FREE TAPATALK APP

mhaze · 14th July 2012, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by AlBell

....
The large increase in dividend tax rate will catch many middle income folks like me and I suspect you and will imo raise revenues significantly.

Probably something sneaky going on there - like an effort to make it differentially more attractive for you to have your money in the banking/Tbill/savings systems rather than in private corporations.

All the more reason to go in the opposite direction, in my opinion.

AlBell · 14th July 2012, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

The truthfulness (or not) of your statement makes it no more germaine to the post you were responding to.

FTR, do you think we should only attempt to solve our deficit issues through spending cuts? Or some proportion of cuts and tax increases? If the latter, it isn't meaningless blather.

FTR 85% cuts 15% revenue increases. This 15% increases taxes on middle class too, and I'd be happy to drop to even lower categories.

Quote:

I've miscommunicated. To answer your question, I think he should follow the law when filing his return and pay no more or less tax than he should, again, under the law.

My question is, should the law be changed to compel Mitt Romney (and others in similar situations) to pay more tax? His fillings showed that he made $21 million and paid <15% in taxes for context.

OK. What law would you change and why you presume that change would result in more revenue? Hint, raising highest bracket taxrate isn't a given to increase revenue from that cohort.

So, good luck making the correct changes to punish higher income people by increasing the tax they actually pay.

SezMe · 14th July 2012, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by AlBell

I've seen discussions that stated lowering rates tends to increase revenue, but no, don't have a cite handy.

This is Laffer Curve nonsense. It really should not be a part of your argument. If you're going to base your position on it, be prepared to find some cites pretty quick.

SezMe · 14th July 2012, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by AlBell

What a strange idea. Minimizing tax paid on earned income using existing rules is not 'sucking off the government teat'.

Here's the rub, AlBell. Those with high incomes and assets are in a position to set the rules by which their taxes are determined. Well, "set" may be too strong a word, but "have a major influence on" may well be too weak. As just one example, treating hedge fund managers' income as investment income and thus taxing at a lower rate.

It's like the home team setting the rules of, say, baseball that ensure them a winning season then arguing that their "only obeying the rules".

Is that right?

Beerina · 14th July 2012, 08:43 PM

NPR today was speculating it was because he had more profits from Bain in recent years, when they've been shipping jobs overseas, the period after which he said he had largely severed involvement in their management, which would open him up to being beat up over shipping jobs overseas.

Of course, if he had any brains, he'd say, "Yes, we shipped jobs overseas -- and I, a businessman, know exactly why companies do this, and what we need to change in government to make them stop. And it ain't kicking companies in the balls even harder."

If he had any brains, which he doesn't.

Cain · 14th July 2012, 09:10 PM

Turns out the governor of Alabama is urging Romney to release tax records going back to 2001.

Quote:

WILLIAMSBURG, Va. - Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, in an interview with ABC News today, called on presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney to release his tax returns in order to show voters that he has "nothing to hide."

Boo! We know Alabama elects RINOs. Romney should keep his records secret because they contain potentially embarrassing information that hurts his chances of winning.

However, Obama should release every record he has because... they contain potentially embarrassing information that hurts his chances of winning. Like the birth certificate that was certified by the governor of Hawaii and others, but we insisted he publicly produce the "long form" because we're total aholes. Go GOP!

Unabogie · 15th July 2012, 06:39 AM

So McCainwas asked directly about Romney giving him tax returns from "way back" and he confirmed it. But while he didn't say exactly how many years, he said " way back".

Link....

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162...in;contentBody

WaPo discussed it here...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...jVJT_blog.html

BenBurch · 15th July 2012, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

So McCainwas asked directly about Romney giving him tax returns from "way back" and he confirmed it. But while he didn't say exactly how many years, he said " way back".

Link....

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162...in;contentBody

WaPo discussed it here...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...jVJT_blog.html

So Romney's strategy next? "Limited hangout" would seem to be the next thing in the GOP playbook.

AlBell · 15th July 2012, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

This is Laffer Curve nonsense. It really should not be a part of your argument. If you're going to base your position on it, be prepared to find some cites pretty quick.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/...-auto-bailout/

Quote:

Democrats’ deceit.

The first example relates to the Bush tax cuts. How in the world can the Republicans allow themselves to be portrayed as “favoring tax cuts for the wealthy”? The truth is that federal income tax revenue was slipping badly from 2000-2003. During the four years after the Bush tax cuts, Federal income tax revenues increased by 45%. That’s right, revenues increased by a whopping 45% — in absolute dollars, the largest 4-year increase in Federal tax revenues ever! But here is the most important truth, the wealthy, defined as the top 1% of earners, as individuals saw their tax payments in absolute dollars go up! Furthermore, as a group, the wealthy’s share of the overall Federal income tax brought in by the government went up while the share paid by the 99% of the remaining earners went down! You wouldn’t know this from the Democrats, but you should know it from the Republicans if they were doing their job of telling the people the truth. Every single time a Democrat or a pundit makes the statement “the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy,” a Republican must challenge it, using the facts.

Your turn to demonstrate a top tier taxhike that increased revenue.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...the-1990s-boom

Quote:

When pressed about the harmful effects on the economy, proponents of higher taxes often fall back on what can be called the "Clinton defense." President Bill Clinton pushed a major tax increase through Congress in 1993, and, so the story goes, the economy boomed. How, then, can tax increases be so bad for the economy? The inference is even stronger: that higher taxes actually strengthened the economy.

The Clinton defense is superficially plausible, but it fails under closer scrutiny. Economic growth was solid but hardly spectacular in the years immediately following the 1993 tax increase. The real economic boom occurred in the latter half of the decade, after the 1997 tax cut. Low taxes are still a key to a strong economy.

