1. Download our Official Android App: Forums for Android!

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Romney vs. Obama

Discussion in 'Politics and Current Affairs' started by OutofDate1980, Apr 1, 2012.

  1. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Android Expert
    Thread Starter
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    143
    Posts:
    1,568
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010

    Jul 15, 2010
    1,568
    129
    143

    Advertisement

    as439726 likes this.
  2. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Extreme Android User
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    213
    Posts:
    7,059
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010

    Jun 7, 2010
    7,059
    967
    213
    The OP I was quoting claimed it was an illegal tax rate. It's not. It's perfectly legal. The thing with our tax code is it is so ridiculously complex that there is not a single person on the planet who really understands it. The other thing is that because it is so complex, if you can hire enough lawyers and accountants, you can find loopholes. For you and I, that's not worth it. Let's say it costs $50k a year (and it probably costs two to three times that) to hire the necessary people to find holes to exploit. For you and I, that's not worth it. We pay less than that in taxes. For guys like Romney or Obama, it's well worth spending $50k or even $200k as they would normally pay far more than that in taxes.

    What liberals don't seem to grasp is that the more you tax people the more they are going to try to weasel out of it. I can't blame them. In their shoes, I would do the same thing.
     
  3. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest
    Rank:
    None
    Posts:
    0
    Joined:

    It's not that liberals don't understand it, it's that when they try to get laws passed that explicitly tax the wealthy 1%, the GOP filibusterers the measure and claims it's trying to protect the middle class "well if we tax the 'job creators' then that means even smaller scraps for the middle class to enjoy" or the GOP figures out a way to write in a loophole. The real coup de gr
     
  4. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Android Expert
    Thread Starter
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    143
    Posts:
    1,568
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010

    Jul 15, 2010
    1,568
    129
    143
    Just takes some bribery to make stealing legal. That's all.

    Winner-Take-All Politics (book) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "Another is the "carried-interest" loophole (costing tax payers about $4 billion/year) which allows hedge fund managers
     
  5. copestag

    copestag Android Expert
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    143
    Posts:
    1,355
    Joined:
    May 23, 2010

    May 23, 2010
    1,355
    247
    143
    First- stop whining with your class envy attitudes simply because you refuse to be better

    Second- a loophole is something that is exploited in a way other than its purposes.......... he is NOT exploiting any loopholes........

    THE TAX RATE ON CAPITAL GAINS IS 15%..... HE IS CLAIMING PROFIT UNDER CAPITAL GAINS....... HIS TAX RATE IS 15%

    are you exploiting a loophole by filing at your current tax rate?

    Edit: of course Id be willing to bet he is paying closer to if not right at his legal tax rate of 15%...... unlike the rest of you who probably have an income level that puts you in 1 tax bracket yet because of the "loopholes" you probably actually pay closer to 0%
     
  6. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Extreme Android User
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    213
    Posts:
    7,059
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010

    Jun 7, 2010
    7,059
    967
    213
     
  7. as439726

    as439726 Android Enthusiast
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    43
    Posts:
    439
    Joined:
    May 23, 2009

    May 23, 2009
    439
    43
    43

    Preach on brother !!! Thou speakest the truth.
     
  8. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest
    Rank:
    None
    Posts:
    0
    Joined:



    If you think that everyone should be taxed equally then why not take it one step further and insist that everyone be compensated the same? I'm guessing that you'd be opposed to that idea, and rightfully so. Or better yet, how about everyone is taxed the same, but we impose a "Greed tax" for anyone that makes a certain percentage more than the average employee of the same organization? If the CEO wants to increase his salary then he needs to increase the average pay of all the employees, that sounds appropriate to me. A CEO's salary should be directly proportionate to the success of the business he's running, and that includes the success of its employees IMO.
     
  9. copestag

    copestag Android Expert
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    143
    Posts:
    1,355
    Joined:
    May 23, 2010

    May 23, 2010
    1,355
    247
    143
    thats all fine and dandy except for a few basic principles....... the govt sets tax rates...... private business sets salaries...... or are you suggesting that POTUS should actually be CEO of every business in the country? also you cant name a single major corporation ....... not one........ where what youre suggesting makes any sense whatsoever...... does the CEO deserve 1000 times what the janitor makes........ ABSOLUTELY (of course if its a union janitor hes probably 1000 times overpaid to begin with)
     
  10. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Extreme Android User
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    213
    Posts:
    7,059
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010

    Jun 7, 2010
    7,059
    967
    213
    No, everyone should not be compensated the same. Compensation and taxation are not based on the same things. Taxation should be based on what services/benefits you receive from the government - roads, police protection, armed forces, education, etc..... In theory, everyone has access to the same services from the government therefore everyon should be taxed equally to provide those services. Compensation on the other hand is based on the scarcity of the job and the job skills you do.

