Emboldened GOP Wants to Abolish State Income Taxes

[lawgator1]

But you are equating his income and tax rate to a cause for the middle class not doing so well.

What you've posted above is a "fairness" argument but it then gets couched in a "solution" argument - the way to help the middle class is to make him pay more.

This is the fundamental disconnect and where the intellectual dishonesty in the Obama message comes in - "you are all suffering because he isn't paying enough" and the corollary - "if we make him pay more, your situation will improve". Until you show the mechanism of how him paying more improves the economic condition of the middle class then you are simply creating a boogey man out of the well-off.

1) You are looking at this in far too narrow a time frame. Its not that I can trace the extra $6 million that Romney SHOULD be paying and then track it and show you who in the middle class paid a bit less because of it. Rather, it is that long term we have greater revenue which decreases the debt and lifts the long-term burden on the middle class to deal with that debt.

(Not to mention all of the good long term consequences to every tier of the economy created by reducing debt).

More importantly ....

2) Let's say you are right, and that we can never show that an increase in Romney's taxes leads to a direct, 1-to-1 reduction in the taxes of middle class Americans.

So? Is it not still the case that Romney should pay the same rate as anyone in his income level, regardless of the course of the income?

You speak of "intellectual honesty," but then you seek to apply to my argument a test that you create for purposes of the argument failing, a test which, in the end, can never be met (because you cannot track the dollars), and a test which really misses a justifying measure of what I'm saying.

Which is that there is no legitimate reason Romney should pay less in taxes for making his money off of investments versus making it off of working.

 

[CSpindizzy]

So? Is it not still the case that Romney should pay the same rate as anyone in his income level, regardless of the course of the income?

Translation - end all deductions and credits that allow people within the same income bracket to pay less taxes. End the child tax credit, education credit, charitable deductions, mortgage interest deductions, etc. Because we don't like people who don't pay the same as everyone else in their bracket right?

 

[volinbham]

1) You are looking at this in far too narrow a time frame. Its not that I can trace the extra $6 million that Romney SHOULD be paying and then track it and show you who in the middle class paid a bit less because of it. Rather, it is that long term we have greater revenue which decreases the debt and lifts the long-term burden on the middle class to deal with that debt.

(Not to mention all of the good long term consequences to every tier of the economy created by reducing debt).

What Obama is arguing and you implied is not that the middle class is paying too much taxes because of guys like Romney - it is that because of rich guys not paying "their fair share", the middle class is being damaged - decimated was your word IIRC. I'm simply asking for the causal link - if there isn't cause and effect then claiming making Romney-types pay more will not help the plight of the middle class. Hell, 1/2 the middle class pays no federal income tax so they aren't paying too much because of Romney-types.

More importantly ....

2) Let's say you are right, and that we can never show that an increase in Romney's taxes leads to a direct, 1-to-1 reduction in the taxes of middle class Americans.

So? Is it not still the case that Romney should pay the same rate as anyone in his income level, regardless of the course of the income?

Entirely depends on what you are seeking to do with the tax code. I think most economists would agree that there is a connection between cap gains rates and investment (and ultimately the cost of capital). Is 15% the optimal number? I don't know but there is a clear economic reason to encourage long-term investments.

Regardless - we get back the the flaw in the argument. If it's only about "fairness" then a point can be made. When you add the causal link that because the rate is low; the middle class is being hurt, destroyed, decimated, erased or whatever rhetoric then the argument falls apart. The only way raising the cap gains rate to 30% (Buffet rule) will grow the middle class is by bringing some former upper-middle into the middle.

You speak of "intellectual honesty," but then you seek to apply to my argument a test that you create for purposes of the argument failing, a test which, in the end, can never be met (because you cannot track the dollars), and a test which really misses a justifying measure of what I'm saying.

If the argument is the rich getting richer is why the middle class is failing then yes the mechanism by which raising taxes on the rich will reverse this must be explained. Otherwise it's simply a political platitude - what is really meant by class warfare. Obama is doing this and you directly suggested it in you post saying the middle class was being decimated by the rich getting richer.

Which is that there is no legitimate reason Romney should pay less in taxes for making his money off of investments versus making it off of working.

Legitimate according to who? There are any number of taxation policies that are advocated depending on the objectives of the tax code. What are the objectives that lead to this conclusion that investment income should always be taxed the same as other income? Most economists would argue such a taxation policy may actually LOWER total revenues to the treasury (within a given range of rates).

 

[lawgator1]

Translation - end all deductions and credits that allow people within the same income bracket to pay less taxes. End the child tax credit, education credit, charitable deductions, mortgage interest deductions, etc. Because we don't like people who don't pay the same as everyone else in their bracket right?

Yes, end all of it, restructure the tiers, and tax income within those tiers exactly the same, regardless of type or source of income.

The lowest income tier would have a very low rate, but they'd pay something.

Legitimate according to who? There are any number of taxation policies that are advocated depending on the objectives of the tax code. What are the objectives that lead to this conclusion that investment income should always be taxed the same as other income? Most economists would argue such a taxation policy may actually LOWER total revenues to the treasury (within a given range of rates).