Yeah, I know, Heritage isn't accepted here. Got a better one showing a taxhike increasing revenue?

For a viable alternative, see Clinton's plan.
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/bill-c...iation-holiday

BenBurch · 15th July 2012, 08:55 AM

Heritage isn't accepted anywhere honesty is valued, AlBell.

AlBell · 15th July 2012, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Heritage isn't accepted anywhere honesty is valued, AlBell.

So you have a valid link showing taxrate increase leading to revenue increase?

Or just a link to an actual rebuttal of a Heritage claim?

Unabogie · 15th July 2012, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

So McCainwas asked directly about Romney giving him tax returns from "way back" and he confirmed it. But while he didn't say exactly how many years, he said " way back".

Link....

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162...in;contentBody

WaPo discussed it here...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...jVJT_blog.html

Too late to edit this, so here is the exchange with McCain:

Quote:

BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you think-- do you think Governor Romney ought to release all of his income taxes to way back?

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: I don't think it's necessary. I--

BOB SCHIEFFER: You-- he gave them to you.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Well, he gave them to me and that was confidential. So did a lot of other people--

BOB SCHIEFFER: When you were thinking about him for vice president.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: And we agreed-- we agreed with everybody. We considered that would remain confidential. John Kerry only introduced two years, Mitt Romney did, I did, two years is sufficient. And frankly, I'm not sure that's the key issue that Americans are really worried about.

BOB SCHIEFFER: John McCain, great to have you.

So with all of the various Democrats using the phrase "23 years" and McCain agreeing it went "way back" I think it's reasonable to conclude that Romney gave McCain 23 years of returns, and that after reviewing them, he picked Sarah Palin

BenBurch · 15th July 2012, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by AlBell

So you have a valid link showing taxrate increase leading to revenue increase?

Or just a link to an actual rebuttal of a Heritage claim?

Hundreds of them.

Every new tax.

Zero to any amount is an increase.

AlBell · 15th July 2012, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Hundreds of them.

Every new tax.

Zero to any amount is an increase.

Post one that demonstrates your point. Then, about that Heritage rebuttal?

I am willing to look at facts, if you actually have any.

mhaze · 15th July 2012, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Heritage isn't accepted anywhere honesty is valued, AlBell.

Wikipedia, even, disagrees with your comment which slid right off the trailing edge of the Left Wing like a smashed bug hitting that wing at a high speed.

I suggest Ben's assertion is a claim which, if he cannot prove it or substantiate in fair part, may implicitly apply to himself.

Puppycow · 15th July 2012, 03:48 PM

Conservative Pundits Wonder If Romney’s Hiding Something In Unreleased Tax Returns

Quote:

“The cost of not releasing the returns are clear,” said conservative columnist George Will, on ABC’s “This Week.” “Therefore, he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.”

On the ABC roundtable, Republican strategist Matthew Dowd had a similar take.

“There’s obviously something there, because if there was nothing there, he would say, ‘Have at it,’” Dowd said. “So there’s obviously something there that compromises what he said in the past about something.”

“Many of these politicians think, ‘I can do this. I can get away with this. I don’t need to do this, because I’m going to say something and I don’t have to do this,’” Dowd said. “If he had 20 years of ‘great, clean, everything’s fine,’ it’d all be out there, but it’s arrogance.”

In the last week, several Republicans have advised Romney to release his returns. That list includes former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former RNC chairman Michael Steele and Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, who called for “total transparency” and said he releases all his tax returns. On “Fox News Sunday,” the Weekly Standard’s editor Bill Kristol added his voice to the list as well, calling for Romney to “release the tax returns tomorrow” and “take the hit for a day or two.”

Unabogie · 15th July 2012, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Conservative Pundits Wonder If Romney’s Hiding Something In Unreleased Tax Returns

Drip, drip, drip.

IchabodPlain · 15th July 2012, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by AlBell

FTR 85% cuts 15% revenue increases. This 15% increases taxes on middle class too, and I'd be happy to drop to even lower categories.

Okay, if your position is that we should cut spending and increase taxes, then discussing whose/which taxes should be increased is not meaningless blather. Rather, it's just someone else's opinion which differs from your own. Right?

FWIW, I agree with you that spending needs to be cut and taxes have to rise to solve our deficit/debt issues. I don't know if I could put percentages to each as you have done, but I think it would be closer to your numbers than the opposite (85% tax increases, 15% spending cuts).

I have to ask though, how would you raise taxes on the middle class? Would it be an increase in marginal rates, eliminating deductions, or something else?

Quote:

OK. What law would you change and why you presume that change would result in more revenue? Hint, raising highest bracket taxrate isn't a given to increase revenue from that cohort.

I have not made a claim. I have asked a question, twice. You still aren't answering, but instead are responding with a question. I have no problems answering any and all questions you have for me (including the one above), but I would like you to answer mine as well. So, to repeat: Do you think the law should be changed to compel Mitt Romney to pay more in tax? I'm not asking what law(s) should be changed - I'm asking if any law(s) should be changed (or new ones should be created) to compel Mitt Romney and others in similar situations to pay more tax than the ~15% they currently do.

AlBell · 15th July 2012, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

Okay, if your position is that we should cut spending and increase taxes, then discussing whose/which taxes should be increased is not meaningless blather. Rather, it's just someone else's opinion which differs from your own. Right?

FWIW, I agree with you that spending needs to be cut and taxes have to rise to solve our deficit/debt issues. I don't know if I could put percentages to each as you have done, but I think it would be closer to your numbers than the opposite (85% tax increases, 15% spending cuts).

