politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: GOP presidential candidates' tax plans would benefit the rich
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/10/ ... esidential-candidates-tax.html
Published: Oct 26, 2011
Author: Steven Thomma
Post Date: 2011-10-26 22:59:28 by Skip Intro
Keywords: None
Views: 56628
Comments: 86
WASHINGTON — The Republican Party is catching flat-tax fever — and setting up an epic election-year fight with Democrats over whether wealthier Americans should pay higher taxes or get tax cuts. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney became the latest to punch the tax button Wednesday, telling a Virginia audience that he'll soon update his economic proposal to spell out ways to flatten the tax code. His vow came just a day after rival Rick Perry grabbed headlines and talk-show chatter with a proposal for an optional flat 20 percent tax on income. Both followed Herman Cain's pitch for a flat 9 percent income tax as part of his 9-9-9 plan, which helped him jump to the top tier of candidates for their party's 2012 nomination. Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann endorse a flat tax, too. The flat tax — so called because it offers one flat rate for taxpayers in all income groups while taking away many or all deductions — would simplify taxes. It also would almost certainly give big tax cuts to wealthy Americans. Republicans believe that cutting taxes, especially on the wealthy, helps to spur investment, economic growth and hiring. At the same time, most of the Republican candidates are proposing other changes that also would mean big tax cuts for high-income Americans, such as eliminating taxes on dividend income or capital gains, and eliminating the estate tax, called the death tax by Republicans. Their push comes at the same time that Democratic President Barack Obama is pushing to raise taxes on higher-income Americans. He's proposed raising taxes on those making more than $200,000 and has endorsed a push by Senate Democrats to raise taxes on incomes above $1 million. The debate comes as new data show that the very wealthiest Americans have greatly increased their share of U.S. income in recent decades. The richest 1 percent claimed 17 percent of American income in 2007, more than double their 8 percent share in 1979, according to a report this week from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Protest over growing income inequality is also among the motive issues driving the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations around the country. Polls show that a solid majority of Americans favor raising taxes on the wealthy. But that's anathema in the Republican Party, where tax cuts, particularly for higher incomes, are popular. Seven in 10 Americans say that policies of Republicans in Congress favor the rich, according to a New York Times poll published Wednesday. There's little doubt the Republican presidential candidates' proposals would cut taxes on the wealthy. Most would eliminate taxes on all or some profits on investments. Most of those taxes now are paid by wealthier Americans. Most also would eliminate the estate tax, which applies only to estates of $7 million or more and is paid by about 3,270 families each year, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, both respected center-left think tanks in Washington. "These are really wealthy families," said Roberton Williams, an analyst at the Tax Policy Center. A flat tax on income would take away some deductions but lower the rate. Perry, for example, would cut it to 20 percent. Gingrich would cut it to 15 percent. The wealthiest Americans now pay a 35 percent marginal rate on income above $379,950. A detailed analysis by the Tax Policy Center found that the Cain plan would mean an average tax cut of $455,000 for those with incomes above $1 million. Romney once criticized a flat tax proposal in 1996 as a boon to the rich, going so far as personally taking out newspaper ads in early primary states to rip the proposal from then-candidate Steve Forbes. "It's a tax cut for fat cats," Romney said then. When he unveiled his economic agenda this year, Romney said he would pursue a "long-term goal" of a "flatter, fairer, simpler structure." But he also said he wouldn't change any of the existing personal income tax rates. On Wednesday in Fairfax, Va., he said, "I'll lay out some additional ways to make the tax code more flat." While the Republican tax proposals would give tax cuts to the wealthy, the candidates have backed away from the appearance of raising taxes on lower-income Americans. Cain at first denied that his plan would raise taxes on poorer Americans, then changed it after the Tax Policy Center found that the 84 percent of taxpayers would pay more under Cain's plan. Gingrich notably would keep the Earned Income Tax Credit, which helps lower-income families offset their payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security. "Preserving the EITC and Child Tax Credit are critical to ensure that the optional flat tax system does not unfairly target low-income Americans," Gingrich says in a website chart comparing his flat tax to Perry's. Romney points to his proposal to limit tax cuts on dividends and capital gains to incomes below $250,000. "My view is that a key to the tax policy is to reduce the tax burden on the people who have been hurt most by the Obama economy, and that's the middle class," he said Wednesday. Gingrich and others have noted, however, that the limit would mean little because people below that threshold pay few taxes on dividends and capital gains. And Perry would give all taxpayers the option of sticking with the current tax system, meaning no one would have to pay more than they would under today's rules. "That is the wise political move," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, a pro-tax-cut group. "He doesn't say to low-income people, 'We're going to come to get you.'"
