Thread: UNDER RYAN BUDGET ROMNEY WILL PAY 0.82% TAX RATE

No wonder Mitt likes the Ryan budget. Romney will pay a point 0.82% tax rate.

This is per The Atlantic. They ran Romney's. 2010 return through Ryans budget.

That's bullshit.



I would post the link but I am on my Kindle Fire and I cant figure out how to cut and paste.

That will balloon the national debt now won't it?

Just think how many jobs that will create. Ann could afford a couple more horses thus creating more jobs for stable hands to muck out the manure.

When a home has been eaten by termites for 60 years, you may as well let them finish the job of destroying the home before you burn it down and rebuild.

Originally Posted by Harry

No wonder Mitt likes the Ryan budget. Romney will pay a point 0.82% tax rate.

This is per The Atlantic. They ran Romney's. 2010 return through Ryans budget.

That's bullshit.



I would post the link but I am on my Kindle Fire and I cant figure out how to cut and paste.

And people making less than 20k a year will pay 10% more.

Time to get rid of the IRS, so that these fuckers can quit playing us.

Reminds me of my favorite article from The Onion: Reaganomics Finally Trickles Down to Area Man

why is this important exactly? can any one of you explain why this is somehow more relevant than examining the effective tax rates of ALL the people at a particular income level? in other words, when aggregate data exists, why would anyone care about a single anecdote?

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

why is this important exactly? can any one of you explain why this is somehow more relevant than examining the effective tax rates of ALL the people at a particular income level? in other words, when aggregate data exists, why would anyone care about a single anecdote?

Because the rich are teh evils and they should give more than half their money to teh lazy!

FWIW, although wealthy Americans pay a lot of the federal income tax—when all taxes like state taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, etc. are factored in the American tax code as a whole is almost perfectly flat. The bottom 20% of earners make 3% of the income and pay 2% of the taxes; the middle 20% make 11% and pay 10%; and the top 1% make 21% and pay 22%.

For flat tax true believers who think total taxes as a share of total income should be flat America is practically nirvana.

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

why is this important exactly? can any one of you explain why this is somehow more relevant than examining the effective tax rates of ALL the people at a particular income level? in other words, when aggregate data exists, why would anyone care about a single anecdote?

It's not an ancedote to point that mittens policies benefit mittens first, moran.

advres - ryan wants to increase defense spending, aka, give money to lazy companies.

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

advres - ryan wants to increase defense spending, aka, give money to lazy companies.

Come on dude, that was dripping with sarcasm.

Here's what pisses me off about hyper conservative economic policies like this.

This type of thinking (zero capital gains tax) is basically justified by rewarding investors for taking risks. That is a noble goal that should be strived for.

HOWEVER, the problem is that in order to take risks, sometimes you fail. Conservatives seem to forget that there is an element of luck in everything. If you take 100 of the exact same people: highly motivated, smart, resourceful, etc. only a few of them are going to be extraordinarily successful. Most of them will probably have upper middle class lives, and a few might take risks that don't pan out.

I don't understand why conservatives are so attracted to 'winner takes all' economics. Successful people are not that different from the unsuccessful. On top of that, it is bad economic policy:
- It dramatically decreases social mobility. The only people with resources required to become successful (education, stability, ...) are those connected to the already successful. There is little opportunity for anyone else. This situation leaves a lot of talent and ideas on the sidelines. We are already pretty far along this path IMO.
- It makes it very dangerous for people to take risks that we want people to take. Smart, capable people may choose not to start businesses because the consequence for failure is too high. Healthcare is an especially huge problem here. On the other hand, does anyone really decide not to start a business because the capital gains tax rate is 25% instead of 15%?

Originally Posted by Powow

I don't understand why conservatives are so attracted to 'winner takes all' economics.

Because the winners finance their campaigns. Duh

Originally Posted by Harry

I would post the link but I am on my Kindle Fire and I cant figure out how to cut and paste.

I am now on a regular computer. Here is the original link:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...s-plan/261027/

For those interested in reading the actual submitted proposal, see:
http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfile...mark_fy013.pdf

Originally Posted by AustinFromSA

For those interested in reading the actual submitted proposal, see:
http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfile...mark_fy013.pdf

Your point? He magically spends a bunch of money on defense, guts Energy (does he think Nukes take care of themselves?) cuts takes and smokes dope regarding employment. The only thing serious is his suit.

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

Your point? He magically spends a bunch of money on defense, guts Energy (does he think Nukes take care of themselves?) cuts takes and smokes dope regarding employment. The only thing serious is his suit.

Wasn't making any point at all. Just posted the source of the entire controversy. Nothing more. That way you can read it for yourself and make up your own mind instead of regurgitating information from articles. Maybe you'll like it, maybe you'll hate it. Doesn't make any difference to me. Either way, there it is for you to examine for yourself.

Originally Posted by AustinFromSA

Wasn't making any point at all. Just posted the source of the entire controversy. Nothing more. That way you can read it for yourself and make up your own mind instead of regurgitating information from articles. Maybe you'll like it, maybe you'll hate it. Doesn't make any difference to me. Either way, there it is for you to examine for yourself.

It's not the "source". The source was Ryan's presentations. There's much, much, much, much, much, much more to budgeting than that document.

Originally Posted by doughboyshredder

And people making less than 20k a year will pay 10% more.

Time to get rid of the IRS, so that these fuckers can quit playing us.

10% of zero is still zero you know.....

Romney proposes taxing Muni bonds and Life insurance to pay for his tax cuts. Another attack on the elderly:

the Romney team is proposing taxing interest from municipal bonds and from life insurance savings.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/electio...-for-tax-cuts/

Why in the hell does Romney want to increase defense spending ? It needs to be cut (along with every friggin' dept. across the board), and redirected to take better care of the actual service men and women.

Originally Posted by doughboyshredder

Time to get rid of the IRS, so that these fuckers can quit playing us.

Pure, uncut stupidity...

Originally Posted by sirbumpsalot

10% of zero is still zero you know.....

10% of their income, not 10% of their current tax burden.

IMO nobody that earns less than 20k a year should be paying anything in federal taxes.

Originally Posted by OSECS

Why in the hell does Romney want to increase defense spending ?.

Same reason Reagan rebuilt obsolete battle ships.

Originally Posted by OSECS

Why in the hell does Romney want to increase defense spending ? It needs to be cut (along with every friggin' dept. across the board), and redirected to take better care of the actual service men and women.

because "strong defense" is what you need to sell to conservative retard