While many want to pay more, they are welcome to NOW. They CAN do that. No, it's not literally punishment, but it's wrong. Our tax system is sooo messed up right now.Everyone pays something different based on who they use for their taxes and/or what they know about loopholes, etc. So I don't agree with either party- tax a group less and another more- I do not agree.
While I don't necessarily disagree with you in principle, the implementation of such a tax code would make paying taxes prohibitively expensive for the very poor. Someone making 1000/month can't afford 15% of their money going to taxes, they need that money to live. Someone making 10000/month can easily afford that tax rate. It really isn't about what is fair and not fair, life isn't fair. Taxing everyone at the same rate simply won't work.
I am in the top 1% and "rich" by most standards. I would happily pay more in taxes. And not just based on some altruistic idea that I should, but also because it does not serve my interests to have a disappearing middle class, bad public schools and a large number of people without access to quality healthcare. That is what I think the Republican party misses - that we are all strengthened by raising the standards of the poor/uneducated/those that need help/etc.
I am in the top 1% and "rich" by most standards. I would happily pay more in taxes. And not just based on some altruistic idea that I should, but also because it does not serve my interests to have a disappearing middle class, bad public schools and a large number of people without access to quality healthcare. That is what I think the Republican party misses - that we are all strengthened by raising the standards of the poor/uneducated/those that need help/etc.
I am in the top 1% and "rich" by most standards. I would happily pay more in taxes. And not just based on some altruistic idea that I should, but also because it does not serve my interests to have a disappearing middle class, bad public schools and a large number of people without access to quality healthcare. That is what I think the Republican party misses - that we are all strengthened by raising the standards of the poor/uneducated/those that need help/etc.
Agreed.
I'm not in the 1% (yet) but we strive to be.
But I think its farking hilarious that I am in Romney's "middle class" when I am clearly much better off than probably 95% of Americans. Thanks for wanting to help me-- but I don't need the help. The real middle class needs it. (and lower- but thats a given)
I am in the top 1% and "rich" by most standards. I would happily pay more in taxes. And not just based on some altruistic idea that I should, but also because it does not serve my interests to have a disappearing middle class, bad public schools and a large number of people without access to quality healthcare. That is what I think the Republican party misses - that we are all strengthened by raising the standards of the poor/uneducated/those that need help/etc.
Why don't you then? When you file your tax return - leave the line for mortgage interest or charitable contribution blank. That way you'll be giving more in taxes.
I don't understand why Warren Buffet doesn't do that. You don't have to take every deduction available; the IRS won't come after you and force you into a refund.
I am in the top 1% and "rich" by most standards. I would happily pay more in taxes. And not just based on some altruistic idea that I should, but also because it does not serve my interests to have a disappearing middle class, bad public schools and a large number of people without access to quality healthcare. That is what I think the Republican party misses - that we are all strengthened by raising the standards of the poor/uneducated/those that need help/etc.
Why don't you then? When you file your tax return - leave the line for mortgage interest or charitable contribution blank. That way you'll be giving more in taxes.
I don't understand why Warren Buffet doesn't do that. You don't have to take every deduction available; the IRS won't come after you and force you into a refund.
Oh yeah, that makes sense. Let's just rely on everyone paying whatever amount of taxes they feel like in order to cover government expenses.
I am in the top 1% and "rich" by most standards. I would happily pay more in taxes. And not just based on some altruistic idea that I should, but also because it does not serve my interests to have a disappearing middle class, bad public schools and a large number of people without access to quality healthcare. That is what I think the Republican party misses - that we are all strengthened by raising the standards of the poor/uneducated/those that need help/etc.
Why don't you then? When you file your tax return - leave the line for mortgage interest or charitable contribution blank. That way you'll be giving more in taxes.
I don't understand why Warren Buffet doesn't do that. You don't have to take every deduction available; the IRS won't come after you and force you into a refund.
I do. I don't usually claim any of my charitable contributions. But unless we have a critical mass doing this, it doesn't really help.
Eta - we also need the appropriate programs in place to help those that need it.
