Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
39 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: The 47% includes thousands of shiftless millionaires... rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
The Tax Policy Center estimates that 4,000 households with incomes over $1 million ended up with zero federal income tax liability in 2011. Another 14,000 made between $500,000 and $1 million.


Poor guys, I guess they think they are victims and dependent on the government. At least they will be voting for Obama.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
We will bury you
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sure - and given Romney's message, they are unlikely to vote for him and they should pay more

What is your point?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Utrecht wrote:
sure - and given Romney's message, they are unlikely to vote for him and they should pay more

What is your point?

Given Romney's lack of a detailed tax policy, they won't pay more. I guess he likes shiftless millionaires.

Obama has proposed limiting itemized deductions and other tax breaks such as exclusions for people with AGI over $200K. A lot of people in that group can deduct up to 35% of a qualified expense. Obama would limit that to 28%. Obama would tax carried interest as ordinary income.

Romney hasn't publicly said what he would do on any of those issues. And he won't.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
We will bury you
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So, your point was about Obama's tax policy vs. Romney's tax policy? That is certainly a viable discussion topic - and I agree, I would like to understand more deeply what Romney's plan is. If for no other reason than to validate/dismiss the armageddonesque adds I am seeing right now how Romney is going to make the "middle class" pay 2,000 more.

But the way you presented it felt a lot more like a pissy little dig.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My point was that Romney does not know who does or does not pay income taxes in this country. And he does not know which of that group are likely voting for him or what demographics make up the afore mentioned group.

I find this astonishing. Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was conflating two different thoughts and numbers (47% being Obama's base, 48%-49% non-income tax payers) he's still comes out cluless on tax policy. So maybe he's not just withholding the details because he doesn't want to lose potential votes, perhaps he really doesn't know what to do yet.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Utrecht wrote:
So, your point was about Obama's tax policy vs. Romney's tax policy? That is certainly a viable discussion topic - and I agree, I would like to understand more deeply what Romney's plan is. If for no other reason than to validate/dismiss the armageddonesque adds I am seeing right now how Romney is going to make the "middle class" pay 2,000 more.

But the way you presented it felt a lot more like a pissy little dig.


Complaining about pissy little digs in this election is like complaining about stepping in a puddle during a hurricane.
4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
My point was that Romney does not know who does or does not pay income taxes in this country. And he does not know which of that group are likely voting for him or what demographics make up the afore mentioned group.

I find this astonishing. Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was conflating two different thoughts and numbers (47% being Obama's base, 48%-49% non-income tax payers) he's still comes out cluless on tax policy. So maybe he's not just withholding the details because he doesn't want to lose potential votes, perhaps he really doesn't know what to do yet.


I think this is a ridiculous assertion. I am almost certain that Romney knows who pays income taxes in this country. He was telling people who paid $50,000 to eat dinner in the same room with him what they wanted to hear -- it was a sales job to promote fundraising.

There is a reason that fundraisers are conducted in private. I believe CBS ran a nice report on the ridiculous security and screening for cellphones and recording devices that happened at the President's fundraiser with Jay-z. They wouldn't even let photographs of the event be released, probably because it was extremely lavish.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
We will bury you
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:
Complaining about pissy little digs in this election is like complaining about stepping in a puddle during a hurricane.


I was not complaining about the "pissy little dig" - but trying to understand the point of J's post. He has a legitimate discussion around what is Romney's tax plan - but that was no where to be seen in his initial post.

because, ultimately - the post is another variation of "Romeny is an incompetent poopy head"
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Utrecht wrote:
Shadrach wrote:
Complaining about pissy little digs in this election is like complaining about stepping in a puddle during a hurricane.


I was not complaining about the "pissy little dig" - but trying to understand the point of J's post. He has a legitimate discussion around what is Romney's tax plan - but that was no where to be seen in his initial post.

because, ultimately - the post is another variation of "Romeny is an incompetent poopy head"


And he's a M-O-R-M-O-N!!!!

Which, according to fellow Mormon Harry Reid means he either becomes liberal progressive poopy head or he has sullied their religion.

Bad Romney. Bad poopy head.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
Quote:
The Tax Policy Center estimates that 4,000 households with incomes over $1 million ended up with zero federal income tax liability in 2011. Another 14,000 made between $500,000 and $1 million.