I have to ask though, how would you raise taxes on the middle class? Would it be an increase in marginal rates, deductions, or what?

I have not made a claim. I have asked a question, twice. You still aren't answering, but instead responding with a question. I have no problems answering any and all questions you have for me (including the one above), but I would like you to answer mine as well. So, to repeat: Do you think the law should be changed to compel Mitt Romney to pay more in tax? I'm not asking what law(s) should be changed - I'm asking if any law(s) should be changed (or new ones should be created) to compel Mitt Romney and others in similar situations to pay more tax than the ~15% they currently do.

I support that. Now, how would you propose doing so? Note that increasing capital gains taxrate effects all who have dividend and/or capital gain income which effects much of the middle class, and I don't believe that now is the time to increase their taxes more than Obamacare already will. Your turn.

Unabogie · 15th July 2012, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by AlBell

I support that. Now, how would you propose doing so? Note that increasing capital gains taxrate effects all who have dividend and/or capital gain income which effects much of the middle class, and I don't believe that now is the time to increase their taxes more than Obamacare already will. Your turn.

Wait, what? How will the ACA raise middle class taxes?

BenBurch · 15th July 2012, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by AlBell

Post one that demonstrates your point. Then, about that Heritage rebuttal?

I am willing to look at facts, if you actually have any.

You didn't get it?

I gave you a trivial proof. All new taxes of reasonable size increase revenue.

You can extend this mathematically; All small taxes you increase slightly increase revenue.

Now, it is possible that there is a level of taxation beyond which the system's response flattens and then decays, a confiscatory tax, in fact you can be certain of it.

Still, it's non-productive to ask for proof that increasing a tax increased revenues, because that is trivially true of all non-confiscatory taxes, and that isn't what you want to have proven anyway.

Unabogie · 15th July 2012, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

You didn't get it?

I gave you a trivial proof. All new taxes of reasonable size increase revenue.

You can extend this mathematically; All small taxes you increase slightly increase revenue.

Now, it is possible that there is a level of taxation beyond which the system's response flattens and then decays, a confiscatory tax, in fact you can be certain of it.

Still, it's non-productive to ask for proof that increasing a tax increased revenues, because that is trivially true of all non-confiscatory taxes, and that isn't what you want to have proven anyway.

And the converse is true. Even if there were some theoretical threshold under which lowering a tax rate increased overall revenue, that would only hold for very specific condition, since lowering taxes to zero would mean zero revenue. It's not axiomatic that lowering taxes increases revenues. In fact, it's axiomatic that raising taxes raises revenues, even if you allow for exceptions to the rule.

It would also be true of salaries, would it not? Raising my salary increases my income. Until I raise my salary so high my company goes broke, in which case my income is zero. But would anyone argue that raising my salary DOESN'T increase my income?

AlBell · 15th July 2012, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Wait, what? How will the ACA raise middle class taxes?

Who do think will be paying these?

http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-lis...bamacare-a5758

AlBell · 15th July 2012, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

You didn't get it?

I gave you a trivial proof. All new taxes of reasonable size increase revenue.

You can extend this mathematically; All small taxes you increase slightly increase revenue.

Now, it is possible that there is a level of taxation beyond which the system's response flattens and then decays, a confiscatory tax, in fact you can be certain of it.

Still, it's non-productive to ask for proof that increasing a tax increased revenues, because that is trivially true of all non-confiscatory taxes, and that isn't what you want to have proven anyway.

I didn't ask for proof; rather for a demonstrated case where a taxrate increase on top tier resulted in sustained larger revenue from top tier.

Most tax rate increases are viewed by those most effected as 'confiscatory', and if at all possible, income will be shielded.

BenBurch · 15th July 2012, 09:04 PM

A tax increase you can trivially avoid isn't a tax increase. It is entirely possible to make a tax they cannot avoid, it just take some stones.

mhaze · 15th July 2012, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by AlBell

I didn't ask for proof; rather for a demonstrated case where a taxrate increase on top tier resulted in sustained larger revenue from top tier.

Most tax rate increases are viewed by those most effected as 'confiscatory', and if at all possible, income will be shielded.

An effort to create a non escapable tax on high wage earners is the past and present incarnations of the AMT, "alternative minimum tax". However, if the non escapable rate therein was jacked up, the very wealthy would simply move income from their 1040 to corporate or non profit structures which happened to benefit them. Money is in constant movement, and there are almost an infinite number of ways that it will move to where it can be most efficiently utilized.

I would answer the question Ben cannot, though that the initial introduction of the AMR (But not subsequent revisions or rate increases or changes to it) likely did result in a sudden larger revenue stream from the top tier.

Unabogie · 15th July 2012, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by AlBell

Who do think will be paying these?

http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-lis...bamacare-a5758

Biased source is biased?

Robrob · 15th July 2012, 09:17 PM

Originally Posted by AlBell

Would one or more of you Obama lovers here postulate what upside Mitt might expect by releasing the tax records under discussion?

All I foresee is a MSM pileon similar to this thread.

It would show he was at least as honest and open as his father?

mhaze · 16th July 2012, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by Robrob

It would show he was at least as honest and open as his father?

Well, that the Bamster certainly is.

Now let's see those college transcripts. And records of how college was paid for.

mhaze · 16th July 2012, 06:22 AM

Originally Posted by mhaze

An effort to create a non escapable tax on high wage earners is the past and present incarnations of the AMT, "alternative minimum tax". However, if the non escapable rate therein was jacked up, the very wealthy would simply move income from their 1040 to corporate or non profit structures which happened to benefit them. Money is in constant movement, and there are almost an infinite number of ways that it will move to where it can be most efficiently utilized.

