Romney Answers Occupy

[PoliticalChic]

1. "Fresh off his narrow win in Iowa, Romney was making his first campaign appearance ahead of the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 10 when the questioner – who said he was from both the Occupy New Hampshire and Occupy Boston protest groups against economic inequality – raised his hand and asked a question about corporate greed.

2. “Now, let’s get the facts,” Romney said, before explaining that corporate dividends don’t just go to the “1 percent” shareholders, but also people who have pensions.

3. “When the business has profit it can do good things. Give it to the shareholders and grow the enterprise and, and by the way, the only way it can hire people is if it grows the enterprise.”

4. Romney said that if the protesters could come up with a better idea than free enterprise he was willing to listen.

5.“It’s marvelous, the vision of the founders,” he said. “If you can come up with one that’s better that what was brought forward by John Adams and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, I’m all ears, but until then I am in favor of the one that was presented by the founders of this country.”

6. When the questioner interrupted Romney at one point to argue that the United States had the highest inequality in the developed world, Romney said the income per person in America was about 50 percent more than in Europe.

7. “[Our system] might be far from perfect, and it is, but it’s just a lot better than anything else that the world has ever seen. So in my view the right thing for us to do is to find ways to improve the system that we have rather than trying to pretend like there’s something better out there,” Romney said."
Romney quizzed by Occupy protesters at N.H. town hall meeting | Tales from the Trail


Pretty good answer.

 

[Ravi]

What does the free market have to do with different tax rates for different types of income?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What does the free market have to do with different tax rates for different types of income?

1. If you are asking why capital gains is taxed at a lower rate than earned income, it is a policy decison based on the perceived need for investment in a market economy...

2. ...don't you want to ask the same question about the progressive insistence on taxpayer support for private individuals buying homes?

3. And I know you want to question the basis of a 'progressive income tax' system!

Go to it!

 

[Ravi]

What does the free market have to do with different tax rates for different types of income?

1. If you are asking why capital gains is taxed at a lower rate than earned income, it is a policy decison based on the perceived need for investment in a market economy...

2. ...don't you want to ask the same question about the progressive insistence on taxpayer support for private individuals buying homes?

3. And I know you want to question the basis of a 'progressive income tax' system!

Go to it!

Absolutely and I have here many times. People tend to like tax benefits when they benefit themselves. It gets pretty hypocritical.

Mitten enjoys a lower rate than the rest of us, so much lower, in fact, that he refuses to release his tax forms.

But that is all off topic. He is claiming tax rates are part of the free market and they are anything but.

btw, why do you number everything?

 

[Dragon]

2. “Now, let’s get the facts,” Romney said, before explaining that corporate dividends don’t just go to the “1 percent” shareholders, but also people who have pensions.

In nonzero amounts, that's true, but corporate dividends are even more lopsided than income generally.

3. “When the business has profit it can do good things. Give it to the shareholders and grow the enterprise and, and by the way, the only way it can hire people is if it grows the enterprise.”

Nice refutation of a straw man. No one is suggesting that business should be unable to make a profit. All that's being suggested is that income should be distributed more evenly to individuals, that income gaps should be narrower than they are. That actually has just about nothing to do with business profits.

4. Romney said that if the protesters could come up with a better idea than free enterprise he was willing to listen.

Romney ought to (and probably does) know that the best-performing economic system in history is what is variously called managed-market, social democracy, or mixed economy. So there's the alternative. We've even used it before here, and it worked splendidly.

5.“It’s marvelous, the vision of the founders,” he said. “If you can come up with one that’s better that what was brought forward by John Adams and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, I’m all ears, but until then I am in favor of the one that was presented by the founders of this country.”

Another straw man. The founders did not mandate yawning income gaps, nor is it proposed that we abandon the Constitution.

6. When the questioner interrupted Romney at one point to argue that the United States had the highest inequality in the developed world, Romney said the income per person in America was about 50 percent more than in Europe.

This is false.

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At least three European countries (Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, and Norway) have higher per-capital GDP than the U.S. 50% less than U.S. per capita GDP would be $35,400. In addition to the above three countries, Switzerland, Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Ireland, Denmark, Germany, and Finland all have more than 3/4 of the U.S. per-capita GDP. When you factor in the much lower inequality in those countries, you end up with most citizens in most of Europe having higher incomes than most Americans. Only the poorest European countries would be exceptions.

The same applies in Canada, Australia, Japan, and similar non-European social democracies.

7. “[Our system] might be far from perfect, and it is, but it’s just a lot better than anything else that the world has ever seen. So in my view the right thing for us to do is to find ways to improve the system that we have rather than trying to pretend like there’s something better out there,” Romney said."

Again, this is false (see above). Not only is the system we have not as good as what is found in other advanced economies, but it is also not as good as the one we used to have.

