Mitt Romney raising taxes?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by dscuber9000, Aug 4, 2012.

  1. dscuber9000 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    Indiana, US
    #1
    Obama's tax plan has been pretty clear since he was running for President in 2008: Anyone making more than $250,000 would have a tax increase while everyone else will stay the same, or even see their taxes go down. While people may agree or disagree with that vision of tax reform, there is one thing I have never seen anyone clamor for: the opposite. Nobody at all seems to support a tax decrease on the rich and a tax increase on the middle/lower class.

    Well, apparently one person is advocating that tax plan: Mitt Romney.

    Source: PolitiFact

    PolitiFact does make the point that there are details about Mitt Romney's tax plan that are unknown, therefor the estimates are not complete. (And, what do you know, Mitt Romney is being coy about taxes.) However, it is hard to argue that this isn't severely favoring the already favored while everyone else seems to be an afterthought.

    Just a little surprised that I have to hear about this in a political attack ad, which I assumed was false or an exaggeration. But when it turns out to be true, the mainstream media doesn't pick up the story that the Republican candidate for President of the United States suggesting tax increases on the middle class. Liberal media indeed. :rolleyes:
     
  2. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #2
    MSNBC reported this a few days ago.
     
  3. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #3
    NPR reported on it as well which is were I first heard about it going to work in the morning.
     
  4. dscuber9000 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    Indiana, US
  5. mgguy, Aug 4, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2012

    mgguy macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #5
    The already favored are the near 50% of income earners who pay no income taxes at all or who get a tax credit (free money). It hardly seems fair to allow them to avoid paying something, even if it is only a tiny percentage of their income.
     
  6. Demonface macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Location:
    Jersey/Miami
    #6
    Romney raising taxes thats another reason why he's not becoming president. :D

    I agree with Obama's tax plan . I also agree that every American should have health care but to the republicans that's something they don't want . I think we should give Obama another four years and let him do what he promised and we will see how well this country will thrive at the end of his term .
     
  7. Jackintosh macrumors 6502a

    Jackintosh

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Location:
    Illinois
    #7
    I couldn't agree more. The health care situation of the richest country in the world is shameful. Everyone should have a right to it, no matter your financial situation. That 40 million can't afford it and go without is pretty bad. This is something the Republicans are just fine with, which is amazing.
     
  8. thewitt macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #8
    Thrive? Full on depression would occur.

    You paying ANY attention to the economy?

    You guys have to quit blaming Bush and own up to your fiscal disaster.
     
  9. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #9
    Yes, we're paying attention to the economy. There is scant to no evidence to support the dire outcome you're talking about. Limbaughesque fearmongering ≠ likely outcome.

    And sorry, the fact that we're four years away from the economic crash hasn't changed the fact that Republicans, in the main, caused it.

    News flash: Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito are still responsible for WWII.

    As far as Romney goes, isn't this a familiar pattern? When Bush first instituted these tax cuts, didn't the bulk of the benefits go to the rich? Wasn't that the pattern even when Reagan was president?
     
  10. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #10
    How about GOP leadership in general?
     
  11. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #11
    In other words: "The already favored are the near 50% of income earners who make so little that they couldn't afford to pay taxes anyway."

    If they are currently receiving any type of government assistance, then it seems silly to have them pay in, as they are just giving money back to the very people who just gave them money. Might as well just advocate for less assistance for the poor.
     
  12. MorphingDragon macrumors 603

    MorphingDragon

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    The World Inbetween
    #12
    Just like you know, how the other depression occurred. :rolleyes:
     
  13. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #13
    Mathematically impossible.


     
  14. dscuber9000 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    Indiana, US
    #14
    My impression is that they want tax decreases for both. This is the first time I'm hearing about a tax increase on the lower and middle classes.
     
  15. mykelala01 macrumors 6502

    mykelala01

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    #15
    I agreed 100%. the only people who hated Obama's tax plan of course the one who got enough wealth, is pure greedy. Bush administrator put us in these mess in the first place. Obama tried to pick up the economy. But 4 year is not enough when Bush mess our economy in 8 years span. Then here comes Romney who have the same agenda with Bush. Good luck to us.
     
  16. gibbz, Aug 5, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2012

    gibbz macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    #16
    These people still pay sales taxes and other local taxes. Even a "tiny" percentage of their income can truly represent a repressive amount.

    Depression? LOL. Who told you that? Rush?

    Let's recap: When President Obama took office in January 2009, the economy was hemorrhaging ~800K jobs/month. The auto-industry was in crisis.

