Romney Will Explode the Debt By Trillions

[IchabodPlain]

Pointing to the fact that your proposal of minimizing the pain as some sort of criteria is hardly acceptable.

You picked outrageous numbers. That you continue to, highlights your dishonesty on the issue. Why couldn't you use the example I provided? No one here has approached 90% as a proposal, much less stated that it would be less painful.

I have. In case you haven't noticed, a flat tax.

So who is more adversely affected? 20% of $20k or 20% of $2m? Does it not matter to you that one person is left just above the poverty line while the other is still has $1.6 million?

Yep. Everything that cost money is regressive. Your response, we have "food assistence."

Is that how it went in your head? You claimed something specific (cost of food), and got a specific answer (food stamps).

Isn't it obvious that everyone needs to help with funding the government if they have income?

Yes. However, you haven't shown for what number this is the case. You used a metric which includes retirees, unemployed, and a host of other people who don't have earned income. You also haven't specified what percent they should pay. Do you seriously think that someone at the poverty line should pay proportionally the same as a millionare, given the disproportionate share of income spent on housing, food, etc?

I clearly responded. That you don't like the fact that I reject the criteria of "who hurts less" as a way to figure a tax scheme is your problem.

You responded in a away which, by your own logic, is illogical. Has nothing to do with what I "like." That you can't give a straight answer, but regress into an oxymoronic statement is telling.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Because of the obsessive efforts of the left which seem to be in a large part based on wealth envy and attempts to try to equalize the wealth distribution rather than an equitable way to fund the government.

Please post a warning next time you are about to write something like this. I nearly passed out from not taking a large enough breath prior to the extended fit of laughter it prompted.

 

[RandFan]

In that case you and others are wasting time focussing on income when wealth -- assets -- is a better key. A 100% taxrate on income doesn't raise enough revenues; where will you stop? 1000%? 2000%?

A.) You are arguing by assertion. A fallacy. B.) I've not claimed that increasing tax rates is the only solution. C.) You are engaging in a straw man argument.

To me there is an implicit 5th Amendment problem in a requirement to provide the IRS (or whatever) a full list of assets.

You need to peddle your straw man argument somewhere else.

 

[RandFan]

Now if you or anyone else could just find that reason; hint correlation <> causation.

You need to learn the importance of negative correlation. Further, the hypothesis has explanatory and predictive power. So that's a fail. It's not just a correlation. There are reasons why providing for the common welfare of citizens improves society. There is a reason why so many successful nations provide those services. A progressive tax rate is simply the best way to achieve social goals.

Nor is there any particular reason "for rich people to pay more for social services to help the disadvantaged" and that that would provide a "better society".

I keep making arguments, listing supporting premises and you just argue by assertion. Hint: That's a fallacy.

 

[Neally]

So who is more adversely affected? 20% of $20k or 20% of $2m?

"More adversely affected" is not my criteria for determining a reasonable tax scheme. That's the rationale for the progressive tax.

Does it not matter to you that one person is left just above the poverty line while the other is still has $1.6 million?

Being poor sucks. Stuff costs money though, including government. Everyone needs to kick in.

Is that how it went in your head? You claimed something specific (cost of food), and got a specific answer (food stamps).

Is that your rationalization to the fact that everything that costs money is regressive? Your solution is to subsidize everything so nothing is regressive? Good luck with that.

Yes. However, you haven't shown for what number this is the case. You used a metric which includes retirees, unemployed, and a host of other people who don't have earned income.

I've already said that if someone has no income, it doesn't matter what the income tax rate is, they can't pay.

You also haven't specified what percent they should pay.

Figure out what we take in now, or need and work out the numbers as to what a flat income tax would be.

Do you seriously think that someone at the poverty line should pay proportionally the same as a millionare, given the disproportionate share of income spent on housing, food, etc?

I do. Anything that costs money is regressive. No reason to make an exception for the cost of funding the government.

Please post a warning next time you are about to write something like this. I nearly passed out from not taking a large enough breath prior to the extended fit of laughter it prompted.

I'm happy to provide you with a bit of entertainment. I too am entertained by the whimpers from the left about the wealthy not paying their fair share.

 

[RandFan]

Being poor sucks. Stuff costs money though, including government. Everyone needs to kick in.

You only assert this. It's not axiomatic. There is no need for everyone to "kick in". Given the high success rate of nations with progressive taxation and given that dysfunctional nations typically don't have progressive taxation the assertion is silly.

Progressive taxation is the best way to meet fiscal responsibilities and provide strong social safety nets and provide a step up for the disadvantaged. Since progressive taxation improves society then it improves the lives of the rich. It's in their best interest.

 

[RandFan]

I'm happy to provide you with a bit of entertainment. I too am entertained by the whimpers from the left about the wealthy not paying their fair share.

The best chance to get rich and stay rich is to live in a nation that ensures that people who are disadvantaged have some benefits from living in that society. Human beings are our greatest asset. Give everyone an opportunity and don't hold poor people back with taxation. Progressive tax rates don't keep the wealth from getting wealthy. On the contrary, it helps them.

