A genuine question on Romney's tax plan and the deficit.

Quote from DJPlayer : well Obama did say we needed to tighten our belts.. He just never said exactly which group's belts were going to tightened. No matter what, one this recession is coming to a close.. we're all going to be paying to make up for it. But bloating the government means we'll be paying for another hundred years+ (because they won't stop spending like drunken sailors).

Is that the same as some of us paying more taxes, be it by losing some popular deductions?

There is no question in my mind that his reducing the top rate by 20% would shift the burden of taxation from the super rich to the...........well it gotta be the middle class.

Let's not insult the intelligence of the American people. Let be honest about this.

Alas I think a lot of people can be fooled.... whether it is flat tax, fair tax, "revenue neutral" reduction of 20% in rates, 999, consumption tax, ......no matter what the Republicans propose the results is to give a huge break to the super rich on the back of the middle class. That some in the middle class do not see this to be the case is actually saddening.

Quote from vaultaddict : Maybe a govt program would help.

Maybe not having a cell phone, video game system, cable TV, buying booze with $ while you use food stamps for actual food would also help... The thing is that not all the people who pay no federal income tax are "poor". Quite a few would be considered middle class.

Quote from adams135 : And if they get refunded MORE than the amount taken out?

Then they get $ for nothing. I'm not understanding the question

Quote from LivninSC : Maybe not having a cell phone, video game system, cable TV, buying booze with $ while you use food stamps for actual food would also help... The thing is that not all the people who pay no federal income tax are "poor". Quite a few would be considered middle class. Then they get $ for nothing. I'm not understanding the question

Oh, the straw poor.

They can go pound sand.

Quote from Favrerox : I didn't look at the tax return forms, so take that in consideration. But when someone says "they didn't pay anything in taxes", do they literally mean $0.00, or do they mean they didn't have to pay "in" after taxes were filed. What I mean is that I have taxes taken out of my checks and then at tax time, I file and see if I still owe, I'm even, or I get a refund. Even if I get a refund, I still paid SOME taxes. So what is the bottom line here? Did they really pay $0.00 in taxes?

The sleight of hand is the "federal income tax" vs. "federal taxes". You pay payroll and associated other federal taxes. The refund is based on your income taxes, separate from the other taxes you pay.

Most of the refunds are based on two credits that can refund more than you paid in income taxes: the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit. The EITC was created by Nixon (Republican) and greatly expanded by Reagan (King Republican) because Reagan increased those "other" taxes on the middle and lower earners, Social Security and Medicare (and they still pay gas, sales, property, etc. etc. etc.) taxes. The purpose of the refund over and above what you paid in income tax was you were paying a much higher percentage of your total income when the new SS and Medicare taxes were figured in, so the rebate helped cover that part. Reagan didn't mince words when asked about the EITC refund. He called it:

Quote : "the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress."

You see if you tax the poo out of poor people via income, SS, AND Medicare, the incentive to work goes down because we're talking about a large piece of a small pie. Again, that's Reagan's logic, not mine.

In sum, Republican thinkers here and elsewhere want to roll back "the best job creation, anti-poverty, and pro-family measure" (his words, not mine) of the term of the greatest Republican president of the modern era because.. well, you'd have to ask them.

No opinions there. That's just the facts.

Quote from vaultaddict : Oh, the straw poor. They can go pound sand.

Yes, that's what I'm saying isn't it :sarcastic smiley:

Are you one of these middle class moochers? Cuz it seems like I hit a nerve

Quote from LivninSC : Yes, that's what I'm saying isn't it :sarcastic smiley: Are you one of these middle class moochers? Cuz it seems like I hit a nerve

Me? Naw, I'm a lazy azz engineer with a pharmacist wife.

I just mooched some pre Halloween candy though.

Are you one of those low class moochers?

Quote from vaultaddict : IMO, poor people should simply stop being poor.