I would answer the question Ben cannot, though that the initial introduction of the AMR (But not subsequent revisions or rate increases or changes to it) likely did result in a sudden larger revenue stream from the top tier.

Having noted the above technicality, I forgot to address Al Bell's broader question: NET increases in revenue from tax increases. Never has worked, total revenue has stayed within a few percentage points for what, 8 decades? Regardless of how tax law was changed. Doesn't matter, chatter about "increasing taxes" is fodder for the masses, pure propaganda a-la "soak the rich".

Go ahead, Democrats - decrease the estate tax to a 1M cap. See how that money flies out of estates in the years before someone dies. The money moves at the speed of the internet, and your ponderous collection methods tries to find it years later.

Go ahead, increase the capital gains rates. Again, money simply moves to optimal positions.

Go ahead, increase the dividend rates. Watch capital react as intelligently as all who hold it.

Go ahead, Democrats. Stay stuck on stupid.

JoeTheJuggler · 16th July 2012, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Of course, if he had any brains, he'd say, "Yes, we shipped jobs overseas -- and I, a businessman, know exactly why companies do this, and what we need to change in government to make them stop.

In fact, his platform is largely the opposite of this. He believes government should just get out of the way of the free market. He believes we need to further cut taxes on the wealthy, and that doing so will lead to more U.S. job creation.

That's why it's so important for him to evade personal responsibility for outsourcing and offshoring. The idea that cutting taxes on the wealthy automatically leads to job creation in the U.S. is belied by his own personal financial history.

AlBell · 16th July 2012, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Biased source is biased?

Great attempt to show how those taxes are not effecting or will not effect the middle class.

Best you can do?

mhaze · 16th July 2012, 09:03 AM

...change in government to make them stop....

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

In fact, his platform is largely the opposite of this. He believes government should just get out of the way of the free market. He believes we need to further cut taxes on the wealthy, and that doing so will lead to more U.S. job creation.

That's why it's so important for him to evade personal responsibility for outsourcing and offshoring. The idea that cutting taxes on the wealthy automatically leads to job creation in the U.S. is belied by his own personal financial history.

Except these statements are not inconsistent with each other. "Change to make them stop" could be by way of lowering regulatory hurdles, thus providing positive incentives for companies to stay. It could also be by way of negative punishments if they move offshore.

You've proved nothing but bad logic.

Upchurch · 16th July 2012, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Now let's see those college transcripts. And records of how college was paid for.

Off topic.
What? Why?

ANTPogo · 16th July 2012, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Off topic.
What? Why?

Because it's an article of faith among Birthers that Obama attended college on a "foreign student" scholarship.

mhaze · 16th July 2012, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Off topic.
What? Why?

Because it's equally ridiculous? Because such a exchange has been proposed by others? Because mindless speculation and innuendo (subject of thread) cannot be supported by critical thinking (your post)?

So, Upchurch, get with the program. Proceed to dig further into the possible things that could be hidden in the records of the opponent.

Once I heard Will Rogers talkin' about something called "rope a dope" while he twirled his rope....

Upchurch · 16th July 2012, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Because it's equally ridiculous?

Candidates releasing tax records has become customary. To my knowledge, It isn't customary for candidates to release college transcripts and how they paid for college.

It is not ridiculous to ask Romney to provide information Presidential candidates normally provide. It is ridiculous for Obama to provide information that isn't normally asked for.

Originally Posted by mhaze

Because such a exchange has been proposed by others? Because mindless speculation and innuendo (subject of thread) cannot be supported by critical thinking (your post)?

Which post of mine are we talking about?

BenBurch · 16th July 2012, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Candidates releasing tax records has become customary. To my knowledge, It isn't customary for candidates to release college transcripts and how they paid for college.

It is not ridiculous to ask Romney to provide information Presidential candidates normally provide. It is ridiculous for Obama to provide information that isn't normally asked for.

...

This is all typically dishonest deflection of blame.

Romney does not provide the information (which we can assume would destroy his candidacy) which all political candidates routinely provide, so his dim surrogates try to make this equivalent to something that nobody is expected to provide and which was therefore not provided. And then people like MHaze come here and parrot those arguments as though they understood them and as though they meant something.

SezMe · 16th July 2012, 03:19 PM

mhaze, the central pillar of Romney's rationale for being President is that he knows how to manage companies and organizations and, in particular, create jobs. Evidence of his competence comes from his tenure at Bain. Thus, this makes records about that tenure, such a Bain documents and tax returns, equally central to his case.

Obama did not run on his college tenure. Thus, the records from those years are irrelevant to his candidacy and his Presidency.

End of discussion.

Montag451 · 16th July 2012, 05:58 PM

What is the effect of all this tax debate on non-partisan, not heavily politicized Americans? Not the people who will vote red or blue regardless. How does the average middle class feel about it.

For me that would be the crux of the matter. Reading this stuff pretty voraciously and while not in the states or even American the feeling I get is that the damage he is suffering is getting out of hand. At what point would releasing them inflict more damage amongst the middle undecided than not releasing them. From the lumps he is getting it would suggest there is something he doesn't wish to be part of the narrative. Doubt it would be anything illegal but something unpalatable to the undecided.

While playing the tax breaks may not be illegal, it does feel slightly seedy and unethical, especially if you already have enough money to lat a good few lifetimes.