 

[Corsair 115]

"More adversely affected" is not my criteria for determining a reasonable tax scheme.

Why not? On what basis have you rejected that criteria? What are your reasons and what is the evidence or rationale which supports those reasons?


Again I am forced to come back to the assessment that you insist on an incredibly narrow view of the matter, and continue to refuse any contemplation that perhaps, just perhaps, there's a whole lot more involved in the matter of income, taxation, economic growth, societal stability, and funding of government services than you seem willing to consider.

 

[RandFan]

Weeping for the rich.

Living in America, a nation with a progressive tax, the wealthy have enjoyed meteoric success. Some would assert that this success comes in spite of progressive taxation. Okay, give me the examples of nations that do at least as well without progressive taxation? Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia are rated among the highest in economic freedom... yep, you guessed it, progressive tax rates.

So come on you folks who claim that progressive tax rates cause more harm than good. where is your evidence? Give us something, anything?

 

[Neally]

Why not? On what basis have you rejected that criteria? What are your reasons and what is the evidence or rationale which supports those reasons?

Because I believe the fairest approach is to have everyone pay in the same proportion.

Again I am forced to come back to the assessment that you insist on an incredibly narrow view of the matter, and continue to refuse any contemplation that perhaps, just perhaps, there's a whole lot more involved in the matter of income, taxation, economic growth, societal stability, and funding of government services than you seem willing to consider.

So present your evidence and support as to why a progressive tax is so much better than a flat tax.

 

[RandFan]

Because I believe the fairest approach is to have everyone pay in the same proportion.

How is that "fair" to those born disadvantaged? You seek fairness in a vacuum. Further, it's biting one's nose to spite one's face. Rich people succeed as a result of living in a society that values all citizens and seeks to educate everyone and give a step up and not ignore the disadvantaged. Per capita wealth in Somalia is lower then the US. There is a reason for that.

So present your evidence and support as to why a progressive tax is so much better than a flat tax.

It's the only one that has shown such widespread success. It works pretty much everywhere it's tried. Simply correlation you say? Well, we actually have A.) explanatory power for the model and B.) a dearth of counter data.

Where's your evidence?

 

[IchabodPlain]

"More adversely affected" is not my criteria for determining a reasonable tax scheme. That's the rationale for the progressive tax.

I didn't ask what your criteria for determining a reasonable tax scheme was. I asked you a very simple, straight forward question. You can't answer it without contradicting yourself.

Being poor sucks. Stuff costs money though, including government. Everyone needs to kick in.

1) I've already stated my belief that everyone needs to kick in.

2) kicking in does not imply that those in the worst position in society should kick in as much as those in the best.

Is that your rationalization to the fact that everything that costs money is regressive? Your solution is to subsidize everything so nothing is regressive? Good luck with that.

Are you dense or just running out of justification? You brought up a specific issue (food) and got a specific answer (food stamps). You now wish for my position to be to subsidize everything. Wow. That you can't make simple distinctions between necessary and luxury items, individual purchases and collective purchases, and must instead resort to strawmen.

I've already said that if someone has no income, it doesn't matter what the income tax rate is, they can't pay.

Okay. If that is the case, why did you bring up the proportion of those who don't pay taxes whch includes those who have no income?

I do. Anything that costs money is regressive. No reason to make an exception for the cost of funding the government.

So because everything that costs money, that means that those on the poverty line should pay the same proportion in tax as LeBron James and Warren Buffet? That is your position?

 

[Neally]

I didn't ask what your criteria for determining a reasonable tax scheme was. I asked you a very simple, straight forward question. You can't answer it without contradicting yourself.

There is no contradiction. Your lines of questions continue to focus on issues that have no bearing on my position.

1) I've already stated my belief that everyone needs to kick in.

2) kicking in does not imply that those in the worst position in society should kick in as much as those in the best.

Great. I feel they should kick in as much proportionately.

Are you dense or just running out of justification? You brought up a specific issue (food) and got a specific answer (food stamps). You now wish for my position to be to subsidize everything.

I don't "wish" for your position to be anything. If you are making the case that certain things need to be subsidized so that they aren't regressive, say so.

Okay. If that is the case, why did you bring up the proportion of those who don't pay taxes whch includes those who have no income?

Because it's still illustrative and highlights the fact that roughly half of the population carries the income tax burden of the other half.

So because everything that costs money, that means that those on the poverty line should pay the same proportion in tax as LeBron James and Warren Buffet? That is your position?

Now who's been dense? If stated as such more than once. You do understand what a flat tax is, don't you?

 

[TruthersLie]

So the common refrain during 2010 was that Tea Party folks were mainly concerned about the debt. Even though they were oddly silent during the Bush years, they were just boiling up the rage that exploded when the bank bailouts happened. But now they were mad. They weren't gonna take it anymore. And debt was an evil that must be stamped out for good.

Enter Mitt Romney.

His plan will add between $3 and $5 trillion dollars to the debt, depending on who you ask.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...sis-romney-tax-plan-strongly-favors-the-rich/

So this is far beyond the current debt load. Romney won't say where he'd cut to offset this lavish tax cut, so we're left to speculate. It'd likely come from health care, education, and science research.