Poor guys, I guess they think they are victims and dependent on the government. At least they will be voting for Obama.


Was looking for the link to your quote and came across this from The Tax Foundation, where they show Romney pays a greater effective tax rate than 97% of the population

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/even-14-romney-pays-higher-rat...

3 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hewre's the link with the quote I used in the OP.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
they show Romney pays a greater effective tax rate than 97% of the population

Had Romney's 2011 return been private, he would likely have claimed his full deduction and had an effective rate of 9%. I assume this since he has said previously that people that pay more than they are legally obligated are basically idiots (paraphrasing here).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
jmilum wrote:
Quote:
The Tax Policy Center estimates that 4,000 households with incomes over $1 million ended up with zero federal income tax liability in 2011. Another 14,000 made between $500,000 and $1 million.


Poor guys, I guess they think they are victims and dependent on the government. At least they will be voting for Obama.


Was looking for the link to your quote and came across this from The Tax Foundation, where they show Romney pays a greater effective Federal Income tax rate than 97% of the population

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/even-14-romney-pays-higher-rat...


FTFY.

It really is absurd to treat FICA, for example, as though it isn't a federal income tax just because it goes to fund a particular program. If everyone had to pay a dedicated income-based tax that paid for the Defense Department budget would that also get excluded when people talk about who is and who isn't paying taxes?

Also, while Romney's federal income tax rate is slightly higher than the average for families making between $100K and $200K, it's notably lower than the average family making between $200K and $500K. The headlines may make it seem worse than it is, but clearly the way our tax system treats private equity income has been a massive windfall for Romney.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad_Ellis wrote:
SpaceGhost wrote:
jmilum wrote:
Quote:
The Tax Policy Center estimates that 4,000 households with incomes over $1 million ended up with zero federal income tax liability in 2011. Another 14,000 made between $500,000 and $1 million.


Poor guys, I guess they think they are victims and dependent on the government. At least they will be voting for Obama.


Was looking for the link to your quote and came across this from The Tax Foundation, where they show Romney pays a greater effective Federal Income tax rate than 97% of the population

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/even-14-romney-pays-higher-rat...


FTFY.

It really is absurd to treat FICA, for example, as though it isn't a federal income tax just because it goes to fund a particular program. If everyone had to pay a dedicated income-based tax that paid for the Defense Department budget would that also get excluded when people talk about who is and who isn't paying taxes?

Also, while Romney's federal income tax rate is slightly higher than the average for families making between $100K and $200K, it's notably lower than the average family making between $200K and $500K. The headlines may make it seem worse than it is, but clearly the way our tax system treats private equity income has been a massive windfall for Romney.


I don't disagree -- I would love to see the complete revamping of the tax code. I also think that FICA should be applied to all income, private equity or not (namely, the GOP argument about broadening the tax base should apply to both the number of people paying taxes and the amount of income eligible to be taxed); likely be able to reduce the rate across the board that way.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
SpaceGhost wrote:
they show Romney pays a greater effective tax rate than 97% of the population

Had Romney's 2011 return been private, he would likely have claimed his full deduction and had an effective rate of 9%. I assume this since he has said previously that people that pay more than they are legally obligated are basically idiots (paraphrasing here).


Yes, the better answer would be for Romney just to not have donated to charity so this ridiculous attack would have no legs.....just silly.

Did you also hear that President Obama said that his presidency should just be a one-term proposition if he hadn't fixed the economy in three years.

Looks like they both will have to drop out and we get Biden vs. Ryan.
3 
 Thumb up
0.06
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
Did you also hear that President Obama said that his presidency should just be a one-term proposition if he hadn't fixed the economy in three years.

Actually that's not what he said. You aren't going to start doing that crap now are you?

The President was responding to questions about TARP and whether it would be worth the estimated $700B cost

Quote:
“At some point will you say, ‘Wait a minute, we’ve spent this amount of money. We’re not seeing the results. We’ve got to change course dramatically?’” Lauer asked Obama.

