hrothgar Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 > And the idea that most Wall Streeters are solid, straight-ticket Democrats is laughable. Really? I was speculating; you are asserting. Where's the data to back up your assertion? Connecticutt? Manhattan? (You might pick up Long Island...) You think there all the very wealthy Dems are hot to pay more taxes? Red State Blue State by Andrew Gelman is the standard reference: Here is a simple summary of some of his findings:Attempting to explain 'why Americans vote the way they do,' Gelman and a group of fellow political scientists crunch numbers and draw graphs, arriving at a picture that refutes the influential one drawn by Thomas Frank, in What's the Matter with Kansas?, of poor red-staters voting Republican against their economic interests. Instead, Gelman persuasively argues, the poor in both red states and blue still mostly vote Democratic, and the rich, nationally speaking, overwhelmingly vote Republican.(Leo Carey The New Yorker ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 If you accept that deficits (at least sometimes) matter and the federal government should do at least a little bit, then someone has to pay taxes. The Democrats' position on taxes is that the wealthiest individuals and corporations have benefitted the most from our country and can most easily afford to pay, and thus that they should pay a larger percentage of their income in tax. Democrats tend to support proposals which reduce taxes for low and middle-income taxpayers; for example Obama put in a temporary payroll tax cut, has cut small business taxes some large number of times, and wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for incomes under 250K. Democrats object to tax structures where high incomes pay a lower percent in tax than low incomes (see the "Buffett rule") and generally see raising taxes on high incomes as a way to increase revenues and move gradually towards a balanced budget (for example, Obama used a tax on the wealthy to fund the Affordable Care Act, and wants to revert to Clinton-era tax rates on incomes over 250K). The Republicans' position is that tax rates should be more egalitarian. They claim that higher taxes on the wealthy discourage success and hurt economic growth, as well as being fundamentally unfair. They want to reduce or eliminate the estate tax (part of Romney's plan), capital gains taxes (part of Paul Ryan's budget, but Romney has backed off on this probably due to the effect on his personal tax rates), and the federal income tax (Romney proposes a 20% rate cut). They have at times supported a flat tax (excluding capital gains, of course), or replacing the income tax entirely with a consumption tax. All of these would have the effect of decreasing the tax rate paid by the highest incomes while having much less benefit (or even raising taxes, in the last two cases) on lower incomes. In fact, Republicans have complained repeatedly about the "lucky duckies" (mostly very low income) who pay no federal income tax (see Romney's much-maligned 47% remarks for a recent example, but there are many such statements by party leaders). Republicans also opposed Obama's payroll tax cut (which helps mostly low-income working people) despite their generally being the "party of lower taxes." One point worth mentioning is that it can't "always be right to cut taxes" or "always be right to raise taxes on high incomes." There must be a balancing point somewhere, and it's perfectly sensible for Democrats to say that a 90% tax rate on top incomes (as it was prior to Kennedy's tax cuts) was ridiculous and that lowering that rate was a good idea, whereas a 40% tax rate on high incomes (as it was in the Clinton years) is perfectly reasonable and lowering it to 35% was a bad idea. I do wonder at which rates (if any) current Republican leadership would draw the line and say that raising taxes is reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 If the Republican Party has any plans to make me rich, I missed the press release. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 It would seem their current plan is to cut rates but redefine earned and taxable income. In other words cut taxes but change what they tax. Unclear why. What I dont hear is they want to cut taxes so the people who make the money get to keep more of it and the government gets less of it. The reason being is the belief those people will make better decisions than the govt can ever make. I suppose one counter argument is we tried that and see the mess we are in. Lets give govt the chance now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) A variant: Do we really want to change the tax code to make charitable contributions no longer deductible? My wife does some free tutoring. Should she pay taxes on the money she could have charged? I really don't get this.Yes, I'd like to change the tax code to make charitable contributions no longer deductible. If you want to make charitable contributions, you should do so with your post-tax dollars. Since we are talking about the income tax code, if your wife has no income (monetary or otherwise) from her tutoring, there is no income tax. Edited October 9, 2012 by Bbradley62 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Yes, I'd like to change the tax code to make charitable contributions no longer deductible. If you want to make charitable contributions, you should do so with your own post-tax dollars. i will give it further thought. Still, it's my view that if Romney used existing tax laws to deduct all of his charitable giving from his gross income, I believe there would be very few voters, zero is my guess, who would say "I was going to vote for Romney but I was just shocked to see him reduce his income tax by giving large sums to charity, so now I am going to vote for Obama". I just cannot visualize this hypothetical voter. I suppose, on reflection, I do have concerns about the government saying "If you give money here, that's a charity but if you give money there, that's not a charity". It's true that just saying pay your taxes first then give your money to whomever you wish solves that problem. Actually I have thought the same way about property taxes and churches. Property is property, and property gets taxed. Whether the usage of that property qualifies it as being a church or not is not for the government to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lalldonn Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Still, it's my view that if Romney used existing tax laws to deduct all of his charitable giving from his gross income, I believe there would be very few voters, zero is my guess, who would say "I was going to vote for Romney but I was just shocked to see him reduce his income tax by giving large sums to charity, so now I am going to vote for Obama". I just cannot visualize this hypothetical voter. But if Romney took more charitable deductions and paid (say) 12% of his income in taxes instead of 14%, it would give more fuel to the Democratic argument that both he, and wealthy people in general, don't pay a large enough percentage of their income in taxes. That could potentially sway some voters, even subconsciously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 There is the other issue beside charitable deductions and that is making the person who receives income in the form of charity or a gift pays the tax. yes, you can have income but no money. This is just another example of redefining taxable or earned income. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 But if Romney took more charitable deductions and paid (say) 12% of his income in taxes instead of 14%, it would give more fuel to the Democratic argument that both he, and wealthy people in general, don't pay a large enough percentage of their income in taxes. That could potentially sway some voters, even subconsciously. Good point. How much is fair and just that Poster A takes from Poster B and gives to Poster C?It seems that is a good point and issue in this election. Good example of what is a fair and just amount of money, whether Romney should get to keep the money and decide where it goes or raise taxes so the govt decides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 yeah, the usa could stop charitable deductions i guess... it depends on how much one values such donations, because they'd sure drop way the hell off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted October 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 yeah, the usa could stop charitable deductions i guess... it depends on how much one values such donations, because they'd sure drop way the hell offI suspect that there will be resistance to eliminating any of the deductions and exemptions that taxpayers enjoy today. Yet even if Romney eliminates 100% of the deductions currently available, that will not in itself pay for a 20% across the board tax cut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 But if Romney took more charitable deductions and paid (say) 12% of his income in taxes instead of 14%, it would give more fuel to the Democratic argument that both he, and wealthy people in general, don't pay a large enough percentage of their income in taxes. That could potentially sway some voters, even subconsciously. I guess some would feel that way, but if he made, say, 100 million, gave half of it away, and paid, say, $10m in taxes, I think I would see it as having $40m left after charity and taxes. That's just me, I guess. Some would say he got away with only paying 10% in taxes. I would say he gave away 50% to charity and paid 20% on what was left. At any rate, I would definitely see it as a whole different thing from someone who made $100m, somehow managed to pay only $10m in taxes, and kept the other $90 m for himself. In this latter case, I would not blame him heavily if his maneuvers were within the law, but I would certainly suggest revisiting the law. In the first case scenario I would also feel that only $10m tax on $50m is still something we might want to address, but I wouldn't worry much about the tsaxable $100m being reduced to $50m because he gave heavily to charity. Something we can all have an opinion on, I don't really see a way of changing anyone's mind, except I do see some issue with having the government decide what qualifies as a charity and what doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 I suspect that there will be resistance to eliminating any of the deductions and exemptions that taxpayers enjoy today. Yet even if Romney eliminates 100% of the deductions currently available, that will not in itself pay for a 20% across the board tax cut.compute that again, this time w/ the economy growing @ 3% rather than 1.3%... then try it @ 4%, up to 6% or so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 compute that again, this time w/ the economy growing @ 3% rather than 1.3%... then try it @ 4%, up to 6% or so Jimmy, is your theory that if you reduce taxrates 20% and reduce regulations but broaden the definition of taxable income this will somehow lead to an increase in GDP? Would you still advocate this even if it might not affect GDP? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 9, 2012 Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 it's my theory that if 3+M jobs a year is created, *that* will increase gdp... also, 3+M jobs (imo) can't be created unless the economic picture improves for the businesses that create them, meaning that tax/regulation policies must make it more attractive for businesses to start getting off some of their money... none of these things are stand-alone on a sidenote, a new battleground poll shows romney now has a 16% lead in independents, and a 13% lead in enthusiasm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted October 9, 2012 Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 Nate was on Piers last night. He's moved his prediction 10 points in the last week and Pew shows Romney ahead in the popular vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 9, 2012 Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 Nate was on Piers last night. He's moved his prediction 10 points in the last week and Pew shows Romney ahead in the popular vote.In the 11 swing states, Mitt Romney earns 49% support to Obamas 47%. One percent (1%) likes another candidate, and three percent (3%) are undecided. from Rasmussen also, AARP and Big Bird tell Obama campaign to leave them out of his talking points Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 9, 2012 Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 the thurs debate won't be as easy as some think, imo... biden isn't defenseless... his main weakness comes from the fact that he was put in charge (2009 i think) of obama's "middle class" strategy, the same middle class he said has been "buried" under obama... his gaffes don't help, but aren't fatal - assuming he doesn't make any more thurs nite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted October 9, 2012 Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 Nate was on Piers last night. He's moved his prediction 10 points in the last week and Pew shows Romney ahead in the popular vote.Since you think Romney is going to win, I am sure you have made an intrade account and bought his shares? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted October 9, 2012 Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 Since you think Romney is going to win, I am sure you have made an intrade account and bought his shares? Of course not. When did I say he was going to win? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 10, 2012 Report Share Posted October 10, 2012 Of course not. When did I say he was going to win?nobody has, though some seem to think obama will.. some have even placed bets on it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted October 10, 2012 Report Share Posted October 10, 2012 296 to 241 If 538 is right this has come down to a race for Ohio-18 and Virginia-13.-- The Suffolk University Political Research Center has determined Mitt Romney is a lock to win the battleground states of Florida, Virginia and North Carolina and will not conduct additional polls there during the final four weeks of the presidential election - It would be interesting if Ohio becomes this years Fla with hanging chads but Nate has Ohio as an easy win at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 10, 2012 Report Share Posted October 10, 2012 i've heard everything from an obama squeaker to a romney landslide... i heard the same as you re: ohio - romney something like 54% on election day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted October 10, 2012 Report Share Posted October 10, 2012 Nate has the President winning the states, Jimmy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted October 10, 2012 Report Share Posted October 10, 2012 The Suffolk University Political Research Center has determined Mitt Romney is a lock to win the battleground states of Florida, Virginia and North Carolina and will not conduct additional polls there during the final four weeks of the presidential election Seems like a strange decision... Suffolks own polls had Obama up in those States before the debate. If one event can swing the polls that much, it seems strange to assume that there won't be another Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.