14th July 2012, 06:16 PM	#201
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,400	Originally Posted by AlBell .... The large increase in dividend tax rate will catch many middle income folks like me and I suspect you and will imo raise revenues significantly. Probably something sneaky going on there - like an effort to make it differentially more attractive for you to have your money in the banking/Tbill/savings systems rather than in private corporations. All the more reason to go in the opposite direction, in my opinion.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

14th July 2012, 06:23 PM	#202
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,570	Originally Posted by IchabodPlain The truthfulness (or not) of your statement makes it no more germaine to the post you were responding to. FTR, do you think we should only attempt to solve our deficit issues through spending cuts? Or some proportion of cuts and tax increases? If the latter, it isn't meaningless blather. FTR 85% cuts 15% revenue increases. This 15% increases taxes on middle class too, and I'd be happy to drop to even lower categories. Quote: I've miscommunicated. To answer your question, I think he should follow the law when filing his return and pay no more or less tax than he should, again, under the law. My question is, should the law be changed to compel Mitt Romney (and others in similar situations) to pay more tax? His fillings showed that he made $21 million and paid <15% in taxes for context. OK. What law would you change and why you presume that change would result in more revenue? Hint, raising highest bracket taxrate isn't a given to increase revenue from that cohort. So, good luck making the correct changes to punish higher income people by increasing the tax they actually pay.
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,570	__________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher, Economics: Share The Wealth. Obamanomics: Share The Pain. Important things in life–beauty, grace, redemption, compassion, loyalty, love–are beyond the reach of reason. Which doesn’t make them any less real.

14th July 2012, 08:43 PM	#205
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	NPR today was speculating it was because he had more profits from Bain in recent years, when they've been shipping jobs overseas, the period after which he said he had largely severed involvement in their management, which would open him up to being beat up over shipping jobs overseas. Of course, if he had any brains, he'd say, "Yes, we shipped jobs overseas -- and I, a businessman, know exactly why companies do this, *and what we need to change in government to make them stop.* And it ain't kicking companies in the balls even harder." If he had any brains, which he doesn't.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? Last edited by Beerina; 14th July 2012 at 08:52 PM.

14th July 2012, 09:10 PM	#206
Cain Straussian Join Date: May 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 7,011	Turns out the governor of Alabama is urging Romney to release tax records going back to 2001. Quote: WILLIAMSBURG, Va. - Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, in an interview with ABC News today, called on presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney to release his tax returns in order to show voters that he has "nothing to hide." Boo! We know Alabama elects RINOs. Romney should keep his records secret because they contain potentially embarrassing information that hurts his chances of winning. However, Obama should release every record he has because... they contain potentially embarrassing information that hurts his chances of winning. Like the birth certificate that was certified by the governor of Hawaii and others, but we insisted he publicly produce the "long form" because we're total aholes. Go GOP!
	__________________ *Arrested Development* is coming back! Michael (to GOB): Get rid of the Seaward. Lucille: I’ll leave when I’m good and ready.

15th July 2012, 06:39 AM	#207
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,921	So McCainwas asked directly about Romney giving him tax returns from "way back" and he confirmed it. But while he didn't say exactly how many years, he said " way back". Link.... http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162...in;contentBody WaPo discussed it here... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...jVJT_blog.html
	Last edited by Unabogie; 15th July 2012 at 06:41 AM.

14th July 2012, 08:19 PM	#203
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,651	Originally Posted by AlBell I've seen discussions that stated lowering rates tends to increase revenue, but no, don't have a cite handy. This is Laffer Curve nonsense. It really should not be a part of your argument. If you're going to base your position on it, be prepared to find some cites pretty quick.

14th July 2012, 08:24 PM	#204
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,651	Originally Posted by AlBell What a strange idea. Minimizing tax paid on earned income using existing rules is not 'sucking off the government teat'. Here's the rub, AlBell. Those with high incomes and assets are in a position to set the rules by which their taxes are determined. Well, "set" may be too strong a word, but "have a major influence on" may well be too weak. As just one example, treating hedge fund managers' income as investment income and thus taxing at a lower rate. It's like the home team setting the rules of, say, baseball that ensure them a winning season then arguing that their "only obeying the rules". Is that right?

15th July 2012, 07:42 AM	#208
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,500	Originally Posted by Unabogie So McCainwas asked directly about Romney giving him tax returns from "way back" and he confirmed it. But while he didn't say exactly how many years, he said " way back". Link.... http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162...in;contentBody WaPo discussed it here... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...jVJT_blog.html So Romney's strategy next? "Limited hangout" would seem to be the next thing in the GOP playbook.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

15th July 2012, 08:38 AM	#209
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,570	Originally Posted by SezMe This is Laffer Curve nonsense. It really should not be a part of your argument. If you're going to base your position on it, be prepared to find some cites pretty quick. http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/...-auto-bailout/ Quote: Democrats’ deceit. The first example relates to the Bush tax cuts. How in the world can the Republicans allow themselves to be portrayed as “favoring tax cuts for the wealthy”? The truth is that federal income tax revenue was slipping badly from 2000-2003. During the four years after the Bush tax cuts, Federal income tax revenues increased by 45%. That’s right, revenues increased by a whopping 45% — in absolute dollars, the largest 4-year increase in Federal tax revenues ever! But here is the most important truth, the wealthy, defined as the top 1% of earners, as individuals saw their tax payments in absolute dollars go up! Furthermore, as a group, the wealthy’s share of the overall Federal income tax brought in by the government went up while the share paid by the 99% of the remaining earners went down! You wouldn’t know this from the Democrats, but you should know it from the Republicans if they were doing their job of telling the people the truth. Every single time a Democrat or a pundit makes the statement “the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy,” a Republican must challenge it, using the facts. Your turn to demonstrate a top tier taxhike that increased revenue. http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...the-1990s-boom Quote: When pressed about the harmful effects on the economy, proponents of higher taxes often fall back on what can be called the "Clinton defense." President Bill Clinton pushed a major tax increase through Congress in 1993, and, so the story goes, the economy boomed. How, then, can tax increases be so bad for the economy? The inference is even stronger: that higher taxes actually strengthened the economy. The Clinton defense is superficially plausible, but it fails under closer scrutiny. Economic growth was solid but hardly spectacular in the years immediately following the 1993 tax increase. The real economic boom occurred in the latter half of the decade, after the 1997 tax cut. Low taxes are still a key to a strong economy. Yeah, I know, Heritage isn't accepted here. Got a better one showing a taxhike increasing revenue? For a viable alternative, see Clinton's plan. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/bill-c...iation-holiday
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,570	__________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher, Economics: Share The Wealth. Obamanomics: Share The Pain. Important things in life–beauty, grace, redemption, compassion, loyalty, love–are beyond the reach of reason. Which doesn’t make them any less real. Last edited by AlBell; 15th July 2012 at 08:55 AM. Reason: add last Clinton comment & link