    Just look at professional athletes for example. A professional baseball player can earn $6-7 mil a year. That's not uncommon at all. A guy flipping burgers at McD's earns $6-7 bucks an hour. That's not uncommon either. Why the disparity? Because the ball player is harder to replace than the burger flipper. It's not too difficult to find someone who can work a register. It's harder to find a guy who can play baseball with the skill of a professional athlete.

    I guess I'm one of those people who doesn't see a CEO making a bajillion dollars and instantly think that it's evil. That guy (theoretically) brings more to the table than the line workers. Hence, he gets paid more. Is he overpaid? Sure, in some cases he probably is. That's not a government problem though. That's a private company problem that needs to be dealt with by the board/investors. Are all of those guys corrupt and causing the problem in the first place? Absolutely in a lot of cases. Again, not a government problem. It's a private business.

    Just look at a company like Google. It's consistently named one of the best places to work. Employees sing it's praises. Yet I guarantee you Larry Page makes far more a year than the engineer he hired a month ago. Page has a net worth around $13 billion. Most googlers probably aren't even close to that. Is he evil because of that? Should the fed step in? His employees don't seem to think so. Compensation and taxation are based on completely different things.
     
  11. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Android Expert
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    183
    Posts:
    4,488
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010

    Aug 29, 2010
    4,488
    472
    183
    Student
    Cork City, IMF, EU
    Meh, I'm pretty sure everyone grasps that. The idea is that you stop them doing that. I think the US does a good job of this with federal income tax (although i could just have no idea what I'm talking about), where it applies to any citizen regardless where they live.
    Of course the governments then ruin this by having thousands of loopholes. I'd really love to rewrite income and corporate tax laws, so many loopholes.
     
  12. gamblor01

    gamblor01 Well-Known Member
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    68
    Posts:
    215
    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010

    Jun 10, 2010
    215
    122
    68
    Male
    Austin, TX
    Sounds like this argument is going in circles now. It has already been established and agreed upon that taxation should be based on how many services one receives from the government. There was then (in my opinion) rather ample evidence that the rich benefit considerably more than the poor from the government. I don't see anything wrong with taxing rich people more, and I don't think it's going to cause them to leave the country in droves either. People were making money hand over fist in the 90's during the dot com boom. The richest were also paying something like 3% more in taxes than they do now, yet they weren't leaving the country.

    Not too long ago I read a story on NPR about property taxes in New Jersey (I think). At some point it was suggested that increasing income and property taxes will cause the wealthiest residents to move to other states where taxes are lower. However, they reported that after looking through volumes of data that didn't actually seem to be the case. Picking up and moving to a new state or a new country is an extremely large change. Most people aren't willing to do that, especially not if the driving reason is a few percent in taxes. The data just doesn't support this argument from what I've heard.

    I'm curious if anyone on here has actually changed their mind about anything. I keep reading responses from the same group of people, both clearly arguing different points. Is there anyone out there that read something and it actually changed their view point on anything, or persuaded them to vote for a different candidate? I doubt it, but I would be interested to know. My guess is that nobody is changing their mind one way or the other though.
     
  13. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Extreme Android User
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    213
    Posts:
    7,059
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010

    Jun 7, 2010
    7,059
    967
    213
    Actually, the US is somewhat unique in taxing every citizen regardless of where they live. Almost every other country has residency requirements before they tax citizens. The idea is that if someone lives overseas, they don't get the benefits that a resident might so they don't pay taxes.
     
  14. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest
    Rank:
    None
    Posts:
    0
    Joined:


    I can't see people moving out of this country to avoid taxes either. I think that's just a typical right wing scare tactic. "OMG if you raise taxes on the rich, then who will lead you?!?! The terrorists will win with all the "smartest people" leaving our country!"

    I can understand why some people still cling to the belief that the richest people are the smartest or the hardest working. That actually was more true than it is now. If you look at the history of a wealthy family, it usually took one person with a vision to succeed and pull him/herself out of their class and raise themselves to higher means. Generally though, a successful person's offspring don't exhibit the same drive, focus, or meaning in their life that exulted their parents to greatness.

