Romney Will Explode the Debt By Trillions

[Francesca R]

That argument is founded on equalising the utility loss of the tax itself to the taxpayer herself, across individuals. There is nothing logically wrong with it.

It is nothing to do with the cost to the state of supporting the wealthy though, or any of the reasons that were given and that I challenged.

 

[Corsair 115]

Or as easily argue that lack of job creation and demand for labor was the problem.

And that's precisely the point. It is nonsensical for Neally to argue as he did that on the basis of his quoted statistic it makes his argument of an unfair tax burden ironclad and beyond reproach. It would be just as silly to take the CBO statistic I cited and claim that as definitive proof taxation is not progressive enough.

It is foolish to take a slim slice of statistics from a much larger pie and then try to pass off those portions as being absolute proof of something. A reasonable person would recognize that tiny pieces of a much greater whole are clearly not going to be telling the whole story.

 

[Neally]

And that's precisely the point. It is nonsensical for Neally to argue as he did that on the basis of his quoted statistic it makes his argument of an unfair tax burden ironclad and beyond reproach.

Yet I didn't do that. Obviously the debate is open as to why or why not there should be a progressive or flat tax. What is not open to debate is that the wealthy already pay a disproportionate amount of federal income tax. The left is obsessed with increasing that disproportionate amount while at the same time crying about everyone paying their fair share.

 

[Biscuit]

Yet I didn't do that. Obviously the debate is open as to why or why not there should be a progressive or flat tax. What is not open to debate is that the wealthy already pay a disproportionate amount of federal income tax. The left is obsessed with increasing that disproportionate amount while at the same time crying about everyone paying their fair share.

When you include the people that can't, don't and already did you skew the proportions. That makes the wealthiest share look disproportionally larger than it actually is.

You are right, the homeless and unemployed don't pay enough in federal income tax but is your solution to get them jobs or increase their federal income tax burden?

Don't even get me started on how much we could tax those damn disabled people!

 

[RandFan]

Yet I didn't do that. Obviously the debate is open as to why or why not there should be a progressive or flat tax. What is not open to debate is that the wealthy already pay a disproportionate amount of federal income tax. The left is obsessed with increasing that disproportionate amount while at the same time crying about everyone paying their fair share.

I accept this. Though the point about being obsessed with increasing that disproportionate amount is just spin. They are obsessed with an adequate revenue stream. I think both sides would agree there is an upper and lower limit. The left believes we are significantly below that limit. The right believes we have not yet reached it.

 

[IchabodPlain]

That argument is founded on equalising the utility loss of the tax itself to the taxpayer herself, across individuals. There is nothing logically wrong with it.

It's the argument for progressive taxation that persuades me. The previous ones don't really make sense to me, or at least I feel I could lay out a reasonable case against them. The argument I gave, I don't really see the counterpoint (other than including a limiting principle to make it more of a complete thought).

It is nothing to do with the cost to the state of supporting the wealthy though, or any of the reasons that were given and that I challenged.

I wasn't defending lomiller or anyone else's points regarding the issue. Sorry if there was any confusion.

 

[Cain]

With all these arguments about Romney "exploding the debt," we need to keep in mind that he's going to have to clean up Obama's mess. And what a mess it is. He stands to inherit a struggling economy, deficits at near all-time highs, low tax collections, never-ending war, and a Republican Congress. It's not going to be easy for him to slash taxes and bomb Iran.

 

[lomiller]

It is nothing to do with the cost to the state of supporting the wealthy though, or any of the reasons that were given and that I challenged.

One again that argument was never given and as such no reasons were given to support it.

Nor have you really argued against it so much as asked (over, and over, and over) if that was the position being taken, presumably because that is what you wanted to argue against.

 

[Unabogie]

With all these arguments about Romney "exploding the debt," we need to keep in mind that he's going to have to clean up Obama's mess. And what a mess it is. He stands to inherit a struggling economy, deficits at near all-time highs, low tax collections, never-ending war, and a Republican Congress. It's not going to be easy for him to slash taxes and bomb Iran.

Actually, you'll notice that all the conservatives have neatly changed the subject to progressive taxation. Which sort of proves my point about them not really caring about the debt, because none of them want to discuss that Romney is proposing to add $5 trillion to it as his first official act.

 

[lomiller]

Actually, you'll notice that all the conservatives have neatly changed the subject to progressive taxation. Which sort of proves my point about them not really caring about the debt, because none of them want to discuss that Romney is proposing to add $5 trillion to it as his first official act.

IMO they just don't know where the money is spent so they really believe a few small cuts to what is actually the smallest part of the US budget will pay for the tax cuts. I.E. they think a trillion dollars of tax cuts can be balanced by a couple billion in spending cuts.

 

[Neally]

When you include the people that can't, don't and already did you skew the proportions. That makes the wealthiest share look disproportionally larger than it actually is.

Nothing is or needs to be skewed to make the disproportion look larger. The fact is that the wealthy pay a disproportionately larger share of federal income tax. The left wants to increase that proportion. I don't.

You are right, the homeless and unemployed don't pay enough in federal income tax but is your solution to get them jobs or increase their federal income tax burden?

If someone has no income, they haven't a worry about what the rates are. They haven't any federal income tax liability. No one is expecting them to pay a portion of something they don't have.