15th July 2012, 08:55 AM	#210
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,500	Heritage isn't accepted anywhere honesty is valued, AlBell.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

15th July 2012, 09:53 AM	#211
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,570	Originally Posted by BenBurch Heritage isn't accepted anywhere honesty is valued, AlBell. So you have a valid link showing taxrate increase leading to revenue increase? Or just a link to an actual rebuttal of a Heritage claim?
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,570	__________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher, Economics: Share The Wealth. Obamanomics: Share The Pain. Important things in life–beauty, grace, redemption, compassion, loyalty, love–are beyond the reach of reason. Which doesn’t make them any less real. Last edited by AlBell; 15th July 2012 at 09:59 AM.

15th July 2012, 10:05 AM	#212
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,921	Originally Posted by Unabogie So McCainwas asked directly about Romney giving him tax returns from "way back" and he confirmed it. But while he didn't say exactly how many years, he said " way back". Link.... http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162...in;contentBody WaPo discussed it here... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...jVJT_blog.html Too late to edit this, so here is the exchange with McCain: Quote: BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you think-- do you think Governor Romney ought to release all of his income taxes to way back? SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: I don't think it's necessary. I-- BOB SCHIEFFER: You-- he gave them to you. SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Well, he gave them to me and that was confidential. So did a lot of other people-- BOB SCHIEFFER: When you were thinking about him for vice president. SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: And we agreed-- we agreed with everybody. We considered that would remain confidential. John Kerry only introduced two years, Mitt Romney did, I did, two years is sufficient. And frankly, I'm not sure that's the key issue that Americans are really worried about. BOB SCHIEFFER: John McCain, great to have you. So with all of the various Democrats using the phrase "23 years" and McCain agreeing it went "way back" I think it's reasonable to conclude that Romney gave McCain 23 years of returns, and that after reviewing them, he picked Sarah Palin

15th July 2012, 11:51 AM	#213
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,500	Originally Posted by AlBell So you have a valid link showing taxrate increase leading to revenue increase? Or just a link to an actual rebuttal of a Heritage claim? Hundreds of them. Every new tax. Zero to any amount is an increase.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

15th July 2012, 11:55 AM	#214
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,570	Originally Posted by BenBurch Hundreds of them. Every new tax. Zero to any amount is an increase. Post one that demonstrates your point. Then, about that Heritage rebuttal? I am willing to look at facts, if you actually have any.
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,570	__________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher, Economics: Share The Wealth. Obamanomics: Share The Pain. Important things in life–beauty, grace, redemption, compassion, loyalty, love–are beyond the reach of reason. Which doesn’t make them any less real.

15th July 2012, 01:25 PM	#215
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,400	Originally Posted by BenBurch Heritage isn't accepted anywhere honesty is valued, AlBell. Wikipedia, even, disagrees with your comment which slid right off the trailing edge of the Left Wing like a smashed bug hitting that wing at a high speed. I suggest Ben's assertion is a claim which, if he cannot prove it or substantiate in fair part, may implicitly apply to himself.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

15th July 2012, 03:48 PM	#216
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 16,037	Conservative Pundits Wonder If Romney’s Hiding Something In Unreleased Tax Returns Quote: “The cost of not releasing the returns are clear,” said conservative columnist George Will, on ABC’s “This Week.” “Therefore, he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.” On the ABC roundtable, Republican strategist Matthew Dowd had a similar take. “There’s obviously something there, because if there was nothing there, he would say, ‘Have at it,’” Dowd said. “So there’s obviously something there that compromises what he said in the past about something.” “Many of these politicians think, ‘I can do this. I can get away with this. I don’t need to do this, because I’m going to say something and I don’t have to do this,’” Dowd said. “If he had 20 years of ‘great, clean, everything’s fine,’ it’d all be out there, but it’s arrogance.” In the last week, several Republicans have advised Romney to release his returns. That list includes former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former RNC chairman Michael Steele and Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, who called for “total transparency” and said he releases all his tax returns. On “Fox News Sunday,” the Weekly Standard’s editor Bill Kristol added his voice to the list as well, calling for Romney to “release the tax returns tomorrow” and “take the hit for a day or two.”
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

15th July 2012, 04:18 PM	#217
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,921	Originally Posted by Puppycow Conservative Pundits Wonder If Romney’s Hiding Something In Unreleased Tax Returns Drip, drip, drip.