    Look at Sam Walton's empire. When he was still alive and Walmart was emerging, he actually embraced the community and encouraged community building by employing local communities and selling community made products at reasonable prices. Since his passing, his children have perverted Sam's vision IMO. Do you think Sam would be proud of how his family has squeezed out the American worker in favor of the Chinese worker? I remember Walmart commercials that were proud of their American worker ties and had a more neighborhood feel to it. That vision died when Sam Walton died, and frankly I don't think his children would be where they are now if it wasn't for his original vision. I'm sure his children are as detached from the everyday American as Mitt Romney, hence another reason I wouldn't vote for him if he was the only candidate without any history of mental illness. Heck, I may vote twice just to cancel out some of the more delusional voter's vote....
     
  15. persim

    persim Guest
    Rank:
    None
    Posts:
    0
    Joined:

    I have been loosely following this thread and do not recall there being evidence of this. Could you explain for me? I would think the almost 50% of people who pay zero federal tax receive a lot more benefits from the government than the so called 1% that actually pay pretty much all the tax in this country.
     
  16. gamblor01

    gamblor01 Well-Known Member
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    68
    Posts:
    215
    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010

    Jun 10, 2010
    215
    122
    68
    Male
    Austin, TX
    There are more benefits than just the tangible, welfare type stuff and taxes (though tax rates are sometimes backwards as well like Warren Buffet paying a lower rate than his secretary). The ways they benefit aren't really obvious until you really start to think about how society functions as a whole. Here are some links to the posts that mentioned it...


    http://androidforums.com/politics-current-affairs/524765-romney-vs-obama-5.html#post4338023


    http://androidforums.com/politics-current-affairs/524765-romney-vs-obama-6.html#post4338663
     
  17. persim

    persim Guest
    Rank:
    None
    Posts:
    0
    Joined:

    I am sorry but AlterNet and amerikanbeat are not even remotely credible sources and if your satisfied that they have provided you the information you need to have an opinion on this topic then I can not debate you (yes I did read both links and it is complete garbage in my opinion).

    ElasticNinja brings up decents points but his ideas are based on the assumption that most wealthy people are business owners. I am pretty sure that is not even close to reality (I could be wrong but have not looked up the stats). A wealthy person can be wealthy without owning a business and therefore most of his arguments are moot.

    None of these arguments wants to address the fact that wealthy people essentially fund the government with their so called "unfair" share of taxes. That allows the government to do all these things that you argue they are getting. You then run into a chicken/egg problem.

    In my opinion they get very little if anything in return and could function fairly well without all those so called government perks they receive. The poor that receive all the government assistance and pay nothing into the pot, assistance that can be measured in actual dollars instead of theory, would have a must harder time functioning.
     
  18. gamblor01

    gamblor01 Well-Known Member
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    68
    Posts:
    215
    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010

    Jun 10, 2010
    215
    122
    68
    Male
    Austin, TX
    Ok well I don't know what those web sites are but I don't think what they say is garbage. Also, several of the points listed there are really the same points that ElasticNinja mentioned -- so it seems a bit odd/contradictory to me say that those links are total garbage but then say that Ninja's points are valid. I'm a little confused by that but that's really not the issue here.

    I have to agree with you in some sense -- you're absolutely right that many of those benefits really only make sense to people that are running business (be they owners, CEOs, board members, etc.). I also agree with you that those who are already wealthy would probably function just fine without those perks, and that the poor would struggle. So isn't that justification for a progressive tax rate? I know most opponents to this are going to say "well that's just mixing morality into this -- there is no logical argument that they should be required to pay more." However, I think that there is (beyond the fact that it *is* required because it was written into law by our predecessors).

    If you tax all people at the same rate, you are disproportionately affecting the middle and low income. I already believe that it's impossible to raise a family (and possibly even be single) on minimum wage. If you start taking even more of that already scarce resource then you won't have any economy. Who do you expect to buy all of these new electronic gizmos and so forth? Who do you expect to buy tickets to games for all of these sporting events where athletes are paid millions of dollars/year? This money comes from people consuming these goods and services. If there is only a small amount of people who can actually afford to do that, then there is no economy. At some point, the wealthy have purchased what they need -- there is just no incentive for every wealthy person in the U.S. to purchase 20,000 iPads (as opposed to having a large number of middle-class people purchase them). In such scenarios where too many people have nothing you usually just wind up with a revolution.

    This is one reason why I think the fair tax makes a lot more sense. People aren't taxed on their income but rather their expenditures. If you spend more money then you pay more taxes. Very simple. Of course it would also put thousands of people that work for the federal government out of a job so they would not have income to spend until they found a new job. But then again taxes would be much easier to calculate so the government wouldn't need to spend all of that money to have people review tax returns in such a complicated system.