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 27.
#2. To: Skip Intro (#0)
I am shocked...shocked I say to fnd that a GOP tax plan
I am not shocked that you are jealous of people who have achieved things in their life. Typical covetous tard.
And I am not shocked that you totally miss the point and come at me with a retort worthy of the mouthbreathing shill that you are. Look at any chart of debt and deficits and overlay tax cuts onto that chart and then try to argue and defend how they have helped the US both economically and fiscally. Name one household that are you aware of that, to pay off its debts, it reduces its income?
You socialists have the irresistable proclivity to accuse others of being exactly what YOU are. You cannot help it... I guess it's a form of projection that you all suffer from. Demonstrate to me, how the "fair" tax system (which is progressive, to punish those who work their asses off) has benefitted the country or the population. You socialists are always talking about what is "fair." What could be MORE fair than a flat tax- where EVERYONE pays the same percentage? This has GOT to be one of the dumbest challenges you've ever made. It's dumb, even for YOU. I give you a challenge, in return: Name one country that has ever taxed only "the rich" to achieve prosperity. Those who are doing "ok" right now, are that way because they worked to make themselves more competitive, when times were good. In other words, we worked our asses off. If you were too lazy, too stupid or too arrogant to think that you didn't need to be competitive, than you're probably one of those people that are having a tough time right now... In other words, "these are the consequences for the choices you made..." They are the direct results of your choices. Don't blame Wall St. for your pathetically empty life. Blame yourself. Blame the government that promised you a handout, and told you could be a lazy POS, as long as you voted for them. It's a symbiotic relationship you socialists have with government... until they don't need you any more. Unfortunately for you, the day when they no longer need you, is coming sooner, rather than later. Which is good for those of us, who chose to better ourselves, and be productive.
Blabbing on the internet from your cell is productive? How long before you get a mail order degree to go with your mail order bride?
Nice attempt to divert the thread. Answer the question b!tch.
Why should someone who makes $25,000 a year be taxed the same as someone making $25,000,000? There is NO fairness in that whatsoever.
Translation: You can't come up with valid answer, so you'll try to BS your way through, and hope I won't notice you're evasion... LMAO. You idiot leftists are SO transparent...! Thanks for the laugh.
Fuck off, Junior...the answer was in what you didn't copy and paste...the weatthy benefit disproportionately and should thus pay more. But you knew that. Just as I know that you're a dick. "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise..."
Circular logic, which is simply another attempt to BS your way through. "Junior" just kicked your sorry ass. :)
Another term for which you underscore your ignorance, Junior. An example of "circular logic" in this very one sided discussion would be: The wealthy should pay more in taxes because they already do. It is a conclusion - "should pay more" that is based upon it's own supposition "they do pay more". I am advocating the same reasoning that Smith and Jefferson themselves advocated, i.e. the wealthy benefit more and should thus pay more. It is a conlusion - pay more - deduced from an observation - benefit more. "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise..."
Wrong again. Your position is that wealthy people should pay more, because it's unfair for them to have so much money. Circular logic. "Junior" kicks ass again. Wanna' go for another whupping, dummy?
