Mitt's economic advisor says 'tax the rich'

[DontBeStupid]

The cuts created a boom

This is a lie.

Clinton tax rates also came with growing deficits and recessions

This is a lie.

Today we also have mass inflation on energy and food.

This is a lie.

Hmm. Not a lot of truth in your post.

 

[DontBeStupid]

The cuts created a boom

This is a lie.

Clinton tax rates also came with growing deficits and recessions

This is a lie.

Today we also have mass inflation on energy and food.

This is a lie.

Hmm. Not a lot of truth in your post.

What? No witty insult?

I expected more from you.

 

[DiamondDave]

Answer the questions.

How much should taxes go up for the rich?

How much revenue will it bring in?

Where does *all* of that revenue go?

Will there be any economic fallout due to these higher taxes as history has shown since the begging of taxing people?

What is the annual deficit after these taxes are collected and the money is spent?

The rich should pay at least the same percentage as the middle class - all taxes combined. Got a problem with that, shithead? The rich should pay an additional 10% of their income, based on their ability to pay and their ability to shield income from being counted as income. Got a problem with that, shithead?

It'll bring in more revenue. I'm not the absolute f-ing moron you are who reasons if that if it doesn't raise enough to close the deficit then it shouldn't be done.

Equality in treatment means nothing to you, eh?? Except when advantageous to you, I would assume

 

[DontBeStupid]

Answer the questions.

How much should taxes go up for the rich?

How much revenue will it bring in?

Where does *all* of that revenue go?

Will there be any economic fallout due to these higher taxes as history has shown since the begging of taxing people?

What is the annual deficit after these taxes are collected and the money is spent?

The rich should pay at least the same percentage as the middle class - all taxes combined. Got a problem with that, shithead? The rich should pay an additional 10% of their income, based on their ability to pay and their ability to shield income from being counted as income. Got a problem with that, shithead?

It'll bring in more revenue. I'm not the absolute f-ing moron you are who reasons if that if it doesn't raise enough to close the deficit then it shouldn't be done.

Equality in treatment means nothing to you, eh?? Except when advantageous to you, I would assume

Are you trying to say the system we have currently is fair?

 

[g5000]

Answer the questions.

How much should taxes go up for the rich?

If you have been around this long and still don't know what the tax rates were before the "Bush tax cuts", then there isn't much anyone can do for you.

 

[DiamondDave]

The rich should pay at least the same percentage as the middle class - all taxes combined. Got a problem with that, shithead? The rich should pay an additional 10% of their income, based on their ability to pay and their ability to shield income from being counted as income. Got a problem with that, shithead?

It'll bring in more revenue. I'm not the absolute f-ing moron you are who reasons if that if it doesn't raise enough to close the deficit then it shouldn't be done.

Equality in treatment means nothing to you, eh?? Except when advantageous to you, I would assume

Are you trying to say the system we have currently is fair?

I do not argue in terms of 'fair'... fair is subjective and it is how our political system has been overtaken by power hungry politicians squawking to those they are trying to gain votes from

I am saying that the system we have is in no way based on equality in treatment, which is something we should strive for...

 

[g5000]

Today we also have mass inflation on energy and food.

This is flatly untrue.

Natural gas prices have been steadily plummeting for years. The wellhead price has dropped 22 percent since January. (edited to add evidence: http://205.254.135.7/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm)

Oil peaked at $145.29 a barrel under Bush. It peaked at $109.77 under Obama and has plunged 23 percent in the last three months and is at $83.97 as of this moment. (edited to add evidence: http://www.nyse.tv/crude-oil-price-history.htm)

That's not "mass inflation", that's mass deflation.

The same is true for food prices. Food peaked higher under Bush, except for the price of beef which has risen 25 percent due to the drought in Texas last year which decimated the alfalfa feed crops.

Stop regurgitating bullshit like some programmed partisan parrot.

 

[Polk]

What's really going to anger people on the right is when they realize Romney's budget plan still leaves a deficit of over a trillion dollars a year.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Well, true fiscal conseratives have been saying that since all the GOP primary candidates released their budget proposals. But of course, only the partisan blind think Romney's a conservative at all. He's a LOLberal the same as any other LOLberal.

 

[g5000]

Well, true fiscal conseratives have been saying that since all the GOP primary candidates released their budget proposals. But of course, only the partisan blind think Romney's a conservative at all. He's a LOLberal the same as any other LOLberal.

Of the budgets submitted by Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, and Paul on the campaign trail, only Ron Paul's budget reduced the national debt.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Glenn Hubbard, Romney Economic Adviser: 'Bulk Of The Adjustment' Should Be Borne By The Wealthy

Speaking with CNN's Fareed Zakaria about shifting taxes to reduce the deficit, Hubbard [Mitt's economic adviser] said "The bulk of the adjustment [should] be borne by upper income households." Romney was willing to "put everything on the table," Hubbard continued.