Why don't you then? When you file your tax return - leave the line for mortgage interest or charitable contribution blank. That way you'll be giving more in taxes.
I don't understand why Warren Buffet doesn't do that. You don't have to take every deduction available; the IRS won't come after you and force you into a refund.
Oh yeah, that makes sense. Let's just rely on everyone paying whatever amount of taxes they feel like in order to cover government expenses.
I don't mean as a matter of policy. I agree that the tax code needs to be completely overhauled. I would like to see a lot of the policies changed (not just increasing the graduated rates that we already have). Do away with AMT, make capital gains ordinary income, I would keep qualified dividends at a lower rate since that has been taxed at the corporate level. Don't allow trusts to have the reduced rate for investment income. Etc.
But my specific example, if Warren Buffet is going to lament his low tax rate, and constantly spout off about needing to pay more - he can! He has a convenient talking point, but he has the power to change it. It annoys me that he seems to be saying he wishes he could pay more in taxes but it is the government's fault that he doesn't. There are very obvious ways that he could pay more in if he wanted to.
Why don't you then? When you file your tax return - leave the line for mortgage interest or charitable contribution blank. That way you'll be giving more in taxes.
I don't understand why Warren Buffet doesn't do that. You don't have to take every deduction available; the IRS won't come after you and force you into a refund.
I do. I don't usually claim any of my charitable contributions. But unless we have a critical mass doing this, it doesn't really help.
I think what he was trying to say, and he perhaps could have chosen to word it a bit more elegantly and delicately, but I think his main point is that there are people out there that he's not even going to try to win over - he has no real shot at them, and he knows it.
He's advocating the idea of personal responsibility, the idea that you get what you pay for, and no one else is going to give it to you.
Whether I agree with him or not is irrelevant; the point is that he believes that a lot of the people who receive what he deems excessive support from the government are a drain on the economy, and those who think and believe that they're entitled to that support are never going to vote for him, simply due to his financial stand.
Being offended isn't really a good reason for someone to not do something. I know a lot of people feel offended by this statement of his and like I said before, I agree that it might not have been as elegantly stated as it could have been (although I am a fan of bluntness, TBH), but the point remains - just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right.
I do. I don't usually claim any of my charitable contributions. But unless we have a critical mass doing this, it doesn't really help.
That's awesome.
I do take my large mortgage deduction. Probably for the reason that Buffet doesn't pay more than he needs to do - because without broad increases to those in the upper-middle and upper incomes, it is just throwing money away without any sort of result behind it.
He's advocating the idea of personal responsibility, the idea that you get what you pay for, and no one else is going to give it to you.
Whether I agree with him or not is irrelevant; the point is that he believes that a lot of the people who receive what he deems excessive support from the government are a drain on the economy, and those who think and believe that they're entitled to that support are never going to vote for him, simply due to his financial stand.
Even IF that's what he meant - it doesn't make it better. It's really easy to say all of this when you've grown up privileged and never had to struggle. He thinks he worked hard to get where he is, fine. But to pretend he had it rough when his schooling (probably at great schools) was paid for and he didn't have to take on a mortgage for his first home when other couples struggle to start their careers and pay bills is ignorant and insulting.
He may have worked hard for his good grades and his degree but he's completely ignornant of the fact that he is LUCKY to have been born to a family that could give him a head start. And that he is LUCKY to have been able to focus on his education without worrying about paying rent, buying food and holding down a job to fund that education.
He is completely out of touch with the idea that being poor or struggling to make ends meet doesn't automatically mean lazy and waiting for a hand out.
I think what he was trying to say, and he perhaps could have chosen to word it a bit more elegantly and delicately, but I think his main point is that there are people out there that he's not even going to try to win over - he has no real shot at them, and he knows it.
He's advocating the idea of personal responsibility, the idea that you get what you pay for, and no one else is going to give it to you.
Whether I agree with him or not is irrelevant; the point is that he believes that a lot of the people who receive what he deems excessive support from the government are a drain on the economy, and those who think and believe that they're entitled to that support are never going to vote for him, simply due to his financial stand.