Nice try, Mitt, but no cigar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What does the free market have to do with different tax rates for different types of income?

1. If you are asking why capital gains is taxed at a lower rate than earned income, it is a policy decison based on the perceived need for investment in a market economy...

2. ...don't you want to ask the same question about the progressive insistence on taxpayer support for private individuals buying homes?

3. And I know you want to question the basis of a 'progressive income tax' system!

Go to it!

Absolutely and I have here many times. People tend to like tax benefits when they benefit themselves. It gets pretty hypocritical.

Mitten enjoys a lower rate than the rest of us, so much lower, in fact, that he refuses to release his tax forms.

But that is all off topic. He is claiming tax rates are part of the free market and they are anything but.

btw, why do you number everything?

1.This is an interesting post.

2. Can I assume that you agree that investment is a critical component in the growth of a free economy?

3. "Absolutely and I have here many times. People tend to like tax benefits when they benefit themselves. It gets pretty hypocritical."
Does this mean that you have questioned mortgage deductions, the creation of the GSE's by FDR, the pressure on banks to commit loans to less than credit-worthy individuals, the CRA, and the efforts by the Clinton HUD?
Is that your position, you conservative, you??


4. "People tend to like tax benefits when they benefit themselves. It gets pretty hypocritical."
I'll have to disagree with you about this conclusion....folks who are offered largesse can hardly be faulted for agreeing to accept same.

5. "Mitten enjoys a lower rate than the rest of us, so much lower, in fact, that he refuses to release his tax forms."
Conjecture?
Link?

6. "He is claiming tax rates are part of the free market and they are anything but."
Clarification, please.
Exactly what part of 'tax rates' engenders your criticism?
Are you supporting a flat tax?
Opposed to Earned Income Tax Credits?
Upset by the fact that half the electorate pays no federal taxes?

7. "btw, why do you number everything?"
Why do you ask?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

What does the free market have to do with different tax rates for different types of income?

It doesn't. That is a Marxist concept that impedes the free market.

 

[Dragon]

What does the free market have to do with different tax rates for different types of income?

It doesn't. That is a Marxist concept that impedes the free market.

I believe it was first proposed by Adam Smith, actually.

 

[Ravi]

2. Can I assume that you agree that investment is a critical component in the growth of a free economy?

Absolutely. And so is a labor force.

None of this has to do with his claim in your OP. Unless you are claiming that he is claiming that investors are somehow more deserving of low tax rates than anyone else.

 

[PoliticalChic]

2. Can I assume that you agree that investment is a critical component in the growth of a free economy?

Absolutely. And so is a labor force.

None of this has to do with his claim in your OP. Unless you are claiming that he is claiming that investors are somehow more deserving of low tax rates than anyone else.

1. "...investors are somehow more deserving of low tax rates than anyone else."
This statement has no context.

The folks who invest are using funds that have already been taxed at earned income rates.
Then then must be enticed into risking the money they have, and the cap gains rate is the enticement.

2. This may make you feel better:
As productivity and skills increase, workers earn more. Productivity of workers in competitive markets is what determines the earnings of most workers; and it is not an accident that labor earns about 70% of the total output of the American economy, and capital earns about 30%.
This, from chapter nine of Peter Ferrara's "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb."

3. And, you may be interested in the following:
a. ncentive effects are compounded in our tax system through the multiple taxation of capital, …several times in federal and state tax codes.

b. Example: invest one dollar in the stock of a corporation. A dollar that the corporation earns is taxed at the corporate income tax rate of about 40% (that includes federal plus state corporate taxes). If the rest of that dollar is paid to our investor in dividends, then it is taxed again via individual income tax at the dividend tax rate. With Obama increasing the dividends tax rate from 15% to 43.4%*, applying the 43.4% rate to the 60 cents remaining after paying the corporate income tax leaves just 34 cents for the investor, of the original dollar he earned!

c. A third layer of taxation of capital income is represented by the capital gains tax. Consider an asset such as a share of stock….If that asset is sold, taxing the increased value by the capital gains tax is effectively taxing that future income stream a third time.

d. The death tax (estate tax) is a fourth layer of taxation on capital income. If our investor saves the 34 cents from the corporate stock and leaves it to his children, the death tax would take about half, leaving 17 cents of the original dollar.
Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” p. 215-216.

 

[PredFan]

The whole income enequity thing is senseless butt hurt. It gets that way because the left operates under the false notion that there is a finite amount of wealth and that if someone is wealthy, it's because the took it from someone else. That is non-sense.

Anyone, absolutely anyone, can attain the status of being one of the filthy evil stinking rotten disgusting rich. Depends on your talents, determination, and willingness to work hard.

 

[Crackerjack]

Anyone, absolutely anyone, can attain the status of being one of the filthy evil stinking rotten disgusting rich. Depends on your talents, determination, and willingness to work hard.