Mr Etch A Sketch has always said just the opposite so I wonder if he has been told what he has "on the table". For that matter, I wonder if Mitt's one percent cronies know good ole Mittens is planning to engage in some "class warfare".

Gotta love the Clown Car Politicians.

When did Mitt say he wouldn't have the rich paying taxes again? I never heard him say that, show me where he did please.

 

[The Rabbi]

Glenn Hubbard, Romney Economic Adviser: 'Bulk Of The Adjustment' Should Be Borne By The Wealthy

Speaking with CNN's Fareed Zakaria about shifting taxes to reduce the deficit, Hubbard [Mitt's economic adviser] said "The bulk of the adjustment [should] be borne by upper income households." Romney was willing to "put everything on the table," Hubbard continued.

Mr Etch A Sketch has always said just the opposite so I wonder if he has been told what he has "on the table". For that matter, I wonder if Mitt's one percent cronies know good ole Mittens is planning to engage in some "class warfare".

Gotta love the Clown Car Politicians.

You are the laziest and most dishonest **** on this board. Worse than Chris.
Here is what Hubbard actually said:

HUBBARD: No. What Governor Romney has said is, look, first of all, we need to cut marginal rates. And he would cut them essentially to exactly the same levels in the Bowles-Simpson so-called compromise plan. Part of that revenue is made up with economic growth. Most of that, though, has to come from base broadening, about which he's said two things. One, everything should be on the table. There's nothing eliminated, put everything on the table. And second, that the bulk of the adjustment be borne by upper income households. Remember, that Bowles-Simpson was trying to raise close to 2 percentage points of GDP in revenue. Governor Romney is trying to be revenue neutral. And so his tax plan wouldn't have to raise as much revenue from base broadening as Bowles-Simpson.

So he will broaden the base. That means everyone pays. Get it?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Glenn Hubbard, Romney Economic Adviser: 'Bulk Of The Adjustment' Should Be Borne By The Wealthy

Speaking with CNN's Fareed Zakaria about shifting taxes to reduce the deficit, Hubbard [Mitt's economic adviser] said "The bulk of the adjustment [should] be borne by upper income households." Romney was willing to "put everything on the table," Hubbard continued.

Mr Etch A Sketch has always said just the opposite so I wonder if he has been told what he has "on the table". For that matter, I wonder if Mitt's one percent cronies know good ole Mittens is planning to engage in some "class warfare".

Gotta love the Clown Car Politicians.

You are the laziest and most dishonest **** on this board. Worse than Chris.
Here is what Hubbard actually said:

HUBBARD: No. What Governor Romney has said is, look, first of all, we need to cut marginal rates. And he would cut them essentially to exactly the same levels in the Bowles-Simpson so-called compromise plan. Part of that revenue is made up with economic growth. Most of that, though, has to come from base broadening, about which he's said two things. One, everything should be on the table. There's nothing eliminated, put everything on the table. And second, that the bulk of the adjustment be borne by upper income households. Remember, that Bowles-Simpson was trying to raise close to 2 percentage points of GDP in revenue. Governor Romney is trying to be revenue neutral. And so his tax plan wouldn't have to raise as much revenue from base broadening as Bowles-Simpson.

So he will broaden the base. That means everyone pays. Get it?

Got it.

Romney will raise taxes on the poor and not try to balance the budget.

 

[Katzndogz]

The problem with taxing the rich is that you only get to do it one time, unless the rich can be persuaded to generate more wealth. That's what Greece and now Spain are finding out. Anyone who thinks the government needs more taxes is either stupid, deluded, ignorant, or some combination of those. What the government needs is more revenue. Not more taxes. The government isn't as smart as the ordinary back alley street thug. Once a patsy has been robbed, the next street thug isn't going to get anything. Only money in circulation generates revenue. Money that is taken in tax generates no revenue.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Glenn Hubbard, Romney Economic Adviser: 'Bulk Of The Adjustment' Should Be Borne By The Wealthy



Mr Etch A Sketch has always said just the opposite so I wonder if he has been told what he has "on the table". For that matter, I wonder if Mitt's one percent cronies know good ole Mittens is planning to engage in some "class warfare".

Gotta love the Clown Car Politicians.

You are the laziest and most dishonest **** on this board. Worse than Chris.
Here is what Hubbard actually said:

HUBBARD: No. What Governor Romney has said is, look, first of all, we need to cut marginal rates. And he would cut them essentially to exactly the same levels in the Bowles-Simpson so-called compromise plan. Part of that revenue is made up with economic growth. Most of that, though, has to come from base broadening, about which he's said two things. One, everything should be on the table. There's nothing eliminated, put everything on the table. And second, that the bulk of the adjustment be borne by upper income households. Remember, that Bowles-Simpson was trying to raise close to 2 percentage points of GDP in revenue. Governor Romney is trying to be revenue neutral. And so his tax plan wouldn't have to raise as much revenue from base broadening as Bowles-Simpson.