15th July 2012, 06:22 PM	#218
IchabodPlain Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 1,252	Originally Posted by AlBell FTR 85% cuts 15% revenue increases. This 15% increases taxes on middle class too, and I'd be happy to drop to even lower categories. Okay, if your position is that we should cut spending and increase taxes, then discussing whose/which taxes should be increased is not meaningless blather. Rather, it's just someone else's opinion which differs from your own. Right? FWIW, I agree with you that spending needs to be cut and taxes have to rise to solve our deficit/debt issues. I don't know if I could put percentages to each as you have done, but I think it would be closer to your numbers than the opposite (85% tax increases, 15% spending cuts). I have to ask though, how would you raise taxes on the middle class? Would it be an increase in marginal rates, eliminating deductions, or something else? Quote: OK. What law would you change and why you presume that change would result in more revenue? Hint, raising highest bracket taxrate isn't a given to increase revenue from that cohort. I have not made a claim. I have asked a question, twice. You still aren't answering, but instead are responding with a question. I have no problems answering any and all questions you have for me (including the one above), but I would like you to answer mine as well. So, to repeat: Do you think the law should be changed to compel Mitt Romney to pay more in tax? I'm not asking what law(s) should be changed - I'm asking if any law(s) should be changed (or new ones should be created) to compel Mitt Romney and others in similar situations to pay more tax than the ~15% they currently do.
	__________________ ...and with the joy of responsibility comes the burden of obligation. ~ Hank Hill Last edited by IchabodPlain; 15th July 2012 at 06:29 PM.

15th July 2012, 06:28 PM	#219
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,570	Originally Posted by IchabodPlain Okay, if your position is that we should cut spending and increase taxes, then discussing whose/which taxes should be increased is not meaningless blather. Rather, it's just someone else's opinion which differs from your own. Right? FWIW, I agree with you that spending needs to be cut and taxes have to rise to solve our deficit/debt issues. I don't know if I could put percentages to each as you have done, but I think it would be closer to your numbers than the opposite (85% tax increases, 15% spending cuts). I have to ask though, how would you raise taxes on the middle class? Would it be an increase in marginal rates, deductions, or what? I have not made a claim. I have asked a question, twice. You still aren't answering, but instead responding with a question. I have no problems answering any and all questions you have for me (including the one above), but I would like you to answer mine as well. So, to repeat: Do you think the law should be changed to compel Mitt Romney to pay more in tax? I'm not asking what law(s) should be changed - I'm asking if any law(s) should be changed (or new ones should be created) to compel Mitt Romney and others in similar situations to pay more tax than the ~15% they currently do. I support that. Now, how would you propose doing so? Note that increasing capital gains taxrate effects all who have dividend and/or capital gain income which effects much of the middle class, and I don't believe that now is the time to increase their taxes more than Obamacare already will. Your turn.
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,570	__________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher, Economics: Share The Wealth. Obamanomics: Share The Pain. Important things in life–beauty, grace, redemption, compassion, loyalty, love–are beyond the reach of reason. Which doesn’t make them any less real.

15th July 2012, 06:34 PM	#220
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,921	Originally Posted by AlBell I support that. Now, how would you propose doing so? Note that increasing capital gains taxrate effects all who have dividend and/or capital gain income which effects much of the middle class, and I don't believe that now is the time to increase their taxes more than Obamacare already will. Your turn. Wait, what? How will the ACA raise middle class taxes?

15th July 2012, 06:48 PM	#221
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,500	Originally Posted by AlBell Post one that demonstrates your point. Then, about that Heritage rebuttal? I am willing to look at facts, if you actually have any. You didn't get it? I gave you a trivial proof. All new taxes of reasonable size increase revenue. You can extend this mathematically; All small taxes you increase slightly increase revenue. Now, it is possible that there is a level of taxation beyond which the system's response flattens and then decays, a confiscatory tax, in fact you can be certain of it. Still, it's non-productive to ask for proof that increasing a tax increased revenues, because that is trivially true of all non-confiscatory taxes, and that isn't what you want to have proven anyway.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

15th July 2012, 07:05 PM	#222
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,921	Originally Posted by BenBurch You didn't get it? I gave you a trivial proof. All new taxes of reasonable size increase revenue. You can extend this mathematically; All small taxes you increase slightly increase revenue. Now, it is possible that there is a level of taxation beyond which the system's response flattens and then decays, a confiscatory tax, in fact you can be certain of it. Still, it's non-productive to ask for proof that increasing a tax increased revenues, because that is trivially true of all non-confiscatory taxes, and that isn't what you want to have proven anyway. And the converse is true. Even if there were some theoretical threshold under which lowering a tax rate increased overall revenue, that would only hold for very specific condition, since lowering taxes to zero would mean zero revenue. It's not axiomatic that lowering taxes increases revenues. In fact, it's axiomatic that raising taxes raises revenues, even if you allow for exceptions to the rule. It would also be true of salaries, would it not? Raising my salary increases my income. Until I raise my salary so high my company goes broke, in which case my income is zero. But would anyone argue that raising my salary DOESN'T increase my income?

15th July 2012, 07:29 PM	#223
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,570	Originally Posted by Unabogie Wait, what? How will the ACA raise middle class taxes? Who do think will be paying these? http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-lis...bamacare-a5758
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,570	__________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher, Economics: Share The Wealth. Obamanomics: Share The Pain. Important things in life–beauty, grace, redemption, compassion, loyalty, love–are beyond the reach of reason. Which doesn’t make them any less real.

15th July 2012, 07:34 PM	#224
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,570	Originally Posted by BenBurch You didn't get it? I gave you a trivial proof. All new taxes of reasonable size increase revenue. You can extend this mathematically; All small taxes you increase slightly increase revenue. Now, it is possible that there is a level of taxation beyond which the system's response flattens and then decays, a confiscatory tax, in fact you can be certain of it. Still, it's non-productive to ask for proof that increasing a tax increased revenues, because that is trivially true of all non-confiscatory taxes, and that isn't what you want to have proven anyway. I didn't ask for proof; rather for a demonstrated case where a taxrate increase on top tier resulted in sustained larger revenue from top tier. Most tax rate increases are viewed by those most effected as 'confiscatory', and if at all possible, income will be shielded.
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,570	__________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher, Economics: Share The Wealth. Obamanomics: Share The Pain. Important things in life–beauty, grace, redemption, compassion, loyalty, love–are beyond the reach of reason. Which doesn’t make them any less real.

