jobs, right? No! Remember, over 90% of new jobs are created by small businesses. 80% of these job-creating small businesses are a sole proprietorship or a partnership.
In fact no tax on capital gains will discourage creation of new companies (and jobs) by the wealthy and super-wealthy. Why invest money in a new company you'll have to pay taxes on? Simply invest in existing American corporations, or (worse yet) invest overseas and avoid taxes altogether. It's simple math. Mass investments overseas will hurt existing small business here in America. China can always make it cheaper.
Well what the fuck is the point of no tax on capital gains, then? It's a blatant break for the banks, investment firms, the wealthy, and the super-wealthy. There is simply no logical way to explain it otherwise. This isn't meant to help you, your family, your neighbors, and small businesses. This isn't designed to create jobs or help America. This is designed to create more wealth for the wealthy - without kicking a damn dime back to rest of us. This is a priority for Romney and the GOP.
Lower corporate taxes! Okay, corporations create around 10% of new jobs. This will mean more new jobs, right? Not really.
Canada tried it, and it only helped the corporations. Less revenue for Canada, more money for the corporations. Even if lowering corporate taxes did create jobs (and it has been proven that it won't) many corporations only create low-wage jobs. Again - more money for the rich, no new jobs. Again, a priority for Romney and the GOP.
No taxes on savings! Sounds good, what's the problem?
The average American family has $3,800 in savings. You would only pay taxes on the money made from interest on that $3,800. Savings accounts often gain interest at less than %1 per year. Even if you were making one whole percent in interest every year you'd only make $38. You'd have to pay taxes on $38 dollars. Lets be honest, that isn't keeping anyone in the poor house.
So what's the point of no taxes on savings accounts then? None that I can see. Unless you have millions in a savings account that is. Once again, the only people that would really benefit from this tax break are the wealthy.
Literally the only tax specifics we've heard from Romney are blatant breaks for the wealthy. Those who need it least are a top priority for Romney and the GOP, it's obvious and undeniable.
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
Meta !PARAdoxiHw joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 16 minutes later[^] [v] #357,595
I wouldn't worry: Romney will say anything to anyone to get what he wants. All this John Galt nonsense is just fluff, like when Obama said he was going to protect civil liberties and change the way Washington works.
If Romney is elected, he won't substantially change anything. I think he could be the next Reagan.
If Romney is elected, he won't substantially change anything. I think he could be the next Reagan.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 10 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #357,600
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
We have Bush to look at for evidence of these ideas being very real. I was just reading an article the other day how people don't want to believe a politician could really be all that bad. Even when he politicians openly promote this stuff! It's like some kind of denial complex.
Obama has really dropped the ball on civil liberties, and that's putting it nicely. There's really no defending Obama on those issues. None at all. But overall Obama has done more to help everyday Americans than any president in my lifetime. Even if all we get out of Obama is Obamacare I'd be satisfied. Politicians don't often accomplish anything positive at the national level. Obamacare will help millions of people at a very basic level every single year, it's about time we got something like this.
We have Bush to look at for evidence of these ideas being very real. I was just reading an article the other day how people don't want to believe a politician could really be all that bad. Even when he politicians openly promote this stuff! It's like some kind of denial complex.
Obama has really dropped the ball on civil liberties, and that's putting it nicely. There's really no defending Obama on those issues. None at all. But overall Obama has done more to help everyday Americans than any president in my lifetime. Even if all we get out of Obama is Obamacare I'd be satisfied. Politicians don't often accomplish anything positive at the national level. Obamacare will help millions of people at a very basic level every single year, it's about time we got something like this.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #357,601
@357,595 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
> . I think he could be the next Reagan.
So Romney is going to raise tax's after all. Thanks for the haids up.
> . I think he could be the next Reagan.
So Romney is going to raise tax's after all. Thanks for the haids up.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 14 years ago, 58 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #357,621
@previous (C)
> >. I think he could be the next Reagan.
> So Romney is going to raise tax's after all. Thanks for the haids up.