So he will broaden the base. That means everyone pays. Get it?

Got it.

Romney will raise taxes on the poor and not try to balance the budget.

Romney nor The Rabbi ever said that at all. That is you injecting something that isn't there.

 

[DontBeStupid]

You are the laziest and most dishonest **** on this board. Worse than Chris.
Here is what Hubbard actually said:

So he will broaden the base. That means everyone pays. Get it?

Got it.

Romney will raise taxes on the poor and not try to balance the budget.

Romney nor The Rabbi ever said that at all. That is you injecting something that isn't there.

"Revenue neutral". What do you think that means? That means we will not increase revenue. You can't balance the budget without more revenue.

"Broaden the tax base". What do you think that means? It means people who aren't paying now will start to pay.

Honestly, what do you think he's saying here?

 

[Staidhup]

How Much Money Do The Top Income Earners Make By Percentage? | Financial Samurai

All I did was add the top 1 -5 and 10% earners total taxes paid in 2010. That would be about 1.7 Trillion in collected taxes. Now I added a 30% unavoidable tax rate added on top of what these groups pay and I would collect around 650 billion more in taxes. This means that at around 50% tax rates we get a whole 650 billion more in taxes in a year.

Top 1%: $380,354

Top 5%: $159,619

Top 10%: $113,799

If you just tax the top 1% as people claim they want you get about 120 billion in new revenues at 30% unavoidable tax rates. You have to include your middle class and upper middle class to get the 650 billion and once again that means you would have economic disaster as people that used to make 113 thousand a year and based their lives (home, car, food and so on) on that income would now be making around 80k a year...


Now, what do you do with all of these revenues? use either number, 650 billion or 120 billion... Remember if you use that 650 billion number you will be in a depression by the end of the year, if you use the 120 billion you will just be in a horrible recession.

Well stated! The key is who do they really want to tax and at what rate, it's apparent that the true target is not the rich, it's the middle class, this is where the bulk of income rests. What should be of additional interest is the federal proposed tax rate adding in one's own states tax rate, tax on interest from post tax savings, inheritance tax, property taxes, energy tax, internet tax, phone tax, fuel tax, sin tax, sales tax......and ask yourself what is the meaning of fair, just, and to what end? So this is the reward one receives for hard work and thrift? As a consumer based economy the future becomes rather bleak to say the least, doesn't it?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Got it.

Romney will raise taxes on the poor and not try to balance the budget.

Romney nor The Rabbi ever said that at all. That is you injecting something that isn't there.

"Revenue neutral". What do you think that means? That means we will not increase revenue. You can't balance the budget without more revenue.

"Broaden the tax base". What do you think that means? It means people who aren't paying now will start to pay.

Honestly, what do you think he's saying here?

You said "Romeny will raise taxes on the poor and not try to balance the budget"

You can balance a defecit budget by cutting spending and/or raising taxes so your "not trying to balance the budget" part of your statment is you injecting something that isn't there.


And everyone should pay some taxes.

 

[DiamondDave]

Got it.

Romney will raise taxes on the poor and not try to balance the budget.

Romney nor The Rabbi ever said that at all. That is you injecting something that isn't there.

"Revenue neutral". What do you think that means? That means we will not increase revenue. You can't balance the budget without more revenue.

"Broaden the tax base". What do you think that means? It means people who aren't paying now will start to pay.

Honestly, what do you think he's saying here?

1) Yes you can balance the budget without increasing revenue.. it is called cutting spending
2) Hopefully people who pay no federal income tax now will start paying (God willing)... for both the sake of equality in treatment AND for the reason that I would bet dollars to donuts that people would less likely support huge govt expenditures if they had a stake in the game

 

[Staidhup]

Got it.

Romney will raise taxes on the poor and not try to balance the budget.

Romney nor The Rabbi ever said that at all. That is you injecting something that isn't there.

"Revenue neutral". What do you think that means? That means we will not increase revenue. You can't balance the budget without more revenue.

"Broaden the tax base". What do you think that means? It means people who aren't paying now will start to pay.

Honestly, what do you think he's saying here?

Oh really, I think if one dug deep enough into each program and department duplication of services and waste could be cut out, but then again I don't work for the government so it's hard to put a number on how much could be saved. I do know that when your broke it's time to make some changes and if one subscribes to fixing everything by raising taxes and borrowing to feed the beast the beast will never be forced to trim its appetite.