... and willingness to move out of your parents' basement.

 

[Ravi]

The whole income enequity thing is senseless butt hurt. It gets that way because the left operates under the false notion that there is a finite amount of wealth and that if someone is wealthy, it's because the took it from someone else. That is non-sense.

Anyone, absolutely anyone, can attain the status of being one of the filthy evil stinking rotten disgusting rich. Depends on your talents, determination, and willingness to work hard.

I don't think he was talking about income inequality as much as pretending lower tax rates for investors is just the free market in action.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The whole income enequity thing is senseless butt hurt. It gets that way because the left operates under the false notion that there is a finite amount of wealth and that if someone is wealthy, it's because the took it from someone else. That is non-sense.

Anyone, absolutely anyone, can attain the status of being one of the filthy evil stinking rotten disgusting rich. Depends on your talents, determination, and willingness to work hard.

I don't think he was talking about income inequality as much as pretending lower tax rates for investors is just the free market in action.

It's not lower...it's higher.
See post #10.

 

[Dragon]

The whole income enequity thing is senseless butt hurt. It gets that way because the left operates under the false notion that there is a finite amount of wealth and that if someone is wealthy, it's because the took it from someone else. That is non-sense.

There is a finite amount of wealth. It's not fixed in amount; it can grow or shrink, but it's never infinite. As for the second part, it comes down to actually being WORSE than a zero-sum game because:

1) the growth of the economy is dependent on consumer demand; and
2) consumer demand varies positively with income equality.

So what that means is that when incomes are more nearly equal, the economy grows FASTER, while when incomes are more unequal, the economy grows SLOWER. So what those who have lower incomes get under greater inequality is a smaller slice of a smaller pie -- and in short, they're screwed double-time.

"Took it from someone else" is not quite right. Say rather: won a competition for the top slots, which are always limited. And the more wealth goes to the occupants of those limited top slots, the worse it will be for everyone who occupies a lower slot. We can have REALLY BIG winners at the top, or we can have a lot of moderate winners and still big, but not so REALLY big winners at the top.

What we can't have is both at once.

Anyone, absolutely anyone, can attain the status of being one of the filthy evil stinking rotten disgusting rich. Depends on your talents, determination, and willingness to work hard.

If it "depends on your talents, determination, and willingness to work hard," then it's not true that "anyone, absolutely anyone" can do it. You also need to recognize the difference in meaning between the words "anyone" and "everyone."

In fact, what you're suggesting here is that it's like climbing a mountain, where there's a separate mountain for each climber, and all they have to do is be good enough to get to the top. But that's not how it works. There's one mountain, and only so much room at the top. If you're going to get to the top, you have to do it by dislodging someone else above you. Or at least wait until he makes a mistake and falls on his own, and then hustle up to take his place before anyone else does it -- and then kick all challengers in the face firmly.

It's competitive, in other words. And sure, it depends on your talents, determination, and willingness to work hard, but more precisely, it depends on how much BETTER all these are than those of the other guys competing with you.

So once again: do we want an economy in which those who make it to the top of the mountain win REALLY, REALLY BIG while everyone else gets bugger-all, or do we want an economy in which those who make it to the top win kind of big, while those who make it only halfway up the mountain before being blocked by more successful competitors do reasonably well? Can't have both.

Really really rich people, or a healthy middle class. One or the other.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Occupy is vicious, anti-Semitic, Marxist kooks who have the full support of the LMSM, Obama and the DNC. The only reason they're not the kook fringe is that they are the new Democrat Party

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dragon you need to get the fuck out of Mommy's basement. I cringe when you talk about economics

 

[Ernie S.]

The whole income enequity thing is senseless butt hurt. It gets that way because the left operates under the false notion that there is a finite amount of wealth and that if someone is wealthy, it's because the took it from someone else. That is non-sense.

Anyone, absolutely anyone, can attain the status of being one of the filthy evil stinking rotten disgusting rich. Depends on your talents, determination, and willingness to work hard.

Exactly! Claiming that the rich are to blame because someone is poor is as logical as blaming the poor because some are rich.
Believe me. There is no desire on the part of the rich for anyone to be poor. Poor people don't buy products, don't pay taxes and don't invest in business.
But, there seems to be a lot of poor people who want the rich to hand over what they have earned, to them.
What are the formerly poor people going to do when they run out of all that cash they got from the rich? Just how are the formerly rich going to rebuild their businesses and hire anyone? Why would they want to, if they expect they will have to hand over most of their profits to keep your system running?

 

[blastoff]

Trust me. Once you're filthy rich it doesn't seem so filthy any more.

 

[Dragon]

I cringe when you talk about economics

I suspect you do cringe, but if so it's because you have no way to answer me.