Issue with Romney or the tax itself?
Again, this is all just BS.
There are but a few real issues that matter in this election. Those, at the top of the list, are the economy and jobs.
We have proof that obama has no idea about how our economy works. It's time for a real leader to take charge.
So everyone jumping about how charitable Romney is, how much of these donations are to the Mormon church?
You mean someone who has made his career out of dismantling businesses and off shoring?
Agreed, but it also raises the basic fairness of capital gains rates. Why is the man whose investments earn his bread taxed at a lower rate than the man whose labor earns his bread? True, his money is at risk, but most of us (who don't work for government) also take a risk when we take a job that our means of earning a living will go tango uniform, especially in today's economy.So 33.65% combined for effective + charity. Seems in line. Good for romney :thumbsup:
Agreed, but it also raises the basic fairness of capital gains rates. Why is the man whose investments earn his bread taxed at a lower rate than the man whose labor earns his bread? True, his money is at risk, but most of us (who don't work for government) also take a risk when we take a job that our means of earning a living will go tango uniform, especially in today's economy.
I don't want the wealthy taxed at a higher rate, but I fail to see why they should be taxed at a lower rate.
Maybe that offshore money would look bad to some.
I have a better and more fundamental question: Why are income and profits taxed at all? That makes no sense what so ever in a free capitalistic economy with property rights.
Agreed, but it also raises the basic fairness of capital gains rates. Why is the man whose investments earn his bread taxed at a lower rate than the man whose labor earns his bread? True, his money is at risk, but most of us (who don't work for government) also take a risk when we take a job that our means of earning a living will go tango uniform, especially in today's economy.
I don't want the wealthy taxed at a higher rate, but I fail to see why they should be taxed at a lower rate.
Well, we have to tax something, else we have no government and thus no military so someone else comes in and takes all our untaxed wealth. My preference is to tax commerce via the FairTax, but most people aren't going to vote for a non-progressive tax and Congress certainly isn't going to voluntarily give up that kind of power. Also, outsourcing, the decline of unions, increased immigration (especially illegal immigration), and our increasingly automated and technological society all combine to force down wages at and near the bottom of the scale, and consumption taxes in any form become more problematic as income disparity increases. So while philosophically I much prefer consumption taxes to income taxes, I see no practical chance of us making that switch, and some societal problems if we did.I have a better and more fundamental question: Why are income and profits taxed at all? That makes no sense what so ever in a free capitalistic economy with property rights.
Agreed, but it also raises the basic fairness of capital gains rates. Why is the man whose investments earn his bread taxed at a lower rate than the man whose labor earns his bread? True, his money is at risk, but most of us (who don't work for government) also take a risk when we take a job that our means of earning a living will go tango uniform, especially in today's economy.
I don't want the wealthy taxed at a higher rate, but I fail to see why they should be taxed at a lower rate.
I have a better and more fundamental question: Why are income and profits taxed at all? That makes no sense what so ever in a free capitalistic economy with property rights.
Yeah, here's an even better question: why do we even have taxes at all?
What else do you propose taxing?
Property tax? That would seem to be an even bigger violation of property rights.
Estate tax? This is to me the least morally objectionable tax. In that you keep what you earn during your life, and your children are forced to do the same. Not likely to raise enough revenue.
Income tax? You pointed out the problems above.
Excise tax? Not likely to raise enough revenue.
Sales tax? Highly regressive. And all actual proposals for such a system rely on massive government redistribution of wealth to account for it. Now why am I suspicious of a tax propose by the right the relies on massive wealth redistribution?
It's hard to say, especially when the Mormon doctrine decrees that at least 10% of your income goes to the church.
Then the bigger question is, how much influence would that church have if Romney would get elected as President.
First, the purpose of what Romney did was to make a profit. He did that by creating wealth by growing business and he was very successful. As to the off shoring jobs.....what is wrong with that? If it was not for out sourcing jobs, Americans would be out hundreds of thousands of well paying jobs here in the good old US of A. Why would you want Americans to loose jobs and then pay more for what they need to buy?
Sales tax? Highly regressive. And all actual proposals for such a system rely on massive government redistribution of wealth to account for it. Now why am I suspicious of a tax propose by the right the relies on massive wealth redistribution?
Let's note other businessmen who have offshored jobs:
Hmmm, there's liberal Steve Jobs (hey, where did all of those Apple phones get manufactured), there's another - liberal Bill Gates. Oh, what about the companies that Warren Buffett, another liberal, invests in - many of which offshore jobs. Oh, and let's not forget GE's CEO and main advisor on Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board - Jeff Immelt.
I want to tax services/spending/transfer of money/wealth. No exceptions.
marginal utility of a dollar, for one.Tell me why the rich should pay more, as a percentage, then the 99% (of which I'm included)?
so... an income tax
You mean someone who has made his career out of dismantling businsses and off shoring?
A progressive tax scheme is the only one that is a wealth distribution.
Tell me why the rich should pay more, as a percentage, then the 99% (of which I'm included)?
It's hard to say, especially when the Mormon doctrine decrees that at least 10% of your income goes to the church.
-snip-