“Look, I’m at the start of my administration. One nice thing about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. You know, I’ve got four years. And, you know, a year from now I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress,” Obama said. “But there’s still going to be some pain out there. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”


The CBO had this to say about the outcome of TARP:

Quote:
When the TARP was created, the U.S. financial system was in a precarious condition, and the transactions envisioned and ultimately undertaken engendered substantial financial risk for the federal government. The costs directly associated with the TARP, when taken in isolation, have come out toward the low end of the range of possible outcomes anticipated when the program was launched; however, funds invested, loaned, or granted to participating institutions through the Federal Reserve and other government entities helped limit those costs. As a result, only $432 billion will be disbursed through the TARP, CBO estimates, well below the $700 billion initially authorized. Overall, the outcomes of most transactions made through the TARP were favorable for the federal government.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
SpaceGhost wrote:
Did you also hear that President Obama said that his presidency should just be a one-term proposition if he hadn't fixed the economy in three years.

Actually that's not what he said. You aren't going to start doing that crap now are you?

The President was responding to questions about TARP and whether it would be worth the estimated $700B cost

Quote:
“At some point will you say, ‘Wait a minute, we’ve spent this amount of money. We’re not seeing the results. We’ve got to change course dramatically?’” Lauer asked Obama.

“Look, I’m at the start of my administration. One nice thing about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. You know, I’ve got four years. And, you know, a year from now I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress,” Obama said. “But there’s still going to be some pain out there. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”


The CBO had this to say about the outcome of TARP:

Quote:
When the TARP was created, the U.S. financial system was in a precarious condition, and the transactions envisioned and ultimately undertaken engendered substantial financial risk for the federal government. The costs directly associated with the TARP, when taken in isolation, have come out toward the low end of the range of possible outcomes anticipated when the program was launched; however, funds invested, loaned, or granted to participating institutions through the Federal Reserve and other government entities helped limit those costs. As a result, only $432 billion will be disbursed through the TARP, CBO estimates, well below the $700 billion initially authorized. Overall, the outcomes of most transactions made through the TARP were favorable for the federal government.


The point is that they are both silly things for candidates to say.

I think that "done in three years" is quite open to interpretation. If he doesn't have what done in three years? What are the results? I don't think "not losing money" on TARP was the metric he was talking about. Now if we want to parse Obama's quote to be precisely referring to TARP being a good return on investment in terms of being net positive, then we have to take into account that Romney's quote was clearly in the past tense and did not refer to taxes he had not yet formally filed....you really can't have it both ways.

I think he meant we would see improvement in the economy, and whether we have or not is open for debate. For instance, an analysis released to do shows that median income is down and still trending down.

http://www.sentierresearch.com/reports/Sentier_Household_Inc...


Also, your quote from the CBO doesn't even tell us if it was a "net gain" or "net loss". Oh, you find it on this page

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43138

Looks like it is going to cost taxpayers $32 billion.

Also, that is the same interview where he reiterates his promise to close GITMO.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
then we have to take into account that Romney's quote was clearly in the past tense and did not refer to taxes he had not yet formally filed....you really can't have it both ways.

If you want to do that then we can keep going at this forever:

Romney wrote:
I did go back and look at my taxes, and over the past 10 years I never paid less than 13 percent

So he had originally said he had paid 13% over the last 10 years. Why did he need to fudge the tax return for 2011, which he had not yet paid to make this quote match up?

Why does this have to be a tit-for-tat game all the time? Isn't that just the "Bush did it too" meme?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Honestly I think Romney should have taken the full amount of his charitable deduction. His assertion that he hadn't paid less than 13% over the last 10 years would have still been correct and he would not have been against paying more than legally have to statement.

What that shows is that his campaign is aware that the tax issue *is* an issue with the american voters and his tax rate *could* cost him votes. If that's true, then he should address that honestly, rather than doing something oddly like not taking a full deduction.
2 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
SpaceGhost wrote:
then we have to take into account that Romney's quote was clearly in the past tense and did not refer to taxes he had not yet formally filed....you really can't have it both ways.

If you want to do that then we can keep going at this forever:

Romney wrote:
I did go back and look at my taxes, and over the past 10 years I never paid less than 13 percent

So he had originally said he had paid 13% over the last 10 years. Why did he need to fudge the tax return for 2011, which he had not yet paid to make this quote match up?

