Mitt Romney: ‘I’m not concerned about the very poor’

The point is (and the one you keep ducking) is that any tax increase will NOT cover the deficit or even make any sizable dent in the deficit

Taking tax rates to the Clinton levels would only bring in 10% PER YEAR of Obama's current deficit m(assuming there is no decrease in economic activity due to higher taxes)

What happens over that 10 year period? The deficits continue, the national debt grows, and libs push for MORE tax increases because their economic plan is not working

You are following the Obama talking points about fairness perfectly, When he was confronted with proof tax increases do not work - he fell back on the "fairness" thing as well


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4iy2OfScQE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4iy2OfScQE[/ame]

 

the fact that taxes alone will not eliminate the deficit is not synonymous with saying that raising taxes will not conribute in any way toward it. I am supportive of allowing the political process to use whatever methods they can agree upon to address the problem. I am disappointed when one side says that one method is completely off the table and they will not discuss solving the problem in any way if that method is included.

 

You simply have an obsession of raping people for more of their money no matter what

Raising taxes will do nothing to solve the problem. We do ot have a revenue problem in DC expatriate - we have a spending problem

and if fairness REALLY matered to you, you would be calling for the freeloaders who pay NO federal ioncome tax to start paying their "fair" share and leave the 1 out 100 taxpayers who pay 40% of all the federal taxes collected alone

 

I am fully ware that raising taxes will not do as much - or as little - as partisans on both sides say it will. Clearly it will do something and it should be considered as part of the mix of options put together to lower the deficit.

 

I can't believe people are actually dumb enough to believe that one-line quote, without even considering the fact that it was the middle of a sentence.

THINK, people! THINK!

 

That is the part of the "fairness" debate we just do not hear much about in the liberal media. This media PR blitz to make successful people look evil avoids the entire real issue of fairness. The top 10%, though I hate defending rich people, pay far more of the national tax than the bottom 30-40% and in the case of people like Mitt Romney, give huge amounts of money to charity on top of that tax burdon (Romney gave 16% of his income......$7 million to charity).

 

I do hope you are not in the health care industry. Using your logic you would put a Band Aid on a bullet wound. It will not heal the wound but it can be considered part of the mix of options put tigether to heal the wound

 

if I were to ONLY use a bandaid, your analogy might make some sense. As I said, however, I felt that tax increases should be considered as part of a broader range of options.

 

Why when they will result in less revenue? Or is it more important to make it "fair"? And what would be "fair"?

 

Then your post will not be addressed, if YOU can't explain what YOU are attempting to convey don't expect us to go search it out.

Post whatever it is YOU think YOUR link does to refute what I posted else my post remains unrefuted.

 

Tell us what higher capital gains rates does

 

http://mydd.com/users/bonddad/posts/tax-cuts-raise-revenue-completely-debunked

from the article:


"The total overall increase in tax revenue under Regan was 40.70%. Compare Reagan's increase to the Clinton administration's increase of 97% (from 509.7 billion in 1993 to 1.004 trillion in 2000) which raised taxes on upper-income taxpayers. Again, this bolsters the argument US tax rates are to the left of the laffer curve apex because a tax increase increased tax revenue."


There is also some great stuff in there about Reagan's unmentioned tax increases and his huge expansion of government, government spending, and our debt.

 

We have big problems in this country that need to be fixed. Taking a statement out of context helps solve none of those problems.

 

Based on what? You do realise Romney is a man that gave 16% of his income-$7 million dollars, to charity last year right? Does that sound like the kind of guy that wants to starve poor people?

 

What exactly should be done to help the poor in addition to what is currently being done? other than spreading the wealth around? Poor people get medical coverage, food stamps, housing, and other perks. Public education is free up till 12th grade. What is Newts plan to help the poor? The answer is create jobs and opportunities. There is no other answer.

 

Except revenues were already increasing before Clinton's tax hike as we were in the second year of a recovery. His tax increase SLOWED that revenue increase from 9% down to 7% COSTING us revenue. He even admitted it when he began to take flak for slowing down the recovery.

Clinton Angers Friend and Foe In Tax Remark
By TODD S. PURDUM
Published: October 19, 1995


President Clinton made an offhand confession on Tuesday night that he had raised taxes "too much" in his first budget in 1993, and the remark drew mockery from Congressional Republicans today. Angry Democrats accused him of repudiating a package they had stuck their necks out to pass without a single Republican vote.

Speaking at a campaign fund raiser in Houston, Mr. Clinton said: "Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEFD6133EF93AA25753C1A963958260

It picked back up and in particular capital gains taxes paid by the top SOARED after the tax CUTS Gingrich and Kaisch forced him to sign. Just look at the chart I posted. They soared even more after the Bush tax rate cuts shifting even more of the tax burden on to the high earners.