 

[Biscuit]

If someone has no income, they haven't a worry about what the rates are. They haven't any federal income tax liability. No one is expecting them to pay a portion of something they don't have.

But these people are included in your "50% of americans pay no taxes" meme.

 

[Cain]

Actually, you'll notice that all the conservatives have neatly changed the subject to progressive taxation. Which sort of proves my point about them not really caring about the debt, because none of them want to discuss that Romney is proposing to add $5 trillion to it as his first official act.

That's because he's going to cut government spending (just like Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Cheney).

 

[RandFan]

The left wants to increase that proportion. I don't.

The left wants society to meet its financial responsibilities and provide social services to the disadvantaged to ensure the health and welfare of everyone. You want to raise the taxes of the disadvantaged in order to make the rich richer.

Of course, what you fail to understand is that making the poor poorer will hurt everyone.

If someone has no income, they haven't a worry about what the rates are. They haven't any federal income tax liability. No one is expecting them to pay a portion of something they don't have.

Oh to be sooo lucky. I bet the rich spend so much of their time crying about the breaks of the disadvantaged.

I'm curious, do you honestly think that stating ad hominem, "it's unfair" without any acknowledgement that progressive taxation provides the best society for all people and that it is in the best interest of the rich will be compelling to anyone?

I guess so, here you are, repeating a pointless meme.

 

[Neally]

But these people are included in your "50% of americans pay no taxes" meme.

Of course they are, as are others that do have income but pay no taxes.

 

[RandFan]

Of course they are, as are others that do have income but pay no taxes.

And it's a silly to keep pointing out that they don't pay income taxes as if that has any relevance as they have little or no income! Bitching that there are people who don't pay income taxes is absurd in the light of the fact that A.) they either have no income or B.) they have little income. You in effect are crying on behalf of the wealthy while stigmatizing people who struggle to survive.

It's SOOOOOOOOOO unfair that the poor people get so many breaks. Someone needs to put a stop to it and ensure that people who have more money than they could ever possible spend or experience well being from have more.

Poor, poor rich people.

 

[Corsair 115]

And it's a silly to keep pointing out that they don't pay income taxes as if that has any relevance as they have little or no income! Bitching that there are people who don't pay income taxes is absurd in the light of the fact that A.) they either have no income or B.) they have little income. You in effect are crying on behalf of the wealthy while stigmatizing people who struggle to survive.

Or, as the CBO report I mentioned previously indicated, the after-tax income of the lowest quintile increased at a vastly slower rate than the after-tax income of the top 1%, and at a considerably slower rate than the top quintile, between 1979 and 2007. So one could argue that the fact that some aren't paying taxes hasn't done much to boost their after-tax income as compared to those at the top who have seen large gains in their after-tax income in spite of paying all those taxes.

 

[RandFan]

Or, as the CBO report I mentioned previously indicated, the after-tax income of the lowest quintile increased at a vastly slower rate than the after-tax income of the top 1%, and at a considerably slower rate than the top quintile, between 1979 and 2007. So one could argue that the fact that some aren't paying taxes hasn't done much to boost their after-tax income as compared to those at the top who have seen large gains in their after-tax income in spite of paying all those taxes.

It's so absurd as to bugger belief. It starts off on a principle of fairness. So narrow as to ignore all but the most blessed by good fortune. See, it's just not fair that the rich pay more. Never mind it's in their best interest. Never mind they started a game of monopoly with a pile of money on their side. But the idea that we need to make the poor suffer more so the rich can have more of what will not likely even provide them with any increased well being is absurd. It's unfair that most people are born disadvantaged and a privileged few are born with silver spoons in their mouths. We must weep at the great injustice that they might pay a greater proportion. God forbid. How my heart weeps.

Fairness only counts for those who already have an advantage. These, the rich who are in need of champions to fight and defend a few more percentage points to squander on yachts and jets. **** the rest. It's not as if we live in a society. It's not as if our well being is tied up in our fellow man.

 

[R.Mackey]

This may have been mentioned in another thread, but in case you haven't seen it:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/06/25/chart_gop_won_t_cut_the_deficit.html

In short, according to the Dartmouth study, the Republican Party either (a) loves deficits or (b) is living in fantasy land...

Personally, I think it's a mix of the two. I think the saner Republicans actually don't care about the deficit. And most of the base, the Fox News crowd if you will, are deluded souls hanging on for dear life to the myths of Reaganomics.

I've always been registered third-party, but I never thought I'd actually be totally opposed to the Republican Party. However, somehow they've become completely disconnected from reality, and that's a sure deal-breaker.

 

[Neally]

Or, as the CBO report I mentioned previously indicated, the after-tax income of the lowest quintile increased at a vastly slower rate than the after-tax income of the top 1%, and at a considerably slower rate than the top quintile, between 1979 and 2007. So one could argue that the fact that some aren't paying taxes hasn't done much to boost their after-tax income as compared to those at the top who have seen large gains in their after-tax income in spite of paying all those taxes.

Which has nothing to do with determining appropriate tax levels, or maybe you are proposing that the best way to determine tax rates is to see who's income went up or down the most and and raise or lower the rates based on that? The goal apparently being to punish those who's earnings increased and reward those that earnings decreased?