Romney pays 15% tax rate

[RandFan]

I almost made a new thread for this, because it's just too ridiculous for words. But Romney is now claiming that since corporations are taxed at a nominal 35% rate (even though we know many big corporations don't pay anywhere near that), if you add THAT tax to his measly 15% tax, then his actual tax rate is “really closer to 45 or 50 percent.”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/01/romney_actually_i_kind_of_pay_50_tax.php?ref=fpblg

Now come on. If I pay my 25% tax rate, then I pay for some groceries and the cashier pays 20%, is his tax rate actually 45% if you add mine and his together? And if I get my money from a corporation who hires my company, can the cashier add 35% to his total and claim he's paying a 70% rate?

Mitt Romney is a fraud. The guy doesn't have an honest bone in his body if he thinks this will work for him.

 

[BenBurch]

...

Mitt Romney is a fraud. The guy doesn't have an honest bone in his body if he thinks this will work for him.

He knows that his audience are largely innumerate.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Just to jump in on the first point:

If the all-in provision of the state benefitted the wealthy much more than the poor, then shrinking the state would address gross inequality. I don't see any fans of distributional equity (which includes myself) calling for that.

(enumeration mine)

1. Non sequitur, false dichotomy, straw man. 3rd option Helping the rich helps the poor it just helps the rich more.

1. 
   
   It follows that if the wealthy benefit more than do the poor from government spending, then if you cut spending, the wealthy should be hurt more than the poor. Your assertion of non-sequitur doesn't make sense to me. Further, it's not a false dichotomy either - she's not claiming it wouldn't hurt the poor. She's instead claiming (if I've understood correctly) that if cutting spending hurts the rich more than it does the poor, the overall effect would decrease inequality. Lastly, it's not a strawman because Bri has offered the point time and again that the wealthy benefit more than do the poor - something your source did as well. Francesca was simply taking that point to its logical conclusion. Perhaps it would help if you explained your asserions.

 

[Bri]

It follows that if the wealthy benefit more than do the poor from government spending, then if you cut spending, the wealthy should be hurt more than the poor.

That does seem to be a strawman. The argument is that the wealthy benefit more from government. Benefit from government is not limited to direct government spending. And, yes, if you were to cut government, the wealthy would have more to lose than the poor.

-Bri

 

[leftysergeant]

And both Microsoft and Bill Gates pays more than the poor. That doesn't justify or quantify a progressive tax rate.

But the fact that they benefit at a higher rate from the ecconomic and social infrastructure presaent in a civilized society does.

 

[leftysergeant]

And, yes, if you were to cut government, the wealthy would have more to lose than the poor.

Only the ones who operate in an ethical manner.

 

[IchabodPlain]

That does seem to be a strawman. The argument is that the wealthy benefit more from government. Benefit from government is not limited to direct government spending. And, yes, if you were to cut government, the wealthy would have more to lose than the poor.

-Bri

To clarify, are you claiming that cuts to government spending by (say) 20% across the board would hurt the wealthy more than the poor?

 

[Bri]

To clarify, are you claiming that cuts to government spending by (say) 20% across the board would hurt the wealthy more than the poor?

The argument has little to do with government spending per se. It has to do with all sorts of government laws and activities that benefit the wealthy.* If you were to remove those benefits, then it would hurt the wealthy more than the poor.

Regarding government spending specifically, it can also be argued that the wealthy benefit from government spending indirectly, because employees and consumers benefit from government spending (including things like public education), and the wealthy tend to benefit from employees and consumers. In that regard, cutting government spending would hurt the wealthy as well as the poor.

Finally, the wealthy benefit disproportionally from tax expenditures (sometimes called "indirect expenditures").

* ETA: Property rights, defense, infrastructure, natural resources, intellectual property laws, financial infrastructure, research, and trade laws are a few examples.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

It follows that if the wealthy benefit more than do the poor from government spending, then if you cut spending, the wealthy should be hurt more than the poor.

I agree, the wealthy would be hurt more. I'm not arguing against that and that fact doesn't help the poor nor does it obviate or address Lakoff's argument. Either reducing inequality in this instance is a net good or it is a net bad.

Further, it's not a false dichotomy either - she's not claiming it wouldn't hurt the poor.

She doesn't need to. She only needs to exclude the option. On one hand we have increased inequality vs decreased inequality. She doesn't address the fact that decreased inequality actually hurts the poor more than increased inequality does. She has narrowly defined the options.

Lastly, it's not a strawman because Bri has offered the point time and again that the wealthy benefit more than do the poor - something your source did as well.

Not the straw man I'm talking about. The straw man is to argue against something no one is arguing for, that increased inequality is inherently bad in this situation and that decreased inequality would be good.

No, the argument is that since the rich benefit more then they should pay more. You can't turn that around and declare that reducing the inequality would be good. You can't because to do so would hurt the poor.

 

[leftysergeant]

And, yes, if you were to cut government, the wealthy would have more to lose than the poor.

In dollar amounts, yes. They wouyld be able to sell less product or fewer services here. Nobody would have the money to buy anything from them. They could still tap off-shore markets at a slightly lower rate of return to make up for it.

The problem is that the poor are more totally devasted by a 10% loss of income than are the super-rich.

A Koch-class investor can take a 50% hit and recover by simply selling off a house he bought in Cabo and cancelling his vacations for a year or two.

A 25% hit would put a working man in a cardboard shanty under the freeway overpass.

 

[Bri]

In dollar amounts, yes.

...

The problem is that the poor are more totally devasted by a 10% loss of income than are the super-rich.

If there is a relatively small cut in government spending on things that affect everyone equally, the poor might be hurt more. But if a cut involved services that affect primarily the rich, the rich would be hurt more. If the cut affected something like property rights, copyright laws, or the financial system, the rich could potentially be devastated.

If ALL government were to collapse entirely, the dollar could become worthless, and everyone, rich and poor, might have to start from the ground up on equal footing. Depending on the type of government that replaces it, everyone might be about equal, or the government could even choose different winners and losers entirely. That's what I'm guessing is meant by the argument that the rich have more to lose from a collapse of the government (and more to gain from preventing it).

-Bri