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: 56655
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 # 68.
#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.
Taxes aren't levied for prosperity, Junior. They are levied to maintain infrastructure, defense and general welfare and to pay off debt. But I note that you did not answer my question. Yet, that is exactly what has occurred in this nation. When taxes were cut in 1981 and 2001 and 2003, revenues fell outright and when they recovered they grew either temporarily or at an anemic pace. This nation has a debt problem, Junior, and a good portion of it can be laid at the feet of tax cuts which never paid for themselves and, in fact, increased the debt of this nation. Since those tax cuts BENEFITTED rhe welaty disproporationately, yet each and every American is on the hook for "paying" for them, any revenue increase should hit them disporportionately as well.
More lies. From HERE: As of January, 2010, our existing national debt- NET of projected tax receipts over the next 50 years- is $200 TRILLION. This includes: Social Security ($17,500,000,000,000.00, $17.5 trillion) You get the idea. We're bankrupt, because government made SPENDING promises it could not hope to actually fulfill. Instead, they promised goodies in return for votes. Someone had a quote about this: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." --ALEXANDER FRASER TYTLER, LORD WOODHOUSELEE-- Oh, BTW, according to this NPR report, actual debt now stands at $211 Trillion, as of August 6, 2011. You think that by soaking the rich, it will change ANYTHING? Think again. As the Kitco article I linked to above states: ...If the government decides to expropriate (steal) or commandeer (e.g., force into Treasuries) America’s private wealth in order to buy survival time, such a measure will be designed to destroy the common citizens, not the elite. Insiders will be given advance warning about any such plan, and will be able to transfer their money offshore or into financial vehicles immune from harm. Assuming that the elite moves its money to safety, there would then be $120,000,000,000,000.00 ($120 trillion) in American debt and liabilities supported by only $32,000,000,000,000.00 ($32 trillion) in private net worth, for a deficit of $88,000,000,000,000.00 ($88 trillion). In that case, each American would owe $285,714.29 to balance the country’s books. (Remember to multiply this amount by every person in your household, including any infant children.) ...If the common people suspect that something diabolical was in the works, a portion of the $32 trillion in non-elite wealth could be evacuated as well prior to a government expropriation and/or currency devaluation, resulting in less money for the government to steal. What these statistics mean is that it is absolutely impossible for the government to fund its debt and deficits, even if it steals all of the nation’s private wealth. Therefore, the government’s only solutions are either formal bankruptcy (outright debt repudiation and the dismantling of bankrupt government programs) or unprecedented American monetary inflation and debt monetization. If the government chooses to inflate its way out of this fiscal catastrophe, the United States dollar will essentially become worthless. You want to keep believing the bullshit about "soak the rich," then fine, you go ahead and swallow those lies. But at the end of the day, they're just lies, and you KNOW it. So don't give me your sh!t about how you give a crap about the little people, and what "fair" is all about... Because you're not about that... You're all about YOU.
I stated that this nation has a debt problem and that most of it has been run up under GOP Presidents. Both statements were true.
I provide data- with links- so you can educate yourself. You, in return, blow hot air out of your @ss, and then...? You declare victory. ((((eyeball roll*)))) Thanks for the laugh.
Your data SUPPORTS my statement that the US has a debt problem, Junior. Oddly, you called that a lie.
Oooooooooooh, very GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!! You actually GOT that part. I'm IMPRESSED... [NOT.] Your point was that it was due to tax cuts. The data I posted, demonstrated that you LIED. AGAIN. AS USUAL.
That is but one part of the greater equation, Junior. It isn't the sole factor nor did I represent it as such. Nor did I present my argument as anything more than what exists as present value. But thanks for proving my point how you have to distort an argument to make a point. No, I'm calling YOU a liar. A) You're not giving me any new information.
Bullshit. It isn't due to the tax cuts AT ALL. The data I posted makes that VERY clear. And all your lies won't change that FACT. I post data, you blow hot air out your ass. And all your lies don't change THAT fact. LOL. You lie, and when I call you on it, you lie by saying you didn't lie then, but since you're lying NOW, what makes you think anything you say means diddley- shit? Oh, and BTW, you're already done, asshole. I took you in three, several hours ago. But keep deluding yourself. It's what you're BEST at.
