Romney vs. Obama

[A.Nonymous]

in summation:

the rich should pay more taxes. the poor should pay less. that is what is called fair.


disclaimer - that is not my stance

And that is a conclusion that I disagree with. It basically encourages people to be poor because you will be financially punished by being rich. It amounts to little more than negative re-enforcement.

I'll say this one more time and I'll type it slower so you'll understand. If a citizen/corporation has MORE TO GAIN from a system that's in place then why is it so difficult to ask them to pay a little more into that system?

I would argue that the poor have more to gain from the system than the wealthy. The wealthiest of Americans are going to benefit from public roads and emergency services and probably not much more than that. Their kids are in private schools. They pay for their own medical services. If they get fired they've got millions in the bank (sometimes literally) so they don't get unemployment. They use very few government services. The middle class are going to benefit from public roads, emergency services, schools, federal disaster cleanup and probably unemployment as well if they lose their jobs. Move down to the poorest and they're going to utilize all of those services plus Medicare/Medicaid (which are very expensive programs) and other federally funded health programs. They are also likely to utilize government subsidized housing and food programs as well subsidized job training programs.

In short, the poor use far more government services than the wealthy do. If you want to use the logic that those using the services should pay and those who aren't shouldn't, then the tax burden is going to fall heavily on the poor. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm fairly sure that's not it.

 

[ylexot]

Personally, I'm a proponent of the FairTax:
FairTax | American for Fair Taxation | Tax Reform Solutions | Consumption Tax - Americans For Fair Taxation

 

[ElasticNinja]

Consumption Taxes hurt the poor the most. I'm in favour of high consumption taxes for bad things like oil, coal, natural gas, alcohol, cigarettes etc as well as things like electricity and water. However I feel these must be balanced out to lessen the hit on those on lower incomes, i.e. tax credits and universal services.
A 23% federal sales tax is the same rate we pay in Ireland (There is no local VAT/Sales taxes here, and the European sales tax is taken from the national collection afterwards), which I think is a fair bit too high, and 23% for services?? Really?

 

[ylexot]

Consumption Taxes hurt the poor the most. I'm in favour of high consumption taxes for bad things like oil, coal, natural gas, alcohol, cigarettes etc as well as things like electricity and water. However I feel these must be balanced out to lessen the hit on those on lower incomes, i.e. tax credits and universal services.
A 23% federal sales tax is the same rate we pay in Ireland (There is no local VAT/Sales taxes here, and the European sales tax is taken from the national collection afterwards), which I think is a fair bit too high, and 23% for services?? Really?

Have you read anything about FairTax? Maybe this will help you out:
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTaxIsGoodForYoungAndLowIncomeFamilies.pdf

 

[ElasticNinja]

Have you read anything about FairTax? Maybe this will help you out:
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTaxIsGoodForYoungAndLowIncomeFamilies.pdf

I have, although not a whole pile. Just read it there... and yeah, I dont see any rebate proposals or anything. That's done nothing to alleviate my concerns.
Also, regarding half the population not paying federal income tax, why should they? The federal government mostly spends its budget on the military, justice etc, not on education, transport or other vital services. I think the top 50% should pay some federal income tax, sure. Lets not forget that people have to deal with state and local taxes. Never ceases to amaze me how states right people completely forget about their own states and localities.

 

[ylexot]

I have, although not a whole pile. Just read it there... and yeah, I dont see any rebate proposals or anything. That's done nothing to alleviate my concerns.

Must not have read very well since the number three bullet is:

The FairTax allows every family to purchase necessities tax free via a rebate system that exempts all spending up to the poverty level, as determined by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Also, regarding half the population not paying federal income tax, why should they? The federal government mostly spends its budget on the military, justice etc, not on education, transport or other vital services. I think the top 50% should pay some federal income tax, sure. Lets not forget that people have to deal with state and local taxes. Never ceases to amaze me how states right people completely forget about their own states and localities.

Actually, the federal government spends most if its budget on Social Security and Medicare...and those percentages are on the rise.

As for the states, they can do the same thing if they want. Chances are, if they have a similar system to the federal tax system, the poor pay nothing in state/local taxes.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Must not have read very well since the number three bullet is:


Actually, the federal government spends most if its budget on Social Security and Medicare...and those percentages are on the rise.

As for the states, they can do the same thing if they want. Chances are, if they have a similar system to the federal tax system, the poor pay nothing in state/local taxes.