Why does this have to be a tit-for-tat game all the time? Isn't that just the "Bush did it too" meme?


It isn't a tit-for-tat, I just think that you are making a big deal out of something that is inconsequential. And you have repeatedly posted it several threads like it is some "gotcha" about Romney.

It is a weird world when someone cares that someone didn't claim all of their deductions on a charitable contribution that was the equivalent of 30% of their income. Shit, he donated like $10,000/day. So he if he takes the full deduction then the left becomes unhinged because he paid 9% instead of 13% and it would be focusing on the wrong stuff again. Everyone knows he did it for political purposes....just like Obama's charitable donations are up this year. Especially like Biden's % of charitable donations are up this year. Who cares.

The problem speaks to one of the tax code in general, not Romney's personal taxes. Hopefully, we will hear how he wants to reform it and what loophole he imagines cutting. But being mum on this is no different to me than Obama claiming he is only going to raise taxes on those over $250,000. Nothing is going to get solved without pain on the middle-class.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:


What that shows is that his campaign is aware that the tax issue *is* an issue with the american voters and his tax rate *could* cost him votes. If that's true, then he should address that honestly, rather than doing something oddly like not taking a full deduction.



I agree with this. He would be an unbeatable candidate if he said, "Look, my tax returns are ridiculous. I only paid 9%. Look how much money I make a year. We need a reform so this isn't possible".

I would be open to numerous types of reform, all the way from a flat tax on all income to a consumption tax (with appropriate tiers to maintain progressivity). At the same time, I think that every citizen should have a minimum Federal Income Tax...even if it is something like 1%.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Lemme get this straight. According to noted RSP Romney-hater, Jeremy Milum, The fact that Mitt Romney paid taxes on his income and donated millions to charity makes him a bad choice for president?

Once you remove all the sniping, dross, chaff and silliness, that's pretty much what Milum thinks. Makes me wonder what he considers a good president. Cause it certainly cannot possibly be Obama, who also pays his taxes and donates to charity.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Snowball
Belgium
n/a
flag msg tools
badge
Gender: pot*ato. My opinion is an opinion.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
I don't disagree -- I would love to see the complete revamping of the tax code. I also think that FICA should be applied to all income, private equity or not (namely, the GOP argument about broadening the tax base should apply to both the number of people paying taxes and the amount of income eligible to be taxed); likely be able to reduce the rate across the board that way.


You do realize that by suggesting this you'll be blackballed from the GOP, right?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
So he if he takes the full deduction then the left becomes unhinged because he paid 9% instead of 13% and it would be focusing on the wrong stuff again.


I agree with a great deal that you said, but this raises my eyebrows. While it's certainly reasonable and appropriate to debate what an appropriate tax structure looks like, it seems incongruous that our (theoretically progressive) system permits Mr. Romney to pay a Federal Income tax rate that is about 70-75% of what I paid in the same year. While I respect the idea that we can and should discuss lots of reforms, this seems to go right to the heart of an argument regarding fairness.

If the burden of taxation is supposed to be shouldered more equally (which is a big part of the GOP's "broadening the base" argument), then there's no way that Mr. Romney carried his proportion of the burden compared to a middle-class schlub like me. And this fact does make it legitimate to ask what tax policy Mr. Romney would advocate for when we're talking about the 47% of people that didn't pay any federal income taxes (and most of those due to programs like the EITC which is the GOP introduced and expanded to "reward work") as the people that aren't carrying their portion of the burden. Particularly when they conveniently leave out FICA & Medicare contributions (which would further lower Mr. Romney's effective rate compared to mine).

I agree that his tax rate gets too much press "just for what it is." But it also exposes a particular view of taxation that is worthy of discussion. If it's "fair" for me to be paying 17% in federal income taxes and then pay my payroll taxes, too, then what Mr. Romney (and others in his situation) paid certainly does not seem fair. And that's before we look at the way he gets to his AGI for tax purposes (I have not looked, but I'll bet there's lots of deductions you wouldn't find on my return or the returns of many other middle-class individuals).

There is a valid discussion point here. ETA: Particularly when his policy positions would appear to be advocating to lower his nominal tax rate further with very hazy details on the deductions/loopholes that would be closed to compensate.
2 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.