***SIGH*** It's real simple, Junior. If you take in less than you spend then you have to make up the difference somehow. The government does it by borrowing money. Do you know what borrowed money is called when it is owed? It's called DEBT. When you REDUCE your income, that is already at a shortfall, you have to borrow even MORE money to make up the shortfall. This is called EVEN MORE DEBT. For you to actually BELIEVE that you can cut the rate of revenue growth, at times to a point negative to the previous year, while continuing to increase the level of spending to a point GREATER than the previous year, and that this dynamic has no impact on the level of debt is so far into sublime levels of insanity, so far from the realm of reality and just so eaten up with the Boofers illogical that whatever it is that makes you so obtusely stupid as this is such that you just cannot be cured.
It's real simple, Junior. If you take in less than you spend then you have to make up the difference somehow. The government does it by borrowing money. Indeed. AND, they make promises they can't keep. One need only look at Social Security- a Ponzi-scheme writ large- to see that. Of course, the scheme is ending sooner, because government fat-cats stole the money to fund their pet-projects. Either way, it makes no nevermind. The government IS going to cut spending, one way or another. They're also going to utterly default, one way or the other. The debt is so gargantuan, that it can never be repaid. As the data I linked to shows, you could tax every living soul in the USA 100% of their income, AND confiscate all wealth, and we'll still be bankrupt. Not just broke, but BANKRUPT. You choose to believe the propaganda. Fine, DO that. I really don't GAS. Wow... NOTHING gets by you, does it? ((((eyeball roll*)))) Wow... talk about a bunch of gibbering bullshit. LOL. You claim to be a "broker," but you don't SHIT about economics... Talk about irony!!! So let's cut the crap. 1. Revenue IS decreasing. Real GDP is decreasing (in blue), not increasing, as the government propaganda (in red) suggests: 2. REAL inflation (in blue) is getting bad. You'd notice this if you do your own grocery shopping. Government propaganda is in red: 3. REAL U.S. debt is ~$211 Trillion dollars. Since current GDP is ~$15 Trillion, this means every dollar is already spent for the next 14 years. 4. You think the government can wave the magic Keynesian wand, and simply print away the debt to nothingness. Can you say "Zimbabwe?" How 'bout "Weimar?" Oooh, I know... how about "Hungary?" This idiotic assumption is based on the foolish belief that everyone will simply accept paper dollars forever. DON'T try to bullshit me on economics, boy... You might be able to fool the other stupid leftists, but I know better. Keynes is dead. His crank philosophies are dead. And because the most of the worlds' financial systems are modeled on the American (Keynesian, central-bank) systems, they're all dead, too. The result (just showing "on-book" debts) is below:
You just claimed above that tax cuts had nothing to do with increasing levels of debt. You are one highly confused individual, Junior. Thus, you'd make a PERFECT economist. And stuff those charts. You've been asked several times to defend the methodology and you refused.
They don't. It's about SPENDING, asshole. TOO MUCH SPENDING. TOO MANY PROMISES. TOO MANY SCAMS BY PARASITES LIKE YOU. If that's what it takes, for you to be satisfied with your delusions, than have a happy. Whatever... LOL. I've provided you links to all the information you need. If you're too lazy to read, how is that my problem? Really, though, you're not interested in proofs. You're a broker, which means you're interested in promoting the status quo. As a broker, your livelihood depends on the sheeple believing the propaganda that the MSM and Helicopter-Ben put out... You need people to buy your bullshit, because that's what lines your pockets. You made a real mistake, making it clear what exactly you do... The truth is, you're shilling for the same old corruption, even though you pretend to be against it... How utterly pathetic you are... despite your claims, you're nothing more than a common thief. Feh.
You have NO CLUE what I do. NONE. ZIP. NADA. Your mind cannot fathom in any way shape or form what it is that I do.
You already admitted you're a broker.
So? What does that *mean*, Junior? There are over a dozen differing types of brokers within 20 yards of where I sit.