I clearly didnt read it properly But anyway, but the US poverty level is like 10%.. so yeah that would push the Gini index up another ten points or so, if the rebate was that crap.

Social security is not funded by normal taxes, its an insurance system paid from a seperate levy on income. Surely they dont plan to remove that? Heh.
I've no idea how medicare is funded... but I dont expect people on lower incomes to pay for even half their healthcare, thats ridiculous.

 

[ylexot]

Social security is not funded by normal taxes, its an insurance system paid from a seperate levy on income. Surely they dont plan to remove that? Heh.

I wish they would remove that bloated unconstitutional ponzi scheme. But that's ok, FairTax takes it into account anyway.

I've no idea how medicare is funded... but I dont expect people on lower incomes to pay for even half their healthcare, thats ridiculous.

Where did I say anything remotely related to that? Of course, I think those bloated unconstitutional programs should be removed as well.

 

[ElasticNinja]

I wish they would remove that bloated unconstitutional ponzi scheme. But that's ok, FairTax takes it into account anyway.

And replace it with what? In a federation with similar costs in every state, federal Social Welfare makes a lot of sense. I guess it could be delegated to states, but that would take a ridiculous amount of effort and hassle, and every state would have to provide a minumum level of protection. The U.S.'s safety net is crap enough as it is, you hardly suggest getting rid of it altogether?

Where did I say anything remotely related to that? Of course, I think those bloated unconstitutional programs should be removed as well.

Aaaaaand replace it with what?

 

[ylexot]

And replace it with what? In a federation with similar costs in every state, federal Social Welfare makes a lot of sense. I guess it could be delegated to states, but that would take a ridiculous amount of effort and hassle, and every state would have to provide a minumum level of protection. The U.S.'s safety net is crap enough as it is, you hardly suggest getting rid of it altogether?


Aaaaaand replace it with what?

Replace it with absolutely nothing. Want to retire? Save your own money. Want health care? Get a job and pay for it. Personal charity is the safety net...or at least it used to be until it was usurped by the government. Sure, it's still there, but not like it was in the past.

 

[batgeek]

nothing. let the strong survive and the weak die.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Replace it with absolutely nothing. Want to retire? Save your own money. Want health care? Get a job and pay for it. Personal charity is the safety net...or at least it used to be until it was usurped by the government. Sure, it's still there, but not like it was in the past.

The problem is people won't save for retirement. How many people today are adequately saving for retirement? Yet I don't know anyone who expects Social Security to be there for them. People won't pay for their health care either for the most part. Those people then become a drain on society. Here's a 90 year old man who is still working because he can't afford to retire and he has alzheimers. What can we do? No one stands up and blames him. It's considered extremely rude, in general, to blame people for their problems.

 

[batgeek]

i blame them.

i plan accordingly for the future. i take care of me and my own. it's no one else's responsibility to do that.

and no one should be FORCED to do that for anyone else.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Replace it with absolutely nothing. Want to retire? Save your own money. Want health care? Get a job and pay for it. Personal charity is the safety net...or at least it used to be until it was usurped by the government. Sure, it's still there, but not like it was in the past.

Wow...
I thought we left these ideas behind after WWII.

nothing. let the strong survive and the weak die.

So if you were born an orphan with cerebal palsy, you should be thrown out on the street and left to die? Niiiiice. Also disgusting.

Even the far right doesnt spout that kind of crap here. Go Europe huh?

 

[ElasticNinja]

The problem is people won't save for retirement. How many people today are adequately saving for retirement? Yet I don't know anyone who expects Social Security to be there for them. People won't pay for their health care either for the most part. Those people then become a drain on society. Here's a 90 year old man who is still working because he can't afford to retire and he has alzheimers. What can we do? No one stands up and blames him. It's considered extremely rude, in general, to blame people for their problems.

Hmmm, plan for a pension and have $200 + $100 a week, or just dont bother/cant afford and get your $100. I'd certainly plan a pension, but then again, with investment funds, you can lose everything.

As for healthcare, its frankly ridiculous to expect people to pay $200K out of their assets, everyone should have insurance, if they cant afford it, the state should pay.

 

[ylexot]

The problem is people won't save for retirement. How many people today are adequately saving for retirement? Yet I don't know anyone who expects Social Security to be there for them. People won't pay for their health care either for the most part. Those people then become a drain on society. Here's a 90 year old man who is still working because he can't afford to retire and he has alzheimers. What can we do? No one stands up and blames him. It's considered extremely rude, in general, to blame people for their problems.