Heartless liberal

Quote from TRNT : Is that the same as some of us paying more taxes, be it by losing some popular deductions? There is no question in my mind that his reducing the top rate by 20% would shift the burden of taxation from the super rich to the...........well it gotta be the middle class. Let's not insult the intelligence of the American people. Let be honest about this. Alas I think a lot of people can be fooled.... whether it is flat tax, fair tax, "revenue neutral" reduction of 20% in rates, 999, consumption tax, ......no matter what the Republicans propose the results is to give a huge break to the super rich on the back of the middle class. That some in the middle class do not see this to be the case is actually saddening.

You're right most people will be fooled.. Because there is no possible way you can fund the backs of anyone on the rich. You tax the rich and 1.) there's just not enough rich out there 2.) you deal w/ the side effects of inflation 3.) since these people control businesses you stunt growth.

I always hear the term "fair share" but.. when I go to the supermarket.. or store whatever. I pay my fair share.. so does the bum behind me and millionaire in the back. We all pay the same percent are taxed (at a state level) of what we purchase. Who pays the most is who spends the most.. rich have more so they spend more or buy more expensive items. What's always proposed defies the definition of the term "fair" at least in a mathematical aspect.

Really there's only one way to fix our budget and deficit issue.. and that's raise taxes across the board. Even maybe a VAT. I'm all for that.. but the government best become more financially responsible with their money if they think they're going to get more out of me.

I was considering regulations and how states and federal government regulate and over-regulate the private sector. Yet the group who splurges and put themself in the most financial distress and could possibly be the most damaging to the people is the federal government. So where's the agency to monitor government spending.. Apparently we need a new level to regulate the government but has no political ties.

Quote from vaultaddict : Me? Naw, I'm a lazy azz engineer with a pharmacist wife. I just mooched some pre Halloween candy though. Are you one of those low class moochers?

Nope. You knew that already though didn't you.

Something great may happen this year in that people like you who feel it's appropriate to take more from others and give to those less fortunate can actually do something about it. You will likely be able to pay extra $ on your tax return. Please let us all know, oh generous one, how much additional $ you pay in above what is already taken out.

Quote from LivninSC : Nope. You knew that already though didn't you. Something great may happen this year in that people like you who feel it's appropriate to take more from others and give to those less fortunate can actually do something about it. You will likely be able to pay extra $ on your tax return. Please let us all know, oh generous one, how much additional $ you pay in above what is already taken out.

Oh, so now you know what I feel is appropriate, do you?

You should just reply to livinsc then. He may or may not be low class though ( dodged the question).

Quote from andyfico : Heartless liberal

It's the new tough love.

Quote from vaultaddict : Oh, so now you know what I feel is appropriate, do you? You should just reply to livinsc then. He may or may not be low class though ( dodged the question). It's the new tough love.

Did you miss the "Nope"?

Are you schizophrenic, because either you feel that those people who earn $ should pay more in taxes so the poor can mooch more off society or you don't and well your own posts seem to contradict themselves. Why don't you stop playing both sides and actually state what you think. Whoa, there's an idea!

Quote from LivninSC : Did you miss the "Nope"? Are you schizophrenic, because either you feel that those people who earn $ should pay more in taxes so the poor can mooch more off society or you don't and well your own posts seem to contradict themselves. Why don't you stop playing both sides and actually state what you think. Whoa, there's an idea!

You seem very angry. I'm worried for you. I'm gonna wait a while to post the reply I so painstakingly prepared for you, in the interest of your health.

Quote from vaultaddict : You seem very angry. I'm worried for you. I'm gonna wait a while to post the reply I so painstakingly prepared for you, in the interest of your health.

I have no idea whatsoever what was said that makes you think I'm "very angry" but then again, it's not like I really care

Quote from LivninSC : I have no idea whatsoever what was said that makes you think I'm "very angry" but then again, it's not like I really care

Hey now! That looked like an angry hug! LOL