It means you're part of the problem, instead of part of the solution. It certainly explains why you're such a statist shill. It explains why you push the bullshit propaganda. It explains you, perfectly. You're interested in lining your own pockets. ANYTHING which represents a threat to the status quo, you attack... Because it's all about YOU. You're a common thief, nothing more. I hope you rot in HELL.
You're a common thief, nothing more. I hope you rot in HELL. But selling gold to the gullibles while ignoring and down playing an obvious bubble is okay with you. Your Asperger's is showing again.
#69. To: mininggold (#68)
I only buy. But IF I was trying to make a buck off "the gullibles," you'd have been first on the list, to make such a pitch to...
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?
#14. To: Capitalist Eric (#8)
...name one country that has ever taxed itself into prosperity.
#25. To: war (#14)
This nation has a debt problem, Junior, and a good portion of it can be laid at the feet of tax cuts which never paid for themselves
Medicare Part A ($36,700,000,000,000.00, $36.7 trillion)
Medicare Part B ($37,000,000,000,000.00, $37 trillion)
Medicare Part D ($15,600,000,000,000 underfunded, $15.6 trillion)
Government and military pensions ($2,000,000,000,000, $2 trillion),
etc.According to the Federal Reserve’s most recent report on wealth, America’s private net worth was $53.4 trillion as of September, 2009. But at the same time, America’s debt and unfunded liabilities totaled at least $120,000,000,000,000.00 ($120 trillion), or 225% of the citizens’ net worth. Even if the government expropriated every dollar of private wealth in the nation, it would still have a deficit of $66,600,000,000,000.00 ($66.6 trillion), equal to $214,286.00 for every man, woman and child in America and roughly 500% of GDP. If the government does not directly seize the nation’s private wealth, then it will require $389,610 from each and every citizen to balance the country’s books. State, county and municipal debts and deficits are additional, already elephantine in many states (e.g., California, Illinois, New Jersey and New York) and growing at an alarming rate nationwide. In addition to the federal government, dozens of states are already bankrupt and sinking deeper into the morass every day.
#28. To: Capitalist Eric (#25)
More lies.
#29. To: war (#28)
#30. To: Capitalist Eric (#29)
#32. To: war (#30)
Your data SUPPORTS my statement that the US has a debt problem, Junior.
Oddly, you called that a lie.
No, I'm calling YOU a liar.
#33. To: Capitalist Eric (#32)
Your point was that it was due to tax cuts.
B) You just conceded that I did not lie.
C) CHECKMATE
#35. To: war (#33)
(Edited)
It isn't the sole factor nor did I represent it as such.
But thanks for proving my point how you have to distort an argument to make a point.
A) You're not giving me any new information. B) You just conceded that I did not lie. C) CHECKMATE
#37. To: Capitalist Eric (#35)
(Edited)
#55. To: war (#37)
***SIGH***
Do you know what borrowed money is called when it is owed? It's called DEBT. When you REDUCE your income, that is already at a shortfall, you have to borrow even MORE money to make up the shortfall. This is called EVEN MORE DEBT.
For you to actually BELIEVE that you can cut the rate of revenue growth, at times to a point negative to the previous year, while continuing to increase the level of spending to a point GREATER than the previous year, and that this dynamic has no impact on the level of debt is so far into sublime levels of insanity, so far from the realm of reality and just so eaten up with the Boofers illogical that whatever it is that makes you so obtusely stupid as this is such that you just cannot be cured.
#56. To: Capitalist Eric (#55)
Indeed.
#57. To: war (#56)
You just claimed above that tax cuts had nothing to do with increasing levels of debt.
You are one highly confused individual, Junior.
And stuff those charts. You've been asked several times to defend the methodology and you refused.
#60. To: Capitalist Eric (#57)
You made a real mistake, making it clear what exactly you do...
#61. To: war (#60)
You have NO CLUE what I do.
Game.
Set.
MATCH.
#62. To: Capitalist Eric (#61)
You already admitted you're a broker.
#66. To: war (#62)
Capitalist Eric: You already admitted you're a broker.
POS Parasite: So? What does that *mean*, Junior?
#68. To: Capitalist Eric (#66)
(Edited)
You're interested in lining your own pockets. ANYTHING which represents a threat to the status quo, you attack... Because it's all about YOU.
Replies to Comment # 68.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 68.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]