Romney/Ryan 2012
Display Avatars Sort By:
jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Big hat ... no cattle on 09/06/2012 13:24:20 MDT Print View

"I still don't get this mentality."

It's called Cognitive Dissonance.

You just can't process information that's inconsistent with your beliefs.

The big banks failed after Glass-Steagal was undone. Fewer regulations - they took bigger risks to make more money - then the whole thing collapsed and some of them went bankrupt.

Re-instate Glass Steagal and we'll have many years without banks failing.

The super-rich should pay 40% tax like Brad. They wouldn't earn income without the services paid for by taxes. Now, they're getting those services without paying for them. Free-loading. Entitlement.

What is super rich? $1 million a year? Obama talked about increasing taxes on income above $250K - that's probably fair. It's only on income above $250K so you'de have to make much more than that to have a large effect.

Corporate tax rate is 35% but they have paid for so many loop-holes that no one pays that. GE, Exxon, and Mobil have paid no tax in some recent years. They may pay a little in some years?

jeffrey armbruster
(book) - M

Locale: Northern California
"Romney/Ryan 2012" on 09/06/2012 13:30:19 MDT Print View

I can't resist: big +1 on reinstating Glass-Steagall (sp?).! Come on! When you get lost in the woods the first thing that you do is retrace your steps to the trail. Then you continue. Glass-Steagall worked for 75 years. It was greedy wall streeters that saw to its--and many of their own--demise.

Edited by book on 09/06/2012 13:30:49 MDT.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: taxes on 09/06/2012 13:40:23 MDT Print View

Yet another very interesting blog post, with a few charts: http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/deficits-debts-democrats-vs-republicans-us-national-debt-graphs-year-president/

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: taxes on 09/06/2012 13:44:39 MDT Print View

Rick said "I have some unearned income. I paid regular income taxes on the money i invested and the income I get from that already taxed money gets a favorable rate. It's the same for anybody with rentals or a mutual fund or whatever."

The "already taxed" argument is bogus. Earned income was already taxed multiple times as it went through the economy. Unearned income is derived from businesses that use the services provided by the government so it's fair you pay for these services.

I too, occasionally have unearned income. Like I claimed $70K of capital gains one year, my only income, and paid 1/2% of income as federal tax. That was a bill that Obama pushed through by the way. That is totally bogus - I should be paying 30% or 40% like anyone else.

But there's an evil genious to this

Us middle income people occasionally get a small capital gain tax break like this. Then we are so thrilled that we think this is a good thing. But we get only a "few pennies". The "big bucks" are made by the super-rich.

They are taking advantage of our emotional greed and we are to lazy to analyze this carefully.

obx hiker
(obxcola) - MLife

Locale: Outer Banks of North Carolina
Doug's Charts on 09/06/2012 13:48:05 MDT Print View

one interesting part of the second chart is the huge spike in debt under FDR during the early 1940's necessitated obviously by WW2 which has been described as (incidentally vs intentionally) the greatest stimulus program in history.

Brad Fisher
(wufpackfn)

Locale: NC/TN/VA Mountains
Re: "Romney/Ryan 2012" on 09/06/2012 13:49:00 MDT Print View

I will also big +1 Glass-Steagall.

Brad

Ben Crocker
(alexdrewreed) - M

Locale: Kentucky
Taxes are low on 09/06/2012 13:53:11 MDT Print View

Nobody wants to believe this, so it probably is true. That's because none of us likes to pay taxes.

So many discussions of politics these days start from the assumption that we have high taxes on the wealthy. Not true.

Do a quick google search of marginal tax rates over the years. Look at lots of different sources. We are in a time of historically VERY low marginal tax rates. Capital gains rates are historically low too. Even corporate rates are low. We can come to different conclusions on policy but we should start with the understanding that we are living through an era of VERY low tax rates, especially on the wealthy, that have not been seen since before the depression.

Edited by alexdrewreed on 09/06/2012 14:23:10 MDT.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
$250M=super rich on 09/06/2012 13:53:44 MDT Print View

Jerry

"The super-rich should pay 40% tax like Brad. They wouldn't earn income without the services paid for by taxes. Now, they're getting those services without paying for them. Free-loading. Entitlement."

Would you then be in favor a dividend / cap gains tax of 40%? You know, super rich investment income.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: "Romney/Ryan 2012" on 09/06/2012 14:01:14 MDT Print View

Vanguard Mutual Fund sends me junk-mail articles like this https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/article/red-ink-092012 by David Wessel, economics editor of The Wall Street Journal.

His explanation of how we went from U.S. federal surplus to deficit is just like I've been saying. Vanguard, David Wessel, and the Wall Street Journal have to be more conservative than liberal:


"First, the economy did a lot worse than anybody expected; the housing bubble burst; we had the financial crisis; we had a big recession. That cut the income to the government and made them spend more on various benefits like unemployment.

Second, Congress cut taxes repeatedly, and so there was less revenue than we had anticipated at the beginning of the 2000s.

Third, the government spent more—a lot more. A couple wars, expansion of Medicare, the bank bailouts. And so, when you have less revenue coming in, you cut taxes, and you spend more than you had projected, you end up with a deficit.

If you have a deficit, you have to pay more interest, so the fourth leg was more interest payments."


Notice he didn't mention any programs that Obama put through like Obama-care - which (arguably?) is budget neutral.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: $250M=super rich on 09/06/2012 14:06:34 MDT Print View

"Would you then be in favor a dividend / cap gains tax of 40%? You know, super rich investment income."