I imagine that if you put it up to a vote, and asked the American people whether they want Romney taxed at the same rate as someone who makes the same amount of money the old fashioned way, it would get over 80 percent approval.

Why do you think it is the kick off point for Obama's reelection campaign?

Saw a show the other day, and commentator was saying that this is largely a function of the times. When things are good, Americans don't particularly pay a lot of attention to tax structure and these inequities. but when things are this bad, for this long, it gets a lot of attention.

 

[CSpindizzy]

LG sticking it to the poor....checking the temp in Hell again.

 

[volinbham]

I imagine that if you put it up to a vote, and asked the American people whether they want Romney taxed at the same rate as someone who makes the same amount of money the old fashioned way, it would get over 80 percent approval.

The old fashioned way? :blink:

80%? Try 52%

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rates-popular/2012/01/03/gIQAYFzecQ_blog.html

Not sure how that makes it the only legitimate way to tax.

Why do you think it is the kick off point for Obama's reelection campaign?

Class envy and warfare is the way to get people to ignore his record and vote for the vague promise that sticking it to the man will ease their pain.

Saw a show the other day, and commentator was saying that this is largely a function of the times. When things are good, Americans don't particularly pay a lot of attention to tax structure and these inequities. but when things are this bad, for this long, it gets a lot of attention.

So that makes it legitimate? I'm hurting so lets make everyone hurt more? Awesome leadership.

 

[lawgator1]

So that makes it legitimate? I'm hurting so lets make everyone hurt more? Awesome leadership.

I think that is a pretty poor restatement of what I'm saying. But I also think we have pretty much reached a point where there is not much else to say about it.

 

[volinbham]

I think that is a pretty poor restatement of what I'm saying. But I also think we have pretty much reached a point where there is not much else to say about it.

For the record, the second part is my interpretation of the Obama message; not your argument. I understand you believe it's the only legitimate tax policy but the evidence of that legitmacy is lacking.

 

[RespectTradition]

I'm with you there as well, I just want to start with the property taxes, then get rid of the income tax and replace it all with usage taxes for normal budgetary items and bonds for things not in the budget.

amen

 

[volinbham]

Let's cut to the chase - if Romney's investment income were taxed at the same rate as earned income, it would take about 150 Romney's to pay for one Solyndra deal. I fail to see how the Solyndra deal helped the middle class or not doing Solyndra deals would decimate the middle class.

Government spends all it can get and more with negligible results.

NOTE: There were under 8000 total tax filers that were at Romney's income level.

 

[lawgator1]

Let's cut to the chase - if Romney's investment income were taxed at the same rate as earned income, it would take about 150 Romney's to pay for one Solyndra deal. I fail to see how the Solyndra deal helped the middle class or not doing Solyndra deals would decimate the middle class.

Government spends all it can get and more with negligible results.

NOTE: There were under 8000 total tax filers that were at Romney's income level.

How about we do both?

No more Solyndra's, for either party, and we tax capital gains or investment income as ordinary income?

Deficit goes down, spend less, more revenue, economy gets better....

win win

 

[n_huffhines]

How about we do both?

No more Solyndra's, for either party, and we tax capital gains or investment income as ordinary income?

Deficit goes down, spend less, more revenue, economy gets better....

win win

Won't happen. It will always be 18-20% of GDP. Anybody who tells you US tax policy can increase it lives in a fantasyland.

 

[volinbham]

How about we do both?

No more Solyndra's, for either party, and we tax capital gains or investment income as ordinary income?

Deficit goes down, spend less, more revenue, economy gets better....

win win

For some reason the Solyndra-style spending is advocated by Obama while demanding Mitt pay more - well, it takes 100s of Mitt's to make up for one Solyndra.

Interestingly enough, if you left Mitt alone there is more private investment capital at reasonable rates available for Solyndra type businesses so the government doesn't have to participate. Jack up the cap gains and investment capital gets more expensive and then Obama types claim the government has to get involved since private capital won't.

 

[BeecherVol]

Yes, end all of it, restructure the tiers, and tax income within those tiers exactly the same, regardless of type or source of income.

The lowest income tier would have a very low rate, but they'd pay something.





I imagine that if you put it up to a vote, and asked the American people whether they want Romney taxed at the same rate as someone who makes the same amount of money the old fashioned way, it would get over 80 percent approval.

Why do you think it is the kick off point for Obama's reelection campaign?

Saw a show the other day, and commentator was saying that this is largely a function of the times. When things are good, Americans don't particularly pay a lot of attention to tax structure and these inequities. but when things are this bad, for this long, it gets a lot of attention.

Because he literally has nothing else to run on. After 4 years he will lean on his ability to be a politician and divert.

 

[BeecherVol]

How about we do both?

No more Solyndra's, for either party, and we tax capital gains or investment income as ordinary income?

Deficit goes down, spend less, more revenue, economy gets better....

win win

In your words, thats over simplified. What makes you think the government doesn't find something else to blow the money on. Don't act like this is not the norm.