But so what, you may ask? Why don't I deserve a tax cut?

Well, most of the tax cut won't go to you. The vast majority will go to rich folks, yet again.

So to recap, the poor will get a tax increase. The very rich will get a windfall. And the debt will balloon by $3-$5 trillion dollars. All while slashing the safety net and infrastructure in order to pay for it.

My question is: where is the Tea Party? Shouldn't they be manning the Medicare Scooters as we speak and warning Romney about the Constitution? Whither the tri-corner hats, I ask?

It is interesting that you start this discussion by taking an article that is from
March 2nd.

It is also interesting that you fail to mention that under Obama, the debt will explode by trillions as well.

Why do you not do a valid comparison between Obama and Romneys plans and projected deficits and how the debt will balloon under both?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...s-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects the National Debt will continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.

And

His latest budget projects a $1.3 trillion deficit this year declining to $901 billion in 2012, and then annual deficits in the range of $500 billion to $700 billion in the 10 years to come.

If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms.

Doesn't that seem a bit... one sided/deceptive? To make a claim vs Romney and not to then compare it with the proposed budgets which are all creating deficits as well?

 

[RandFan]

I feel they should kick in as much proportionately.

Yeah, we got that. What you "feel" isn't evidence, it's not even an argument. I'm still waiting for that evidence.

 

[TruthersLie]

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.

Unlike Obama who only added $5 Trillion on 3 years... More than Bush in 8 years.

I personally dislike Romney and I don't care for Obama either due to the inability to balance a budget.

 

[RandFan]

Unlike Obama who only added $5 Trillion on 3 years... More than Bush in 8 years.

I personally dislike Romney and I don't care for Obama either due to the inability to balance a budget.

Hang on, Obama was handed an economy that was shrinking. We can't climb out of the hole we are in unless the economy is expanding. Further, Obama can't wave a magic wand and balance the budget. The notion that someone could come into this mess and balance the budget in 4 years is unrealistic. And BTW, we desperately needed help from the GOP. It's congress that write the laws in the first place. Refusing to work with the administration to win back the White House isn't helping much.

 

[IchabodPlain]

There is no contradiction. Your lines of questions continue to focus on issues that have no bearing on my position.

I've illustrated your contradiction several times. It's there for anyone to read. You can't answer and it's easy to see why: it demonstrates that you know the guy making $20k is getting the shaft; you just don't care - "being poor sucks." Of course, you want it to suck more.

I don't "wish" for your position to be anything. If you are making the case that certain things need to be subsidized so that they aren't regressive, say so.

Really? You do know for the last page and a half we've been discussing income tax rates and not the cost of Ferraris or lampshades, right? You are the only one who to wants to bait the conversation into another topic.

Because it's still illustrative and highlights the fact that roughly half of the population carries the income tax burden of the other half.

So? Neither of us think that all of the other half should be paying taxes, so what difference does it make?

Now who's been dense? If stated as such more than once. You do understand what a flat tax is, don't you?

I just wanted to see you type it: that you understand and agree with the proposition that a flat tax hurts the poorest the most and the most wealthy the least. It's really quite callous and economically detrimental, but there it is.

 

[TruthersLie]

Hang on, Obama was handed an economy that was shrinking. We can't climb out of the hole we are in unless the economy is expanding. Further, Obama can't wave a magic wand and balance the budget. The notion that someone could come into this mess and balance the budget in 4 years is unrealistic. And BTW, we desperately needed help from the GOP. It's congress that write the laws in the first place. Refusing to work with the administration to win back the White House isn't helping much.

Ah yes... blame the last guy.

Yes the economy was in a wreck. Yes there were 2 wars going on ... and BO's projected deficit in 4 more years is $20 Trillion. And in 2020 it will be $25 Trillioni (we are only at 15 right now). How many years do Obama and the Democrats get to use that excuse? 4 more years? 8 more years?

Ready... it is very easy. Balance the budget. It isn't magic. it isn't that difficult. Will it be unpopular? You bet. Can it be done?

did I say I liked EITHER choice? I really wish there was a NONE OF THE ABOVE on my ballot because neither group is doing their jobs.

My point was about the implicit dishonesty of the OP. Romney AND Obama will explode the debt by Trillions...

ETA: About the deficit/debt under Obama... I'm sure that national health care was from Bush too.... right? How many trillion will that cost?

 

[RandFan]

Ah yes... blame the last guy.

No. Admit the truth. Nothing more nothing less.

Ready... it is very easy. Balance the budget. It isn't magic. it isn't that difficult. Will it be unpopular? You bet. Can it be done?

It would make things much, much worse. We need to stimulate the economy not decrease it more.

ETA: About the deficit/debt under Obama... I'm sure that national health care was from Bush too.... right? How many trillion will that cost?

Over the long haul it would save us a lot. It's urgently needed. Debt as a percentage of GDP isn't to a point that we need to implement austerity. Well, that's what two Nobel Prize winning Nobel Laureates say. But let's go with your speculation. Right?