Sure

40% tax on all income over $250K

What was the rate during Clinton? Maybe a little less. The economy did quite well then.

and $250,000 a year is not super-rich. Maybe $1,000,000 per year? But if you tax income above $250,000 a little higher, then someone that made $251,000 would only pay higher tax on the small amount over $250,000 so would be little effected. Super-rich would pay most of their income at higher rate.

Brad Fisher
(wufpackfn)

Locale: NC/TN/VA Mountains
Re: Re: $250M=super rich on 09/06/2012 14:11:38 MDT Print View

So 40% federal and then another 5-10% for state taxes (not all states have a tax). That seems a little too high. But just my two cents.

brad

Rick Adams
(rickadams100) - M
40% on 09/06/2012 14:28:50 MDT Print View

In California, with a modest house, two kids going to college soon, and saving for retirement (we'll be means tested out of SS and maybe Medicare), 250 doesn't get it done. How about 20 ish% on all, first whatever excluded for all, and stop the class warfare. If the feds can't live within 20% cut some programs, or a little from all.
Raise or lower taxes on all instead of the constant pandering for votes on both sides.

The current attitude in this country is one of resentment of the wealthy. I don't resent them, I want to be them. The current discourse from the Dems is that to be well off you must have done it on the back of someone else.

I have met with my fed, state and local elected officials. May as well be talking to martians. To a man (or woman) the are shortsighted and do not even hear words that don't agree with there own. They will bankrupt us and our children.

Obama doesn't understand leadership well enough to grow the economy in a healthy way and raise taxes without demonizing those that disagree with him. He is not much of a leader, more like an agitator.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Cognitive common sense on 09/06/2012 14:51:32 MDT Print View

Jerry

40% tax on all income over $250K

I was thinking more like 10% and a post card size tax return. To show I have a heart, I will throw in a poverty exemption. No more federal this and that hidden taxes like fuel taxes that nobody thinks about. No more witholding. Everyone writes one big check a year so they can really see what the government is taking out of their pockets.

Or consumption tax suits me and it would be sneakier. The financial house will never be in order until the spending is checked. Good luck with that.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Cognitive common sense on 09/06/2012 15:01:34 MDT Print View

Brad - I agree - maybe 40% a little high

Fred - I agree - postage stamp return would be best - one check a year so you'de know how much you paid - except people would forget to save so automatic payment from each paycheck would be better but you would still see how much you were paying.

Consumption tax or sales tax? Those obscure what you're paying and are regressive

You would have to make the return bigger to include deduction for charitable contributions? What about recapture of depreciation? If someone's taking deprectiation now they should have to pay tax when they sell it. etc. So it can't be a postage stamp but it could be much simpler.

Why is it that neither Rs or Ds do anything about making laws simpler?

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: 40% on 09/06/2012 15:09:47 MDT Print View

"Raise or lower taxes on all instead of the constant pandering for votes on both sides"

In order to get elected you need political contributions. Until we publically finance elections and prohibit large contributions, pandering will continue.


"The current attitude in this country is one of resentment of the wealthy. I don't resent them, I want to be them. The current discourse from the Dems is that to be well off you must have done it on the back of someone else."

I just want super-rich to quit buying our government and screwing everything up. I don't resent them.


"Obama doesn't understand leadership well enough to grow the economy in a healthy way and raise taxes without demonizing those that disagree with him."

I think the demonizing is being done against Obama. Obama just wants the Bush tax cuts to end and wants the "Buffet Rule" that above $250,000 you pay %35.

I think your opinions are being influenced by the barage of propoganda by the right.

Michael L
(mpl_35) - MLife

Locale: The Palouse
Re: Taxes are low on 09/06/2012 15:47:05 MDT Print View

"Nobody wants to believe this, so it probably is true. That's because none of us likes to pay taxes.

So many discussions of politics these days start from the assumption that we have high taxes on the wealthy. Not true.

Do a quick google search of marginal tax rates over the years. Look at lots of different sources. We are in a time of historically VERY low marginal tax rates. Capital gains rates are historically low too. Even corporate rates are low. We can come to different conclusions on policy but we should start with the understanding that we are living through an era of VERY low tax rates, especially on the wealthy, that have not been seen since before the depression."


But unfortunately you can't just check the marginal rates. Too many loopholes and writeoffs that changed over time. So you have to take a much deeper look to get to the real rates.

Rick Adams
(rickadams100) - M
40% on 09/06/2012 15:47:49 MDT Print View

Jerry, despite the shared last name you have no idea where my beliefs come from. Just because someone has a different view than yours it does not make them a victim of right wing propaganda, no more than you are the victim of left wing propaganda.

Fred- your are right about the need for people to write a check to pay for our government. You really don't understand the burden of our government until you clean out the checking account for uncle sam. Automatic withholding simply numbs the masses. Sure it's harder for the average joe, that's the point. Many of my employees don't have any concept about real wages, simply take home pay.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Uproared on 09/06/2012 16:16:20 MDT Print View

Rick

A friend of mine told me 20 years ago. If Americans had to write a check for their taxes, all of them, the torches and pitchforks would come out of the closet.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: 40% on 09/06/2012 16:26:17 MDT Print View

Of course I'm being a little playful, Rick with the same last name : )

But if you really think that Obama is demonizing the Rs, you can not be thinking clearly.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Taxes are low on 09/06/2012 16:30:15 MDT Print View

"But unfortunately you can't just check the marginal rates. Too many loopholes and writeoffs that changed over time. So you have to take a much deeper look to get to the real rates."

Two rich people have revealed their tax rate - Romney between 13% and 15% - Obama was something like 15%.

I'm too lazy to look up recent articles that document how the top 5000 (?) familes pay about 15%.

Just logic it through - capital gains rate is 15% - super rich have all this accumulated wealth and will structure it to get income at 15% tax rate