Sucks to be them.

 

[ylexot]

Hmmm, plan for a pension and have $200 + $100 a week, or just dont bother/cant afford and get your $100. I'd certainly plan a pension, but then again, with investment funds, you can lose everything.

Bull. You won't lose everything in an investment fund unless the entire economy of the world collapses...in which case, your money isn't worth anything anyway. And the performance out of that plan is better than SS. So, instead of SS getting pulled out of your check, you invest it...or maybe just put it in the bank where it gains interest.

As for healthcare, its frankly ridiculous to expect people to pay $200K out of their assets, everyone should have insurance, if they cant afford it, the state should pay.

Who's paying $200k for what?

 

[ylexot]

Wow...
I thought we left these ideas behind after WWII.

Yeah, those antiquated ideas of saving, working hard, and caring for your fellow man...oh, and don't forget that silly Constitution. It's just soooooo...OLD! And OMG they talked funny back then. ROTFLMAO!

I know, right?

 

[ylexot]

Of course, we have gotten waaaaaaaaay off topic. What was the topic again?

 

[noonehereyet]

I never thought Bush would get elected to his 2nd term, and we all know how that turned out. I think a lot of people may figure Obama will beat whatever GOP candidate is out there and thus not take the time to vote. Granted, I think the GOP candidates have done Obama's work for him once the primaries roll around. All you have to do is play back every candidate's negative ads against Romney, and then there are the GOP candidates that "freudianly" support Obama...

Senator John McCain Endorses President Barack Obama - YouTube

The simple fact and problem is that YOU and WE DO NOT elect the president, and your vote means nothing. This is something we are all taught in school and most seem to have forgotten. It's called the Electoral College- Read here Electoral College. They are the ones who actually elect the president and 5 times in our history the popular/peoples vote was not elected as president. Voting on a Federal level is not the answer... The issue is State based and who you elect locally that decides who becomes president. That being said the issue becomes who on a state level do the candidates have in their pockets...

 

[A.Nonymous]

the exact definition of "fair share" in 2012 is 1/313,000,000 of the Federal Budget(this is of course if you forget the fact that businesses pay federal taxes as well just for the privilege of operating)........ this should apply to every man, woman, and child........ so if you have kids below working age who cannot provide for their "fair share" then as a parent its your responsibility to pay their share as well

I did the math on this just for shits and giggles. Comes out to about $12k a person more or less. This is going to change from year to year based on the annual operating budget of the federal government of course. So Obama and other high income earners are paying far, far more than their share and I would guess that schmucks like us are probably paying less than $12k.

 

[batgeek]

i filed my extention about an hour ago. i'm paying far more than 12K.

i don't have taxes taken out of my paycheck because i refuse to give the govt an interest free loan.

i save to pay my entire bill at the end of the tax period. i save in an IRA and a 401K. i have other investments that i pay into every month also.

i live a modst lifestyle. saving isn't hard if you aren't a freakin' idiot.

 

[A.Nonymous]

i filed my extention about an hour ago. i'm paying far more than 12K.

i don't have taxes taken out of my paycheck because i refuse to give the govt an interest free loan.

i save to pay my entire bill at the end of the tax period. i save in an IRA and a 401K. i have other investments that i pay into every month also.

i live a modst lifestyle. saving isn't hard if you aren't a freakin' idiot.

If you're withholding on yourself, you'd have the money in the bank wouldn't you?

 

[Digiboom]

What I find most troublesome about folks passing around stats and what they perceive as facts is that nobody points out this recession was originally initiated around 12 years ago yet the pandering to polls and stats never actually touch on why. Ironically I see republicans running around speaking about fiscal restraint yet their guy paul ryan submits the most ridiculously impossible budgets imaginable. Republicans are not fiscally conservative at all infact republicans have single handedly turned the middle class into the largest recipients of federal assistance. The poor of america used to be 54% of the aid recipients..they now account for less than 30% and the middle class is at at a whopping 59%. During Bush's presidency we had zero job growth and more waste than any presidency in history..folks cannot expect someone with 4 years on the job whose had to fight tooth and nail to pass logical measures to keep this country afloat to fix problems that existed for so long. The one notable republican who i can say was worth his weight was reagan and his one tax rate for everyone.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Neither party is fiscally responsible. I think that much is clear.