    Now you say to quit blaming Bush. I agree that we should stop focusing on that man, but to fail and acknowledge the catastrophic effects of his Presidency is disingenuous. Especially, when people like you think the economy acts as a discontinuity between administrations. It takes time to recover from those numbers. There is no "easy button." In fact, it's a stance that Mitt Romney applied when defending his Governorship.

    Given time to implement his policies (again, something Mitt Romney once said was reasonable), the job situation turned around. Over the past 29 months, the economy has averaged adding ~155K private-sector jobs per month (or over 4.5 million).

    [​IMG]

    "Oh, but the unemployment rate is not good", you might say. This is true, but not fully for the reasons you want to acknowledge. The obstructionism and austerity pushed by Republicans (namely Tea Partiers) has cut ~600,000 or more public-sector jobs. If those had not been cut, the unemployment rate could be up to a full point better.

    Are things peachy? No. But are you so short on memory to seriously advocate for a guy who would reinstate Bush policies on day 1? Do you really believe "trickle-down" works?
     
  17. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #17
    Based on WHAT? (Besides your guesses and just outright bias towards Obama and the Democratic party). What leads you to this conclusion? When Obama took office we were close to a full on depression. Now we have moved away from that. So what evidence do you see of that considering the actual track record of the President has been to add jobs, not hemorrhage 600,000 a month as was the case when he started?

    Are you? Clearly not if you think that Jan of 2009 looks like Aug 2012. The numbers are plain as day different for all to see. But you can't see if you have your blinders on.

    And you have to stop trying to sweep Bush under the rug. Republicans act like we went from Bill Clinton to Obama and skipped the years in between. To not have the last sitting Republican President at the Republican convention is pathetic and speaks volumes.
     
  18. Demonface macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Location:
    Jersey/Miami
    #18
    Lol We are blaming bush because everything what happened was his fault look at the entire world. Everyone got affected because of him. Our only hope is Obama because he has the hardest job right now and that is to fix the economy and get the United States back to being number 1 which is where we belong.
     
  19. mykelala01 macrumors 6502

    mykelala01

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    #19
    Good analysis! Vote Up!
     
  20. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #20
    Haven't they (GOP) been insisting for a long time that the bottom 50% don't pay enough taxes? That's what I've heard.
     
  21. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #21
    you should see the real break down of that 50%. Of that 50% 25% of them are in retirement zone and are collect SS.
    Next 50% of that 50% do pay threw payroll tax. So 75% of that group can be tossed out for one reason or another on that taxes so you can put it up to more of the standard GOP lies.

    ----------

    I would like to point out that from when Bush took office to left office we pretty much had no job growth at all. All the jobs created were all lost before he left office.
     
  22. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #22
    I forget the exact number, but it's like 95% of the wealth is held in the top 8%. Sure you can get all of those people in the bottom 50% to pay a little, but it won't support a budget like the U.S. is used to. I'm thrilled that the Obama Administration is hitting on the notion that when top tax rates are cut, the bottom, who are ill prepared for the task, will have to make up the difference.
     
  23. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #23
    so by that logic those 8% should pay 95% of the taxes but we both know they pay by far less than 95% of the taxes.

    Stupid GOP really gets unhappy when their own logic is used against them.
     
  24. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #24
    BINGO! :cool:
     
  25. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #25
    The EITC (or EIC) was created in 1975 to offset the burden of social security taxes for low-income workers. It was developed and continues to provide an incentive to work because without it, some families might be better off not working and taking public assistance. By all accounts the EIC works and works well to protect low-income families from having to pay Federal Income taxes—they still of course pay more of their income by percentages than the wealth in sales, local, state, property, and "sin" taxes. According to the IRS, this affects about 27.5 million tax filings, equal to about $60.4 billion.

    For comparison, the Bush tax cuts costs the US treasury about $11.6 million every hour since their inception. In less than one month, the treasury has lost more money than could be gained by completely eliminating the EITC.

    Funny comparison. There's a certain reality to it too. Obama is trying to enact the Marshall Plan, but rather than being able to send over hundreds of Candy Bombers, he's been forced to fight tooth and nail without people who really don't believe the plan will work. If Truman had our Congress, Germany would still be the DDR.

    Excellent point. Most of the states have to balance their budgets and unfortunately layoffs are part of that processes, but part of the stimulus went to the states to shore up their budgets and protect jobs. The unemployment rate would have been worse without this and every governor knows it.

    Our own Gov. Jan Brewer—who loves to put a stick into the Fed's eyes every change she gets—happily took this money and used it for her own projects, including new anti-immigration expenditures.

    Had we followed the "Romney plan" the unemployment rate would be significantly higher since states would have shed more public sector jobs and the collapse of GM would have destroyed Ford and finished off Chrysler and burned the entire industry to the ground.
     

Share This Page