He will essentially maintain the status quo. He will make some token attempts at cutting spending, while leaving it either essentially the same or raising it. Just like Reagan did: lots of rhetoric, little action.
> >. I think he could be the next Reagan.
> So Romney is going to raise tax's after all. Thanks for the haids up.
He will essentially maintain the status quo. He will make some token attempts at cutting spending, while leaving it either essentially the same or raising it. Just like Reagan did: lots of rhetoric, little action.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 38 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #357,627
> 2012
> taking Romney seriously
> taking Romney seriously
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #357,629
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #357,630
@357,627 (D)
> > 2012
> > taking Romney seriously
> around 50% of America really does take Romney seriously
> > 2012
> > taking Romney seriously
> around 50% of America really does take Romney seriously
squeegee !firstkPE1Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #357,631
Anonymous C replied with this 14 years ago, 22 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #357,637
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #357,640
@357,630 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
50 percent of “likely voters†is not 50 percent of America.
I also suspect that they just don't want to vote for that muslim nigger who hates murika. Le sigh.
50 percent of “likely voters†is not 50 percent of America.
I also suspect that they just don't want to vote for that muslim nigger who hates murika. Le sigh.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 14 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #357,641
@previous (D)
> I also suspect that they just don't want to vote for that ......>
Yet THEY DID
Top forecasters with decades of 99.5% accuracy say they will AGAIN
> I also suspect that they just don't want to vote for that ......>
Yet THEY DID
Top forecasters with decades of 99.5% accuracy say they will AGAIN
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 23 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #357,644
Anonymous C replied with this 14 years ago, 29 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #357,651
@previous (D)
> 50 percent of “likely voters†is not 50 percent of America.
Read and understood.
50% of Americans include babies to preteens & loads of comatose people as well as the street people and drugged out people. As Romney said, they are part of that 47%, he made infamous.
Needed to review just what the track record of those Qualified so
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/27/AR2006102701474.html old 2006 but probably still relevant.
Those who bemoan a decline in American civic society point to the drop in turnout from 55.2 percent in 1972, when 18-year-olds were granted the right to vote, to the low point of 48.9 percent in 1996. But that's looking at the total voting-age population, which includes lots of people who aren't eligible to vote -- namely, noncitizens and convicted felons. These ineligible populations have increased dramatically over the past three decades, from about 2 percent of the voting-age population in 1972 to 10 percent today.
When you take them out of the equation, the post-1972 "decline" vanishes. Turnout rates among those eligible to vote have averaged 55.3 percent in presidential elections and 39.4 percent in midterm elections for the past three decades. There has been variation, of course, with turnout as low as 51.7 percent in 1996 and rebounding to 60.3 percent by 2004. Turnout in the most recent election, in fact, is on a par with the low-60 percent turnout rates of the 1950s and '60s.
> 50 percent of “likely voters†is not 50 percent of America.
Read and understood.
50% of Americans include babies to preteens & loads of comatose people as well as the street people and drugged out people. As Romney said, they are part of that 47%, he made infamous.
Needed to review just what the track record of those Qualified so
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/27/AR2006102701474.html old 2006 but probably still relevant.
Those who bemoan a decline in American civic society point to the drop in turnout from 55.2 percent in 1972, when 18-year-olds were granted the right to vote, to the low point of 48.9 percent in 1996. But that's looking at the total voting-age population, which includes lots of people who aren't eligible to vote -- namely, noncitizens and convicted felons. These ineligible populations have increased dramatically over the past three decades, from about 2 percent of the voting-age population in 1972 to 10 percent today.
When you take them out of the equation, the post-1972 "decline" vanishes. Turnout rates among those eligible to vote have averaged 55.3 percent in presidential elections and 39.4 percent in midterm elections for the past three decades. There has been variation, of course, with turnout as low as 51.7 percent in 1996 and rebounding to 60.3 percent by 2004. Turnout in the most recent election, in fact, is on a par with the low-60 percent turnout rates of the 1950s and '60s.