15th July 2012, 09:04 PM	#225
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,500	A tax increase you can trivially avoid isn't a tax increase. It is entirely possible to make a tax they cannot avoid, it just take some stones.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

15th July 2012, 09:12 PM	#226
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,400	Originally Posted by AlBell I didn't ask for proof; rather for a demonstrated case where a taxrate increase on top tier resulted in sustained larger revenue from top tier. Most tax rate increases are viewed by those most effected as 'confiscatory', and if at all possible, income will be shielded. An effort to create a non escapable tax on high wage earners is the past and present incarnations of the AMT, "alternative minimum tax". However, if the non escapable rate therein was jacked up, the very wealthy would simply move income from their 1040 to corporate or non profit structures which happened to benefit them. Money is in constant movement, and there are almost an infinite number of ways that it will move to where it can be most efficiently utilized. I would answer the question Ben cannot, though that the initial introduction of the AMR (But not subsequent revisions or rate increases or changes to it) likely did result in a sudden larger revenue stream from the top tier.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

15th July 2012, 09:14 PM	#227
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,921	Originally Posted by AlBell Who do think will be paying these? http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-lis...bamacare-a5758 Biased source is biased?

15th July 2012, 09:17 PM	#228
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660	Originally Posted by AlBell Would one or more of you Obama lovers here postulate what upside Mitt might expect by releasing the tax records under discussion? All I foresee is a MSM pileon similar to this thread. It would show he was at least as honest and open as his father?
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660

16th July 2012, 06:17 AM	#229
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,400	Originally Posted by Robrob It would show he was at least as honest and open as his father? Well, that the Bamster certainly is. Now let's see those college transcripts. And records of how college was paid for.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

16th July 2012, 06:22 AM	#230
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,400	Originally Posted by mhaze An effort to create a non escapable tax on high wage earners is the past and present incarnations of the AMT, "alternative minimum tax". However, if the non escapable rate therein was jacked up, the very wealthy would simply move income from their 1040 to corporate or non profit structures which happened to benefit them. Money is in constant movement, and there are almost an infinite number of ways that it will move to where it can be most efficiently utilized. I would answer the question Ben cannot, though that the initial introduction of the AMR (But not subsequent revisions or rate increases or changes to it) likely did result in a sudden larger revenue stream from the top tier. Having noted the above technicality, I forgot to address Al Bell's broader question: NET increases in revenue from tax increases. Never has worked, total revenue has stayed within a few percentage points for what, 8 decades? Regardless of how tax law was changed. Doesn't matter, chatter about "increasing taxes" is fodder for the masses, pure propaganda a-la "soak the rich". Go ahead, Democrats - decrease the estate tax to a 1M cap. See how that money flies out of estates in the years before someone dies. The money moves at the speed of the internet, and your ponderous collection methods tries to find it years later. Go ahead, increase the capital gains rates. Again, money simply moves to optimal positions. Go ahead, increase the dividend rates. Watch capital react as intelligently as all who hold it. Go ahead, Democrats. Stay stuck on stupid.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

16th July 2012, 07:13 AM	#231
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,173	Originally Posted by Beerina Of course, if he had any brains, he'd say, "Yes, we shipped jobs overseas -- and I, a businessman, know exactly why companies do this, *and what we need to change in government to make them stop.* In fact, his platform is largely the opposite of this. He believes government should just get out of the way of the free market. He believes we need to further cut taxes on the wealthy, and that doing so will lead to more U.S. job creation. That's why it's so important for him to evade personal responsibility for outsourcing and offshoring. The idea that cutting taxes on the wealthy automatically leads to job creation in the U.S. is belied by his own personal financial history.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

16th July 2012, 08:03 AM	#232
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,570	Originally Posted by Unabogie Biased source is biased? Great attempt to show how those taxes are not effecting or will not effect the middle class. Best you can do?
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,570	__________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher, Economics: Share The Wealth. Obamanomics: Share The Pain. Important things in life–beauty, grace, redemption, compassion, loyalty, love–are beyond the reach of reason. Which doesn’t make them any less real.

16th July 2012, 09:03 AM	#233
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,400	...change in government to make them stop.... Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler In fact, his platform is largely the opposite of this. He believes government should just get out of the way of the free market. He believes we need to further cut taxes on the wealthy, and that doing so will lead to more U.S. job creation. That's why it's so important for him to evade personal responsibility for outsourcing and offshoring. The idea that cutting taxes on the wealthy automatically leads to job creation in the U.S. is belied by his own personal financial history. Except these statements are not inconsistent with each other. "Change to make them stop" could be by way of lowering regulatory hurdles, thus providing positive incentives for companies to stay. It could also be by way of negative punishments if they move offshore. You've proved nothing but bad logic.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

16th July 2012, 09:09 AM	#234
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,480	Originally Posted by mhaze Now let's see those college transcripts. And records of how college was paid for. Off topic. What? Why?

16th July 2012, 09:11 AM	#235
ANTPogo Unique Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 9,616	Originally Posted by Upchurch Off topic. What? Why? Because it's an article of faith among Birthers that Obama attended college on a "foreign student" scholarship.
	__________________ "A nation can survive with kufr, but not with zulm." - ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib "No more hurting people" - Martin William Richard Currently Reading: Righteous Victims, by Benny Morris