    I do however think that 23% is too high for low income people to pay. Again, if you're only making $15,000/year on minimum wage then chances are you are spending all of that amount every year on rent, groceries, etc. Thus, they are really getting about $11,500/year which is just insanely low to expect anyone to raise a family, etc. Even a single person will have a hard time living off of that. Rent at reasonable places in my town is usually at least $600/month for a single bedroom apartment. That's already $7200/year. Then car payments, gas, insurance, medical bills, food, etc. Good luck...

    Maybe it's just that I don't make millions of dollars/year and if I did I would see things differently. But making so much money that I get to whine about being taxed more sounds like a good problem to have if you ask me. If wealthy people don't like their tax rate then they can always stop making that much money by changing to a lower paying job. If there are any millionaires out there who wish to trade salaries with me I will accept your call any time! (Ok I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here but still...call me).

    Whatever happens I still have a few ideas to raise revenue:

    1. Legalize pot and tax it
    2. Legalize gay marriage and get a boost from all of the incoming marriage licenses (though this income would probably be very significant at first and then taper off until it was only a tad more than what we currently have now). Bonus: You'll get to have courts/states making money off of all the gay divorces that occur too! (Yes -- that's a joke though there is a nugget of truth to it).
     
  19. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Android Expert
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    183
    Posts:
    4,488
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010

    Aug 29, 2010
    4,488
    472
    183
    Student
    Cork City, IMF, EU
    I can certainly see why you'd assume that I am assuming so: My points in their entirety could only really be applied to large businesses. But taken individually, you'll find they apply to non business owners, the upper middle class made up of doctors, lawyers, highly skilled engineers, bankers and so on. They likewise benefit from the government. Not all equally, sure, but nowt can be done about that.
    Actually I'll think you find my argument did :p Forgetting the unemployed (the majority whom, certainly at this point in time, do not wish to do so), I think its hard to argue that the poor benefit multiples more from the government more than the wealthy. If anything the the lower income strands of society are government subsidised labour for the wealthy.

    And don't get me wrong, I don't really like the idea of taxing work: but certainly when you go passed 6 figures I'm pretty sure that work isn't in real terms that valuable. But right now, the US has (one of?) the highest income disparities in the western
    world, and it needs to come down.
     
  20. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Extreme Android User
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    213
    Posts:
    7,059
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010

    Jun 7, 2010
    7,059
    967
    213
    Statistically there are not a lot of people raising a family on minimum wage. Those are outliers, not typical examples. Most people making minimum wage are high school age and students working their first jobs or they're people working a second job for whatever reason.
     
  21. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest
    Rank:
    None
    Posts:
    0
    Joined:

    But there are a lot of people raising families that are below the poverty line. People talk about entitlements like it only applies to the poor and the elderly, but the rich can also have a false sense of entitlement. The biggest complaint I have with some of the wealthy is it's bad enough when they pay themselves an insane salary, but then compound that by the fact that they also have limitless leisure time. If you're several times richer than the average worker then you shouldn't have several times the leisure time of the average worker. In fact, you should be constantly working if you feel you're entitled to every penny of the million dollar a year salary that you are paid. Of course, that's not what tends to happen, and some people think the rich are entitled to limitless salaries and limitless leisure time.
     
  22. copestag

    copestag Android Expert
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    143
    Posts:
    1,355
    Joined:
    May 23, 2010

    May 23, 2010
    1,355
    247
    143
    lol now theyre abusing their "fair share" of leisure time too?

    FFS

    btw...... according to the standards used to measure "poverty".... Mitt Romney is below the poverty line... as are many other countless millionaires and billionaires.... all considered poor
     
  23. batgeek

    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    93
    Posts:
    752
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010

    Sep 4, 2010
    752
    176
    93
    Systems Engineer
    Suffolk, VA
    i don't see the word "illegal" used in that definition.

    you lose again.
     
  24. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Extreme Android User
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    213
    Posts:
    7,059
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010

    Jun 7, 2010
    7,059
    967
    213
    Why? What is wrong with enjoying leisure time? I feel like I'm detecting notes of jealousy here. If you can earn more by working less isn't that the dream?
     
  25. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Android Expert
    Thread Starter
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    143
    Posts:
    1,568
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010

    Jul 15, 2010
    1,568
    129
    143
    Getting somewhat back on topic, Walker wins recall vote, also outspent opposition by 12-1 (including superpac).

    Any application to the upcoming Nov. election ?
     

Share This Page

Loading...