Even if that were my position, Junior, which it is not, that would still not be circular reasoning, It would be underwhelming reasoning yet still not circular. Again, Junior, circular reasoning requires that the supposition be the support for the conclusion, e.g. "Since it's unfair that some people are wealthy it's unfair that they don't pay more in taxes." That has never been my belief let alone my position. My position is that he who benefits the most should pay the most. I don't believe that it's unfair that some people earn/make/inherit more than others. Nor have I ever stated so, Junior. You have an infantile view of the world. If you can't distort grey into black or white then you misrepresent it so that you can. There are times when it is fine and dandy to cut taxes and reduce spending. There are times when it is not. There are times when it's okay to target cuts to specific areas and times when you need to ramp up public spending. The problem is, you are wholly incapable of having anything remotely akin to a constructive discussion regarding when and what is appropriate fiscal policy. In a few words, Junior, you're a pedantic little snot who can't tell his dick from his thumb.
Wow... Your position is quite clear: reality is whatever YOU say it is. Must be comforting, to be so intellectually lazy as to buy into that crap. Bottom line? You're delusional. But then again, it's a common leftist trait.
Chuckles...your position is pretty clear...you just got your ass kicked and now you're flailing about... And thanks for validating my statement that you are wholly incapable of having a constructive discussion. CHECKMATE [SNICKER]
There are no replies to Comment # 27. End Trace Mode for Comment # 27.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestGOP presidential candidates' tax plans would benefit the rich
benefits the wealthy!!!
#3. To: war (#2)
I am shocked...shocked I say to fnd that a GOP tax plan benefits the wealthy!!!
#4. To: A K A Stone (#3)
(Edited)
I am not shocked that you are jealous of people who have achieved things in their life. Typical covetous tard.
#8. To: war (#4)
And I am not shocked that you totally miss the point and come at me with a retort worthy of the mouthbreathing shill that you are.
Look at any chart of debt and deficits and overlay tax cuts onto that chart and then try to argue and defend how they have helped the US both economically and fiscally.
Name one household that are you aware of that, to pay off its debts, it reduces its income?
name one country that has ever taxed itself into prosperity.
Now, let's get to a more basic question: when times were good, what did YOU do, to make yourself more marketable in the workplace? Did you go to school? Learn a new skill?
#9. To: Capitalist Eric (#8)
Which is good for those of us, who chose to better ourselves, and be productive.
#10. To: mininggold (#9)
(Edited)
Blabbing on the internet from your cell is productive?
You socialists are always talking about what is "fair." What could be MORE fair than a flat tax- where EVERYONE pays the same percentage?
#12. To: Capitalist Eric (#10)
You socialists are always talking about what is "fair." What could be MORE fair than a flat tax- where EVERYONE pays the same percentage?
#16. To: war (#12)
(Edited)
Capitalist Eric: You socialists are always talking about what is "fair." What could be MORE fair than a flat tax- where EVERYONE pays the same percentage?
dummy: Why should someone who makes $25,000 a year be taxed the same as someone making $25,000,000? There is NO fairness in that whatsoever.
#18. To: Capitalist Eric (#16)
Translation: You can't come up with valid answer, so you'll try to BS your way through, and hope I won't notice you're evasion...
#19. To: war (#18)
he answer was in what you didn't copy and paste...the weatthy benefit disproportionately and should thus pay more.
#20. To: Capitalist Eric (#19)
(Edited)
Circular logic...
#21. To: war (#20)
Another term for which you underscore your ignorance, Junior.
#23. To: Capitalist Eric (#21)
Your position is that wealthy people should pay more, because it's unfair for them to have so much money.
#26. To: war (#23)
Even if that were my position, Junior, which it is not, that would still not be circular reasoning, It would be underwhelming reasoning yet still not circular.
#27. To: Capitalist Eric (#26)
(Edited)
Replies to Comment # 27.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]