 

dueling links. I'll go find a link where some economist will say one thing... and you will go find a link that says another. I got no interest in continuing that sort of discussion. We both know we can find all sorts of pages on the internet to support our viewpoints. Let's give it a rest.

If you really believe that, by raising the marginal tax rate on wealthy people that will end up in wealthy people paying LESS in taxes, then why in the world isn't every single wealthy person in America who really wants to pay less in taxes lobbying their legislators to have their marginal tax rates raised?

 

Facts are facts and I posted empirical data which proves exactly what I stated. You posted nothing but someones fallacious opinion.

Of course not the facts show you are in error.

But not facts, the facts remain the facts as I posted them. Refute them with fact if you can.

Why would you want to raise capital gains taxes if more revenues are your goals. The numbers are indisputable. Look how much more revenues we took in at the lower rates.

 

the facts of the matter are that tax revenues are a result of not only tax rates, but economic activity that is certainly driven by factors OTHER than merely marginal tax rates. To claim a direct and singularly causal relationship between tax rates and tax revenues is silly. Every time I clean my swimming pool, the wind comes up and blows leaves into it again. Ergo... cleaning my swimming pool causes the wind to blow? I think not.

Again... if wealthy people actually really did pay more taxes with lower tax rates - both income and capital gains - why aren't they pushing to have their tax rates raised so that they will automatically (according to you) pay less in taxes?

 

The facts are as I posted them, where are your facts that refute them?

It is not causal it is quite direct as the figures show.

Then why would you want to raise taxes if it is your belief that tax rates are not connected to tax revenues?

There is no if, I gave you the empirical data.

 

you give me two sets of data points. tax rates and revenues... what you don't give me is proof of dependence and negative correlation. And, as I said, you want to make me, and others believe that there exists a direct and singularly causative negative correlation between marginal tax rates and tax revenues. You want to say that every time rates go up - regardless of whatever else is happening to the economy - revenues invariably have gone down and will go down. There are, however, a myriad of economic factors which enter into the determination of tax revenues. Marginal tax rates are but one of them. Sorry.

I happen to put more faith in Nobel Prize winning economists than I do in your theories.

 

let me give you an example:

what I am wearing for shoes? what color shirt I am wearing? what do my feet feel like? what is the temperature outside?

sandals blue cold 20 below
boots red warm 95 above
barefoot blue cold 32
mukluks red warm 75

I could go on and on.... but if I showed you two data points: shirt color and feet condition, I could make the solid case that, every time I wore a blue shirt, my feet felt cold. Therefore, there MUST be a direct and dependent relationship between the two? Not so.

 

Antine you want to tax something you need to encourage that activity so you can raise the revenue

Raising taxes is simply not encouraging the economic activity you want in order to raise the revenue

When JKF, Reagan, and Bush cut taxes - revenues increased

When the capital gaines tax is raised - revenues have dropped everytime. When it is cut - revenues increased everytime

As far as the few rich people calling for higher taxes - why can't they simply write a check to the US Treasury if they feel they are not paying enough?

Of course tax cheat Buffett could start by paying the back taxes his company has owed for YEARS since he feels he is undertaxed

 

A very interesting chart - thanks for posting it.

But, I think you will find that the amount of capital gains had far more to do with the way the economy was going at various times then any incentive that capital gains tax rate variations would have on total capital gains.

If you look at the Long-Term Capital Gains chart, you will see a big jump in the 80's and then a tail off in the early 90's.
That was undoubtedly the baby-boomer driven 80's housing boom and the economic slow down of the early 90's.

Then the figures go WAY up in the mid-late 90's - the dot.com boom.

And tail off in the early 2000's with the dot.com crash.

And then the numbers go sky high with the subprime housing boom.



Having typed that, I am against raising taxes to lower the U.S. deficit...HUGELY. Cutting spending should be the only course of action, imo.

However, I also VERY strongly believe that the ultra rich should not be getting a virtual free ride (tax wise). And several candidates are proposing to end capital gains taxes altogether. And the rich will LOVE that - because FAR AND AWAY most of the mega-rich's incomes come from capital gains.

That is why I think everyone (outside of the very poor) should have to pay EXACTLY the same taxes - income or capital gains - no matter how much they make.
With no deductions except for charitable contributions.

 

The was the economy goes has to do with capital gains rates.

And as Clinton raise rates the increases slowed, when he was force to lower rates revenues took off.

The amount of capital gains from housing is minimal most housing is not subject to capital gains taxes.

Rate cuts which spurred more economic activity.

Again the vast majority of home sales are not subject to capital gains taxes.

The fact remains that the lower rates cause more economic activity that is subject to the tax and more revenues. Has been the case over and over and over.