Being offended isn't really a good reason for someone to not do something. I know a lot of people feel offended by this statement of his and like I said before, I agree that it might not have been as elegantly stated as it could have been (although I am a fan of bluntness, TBH), but the point remains - just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right.
One day, I'll make up a t-shirt that says that.
Regardless, the way he phrased it I think shows some insight at how he views those who are on government assistance programs/earn too little to pay income tax PRECISELY because the remarks were "off the cuff" and "inelegant" because they weren't run through a speechwriter/vetter first. The attitude that underlays (underlies?) Romney's comments is extremely disturbing to me.
Furthermore, if that was what he was trying to say, his statements didn't even have internal logical coherence. He said all 47% of Americans who don't pay income tax/feel entitled to government assistance are already in Obama's pocket. But like someone else I think on this thread already pointed out, a good number of those people are likely low-income individuals in rural areas, including in the Bible Belt, that are likely to be extremely conservative and therefore solid Republican/Romney voters.
ETA: ditto everything mx said, since she was way more eloquent than me.
I think what he was trying to say, and he perhaps could have chosen to word it a bit more elegantly and delicately, but I think his main point is that there are people out there that he's not even going to try to win over - he has no real shot at them, and he knows it.
He's advocating the idea of personal responsibility, the idea that you get what you pay for, and no one else is going to give it to you.
Whether I agree with him or not is irrelevant; the point is that he believes that a lot of the people who receive what he deems excessive support from the government are a drain on the economy, and those who think and believe that they're entitled to that support are never going to vote for him, simply due to his financial stand.
Being offended isn't really a good reason for someone to not do something. I know a lot of people feel offended by this statement of his and like I said before, I agree that it might not have been as elegantly stated as it could have been (although I am a fan of bluntness, TBH), but the point remains - just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right.
One day, I'll make up a t-shirt that says that.
Sure. Except there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that those of us who will vote for Obama have benefited more from public assistance than those who will vote for Romney.
In fact, I suspect that if you look on a county by county basis at the counties with the highest percentage of recipients of SS, SSDI, unemployment benefits, SNAP, VA benefits, Medicare, Medicaid etc. you will find they are largely red, not blue.
There is a great deal of evidence that indicates that the expansion of safety nets and gov't services has primarily benefited senior citizens, the middle class and white, HS educated men. Find me a white HS educated man who is a staunch D and I'll find you 5 who are Rs.
So it's doubly offensive and doubly stupid. Because he is writing off his own base. And because many of those of us who would never in a million years vote for Romney aren't actually receiving gov't assistance in any form other than maybe a mortgage interest deduction. It's clever to complain about your opponent's supporters sucking the government dry when you have a shell corp in Bermuda and a bank account in the Caymans.
To add to this, here is a map of where the 46% live that don't pay taxes;
Sure. Except there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that those of us who will vote for Obama have benefited more from public assistance than those who will vote for Romney.
In fact, I suspect that if you look on a county by county basis at the counties with the highest percentage of recipients of SS, SSDI, unemployment benefits, SNAP, VA benefits, Medicare, Medicaid etc. you will find they are largely red, not blue.
There is a great deal of evidence that indicates that the expansion of safety nets and gov't services has primarily benefited senior citizens, the middle class and white, HS educated men. Find me a white HS educated man who is a staunch D and I'll find you 5 who are Rs.
So it's doubly offensive and doubly stupid. Because he is writing off his own base. And because many of those of us who would never in a million years vote for Romney aren't actually receiving gov't assistance in any form other than maybe a mortgage interest deduction. It's clever to complain about your opponent's supporters sucking the government dry when you have a shell corp in Bermuda and a bank account in the Caymans.
To add to this, here is a map of where the 46% live that don't pay taxes;
Ha, that is fantastic. So all the states that are guarenteed to go red at election time
I think what he was trying to say, and he perhaps could have chosen to word it a bit more elegantly and delicately, but I think his main point is that there are people out there that he's not even going to try to win over - he has no real shot at them, and he knows it.
He's advocating the idea of personal responsibility, the idea that you get what you pay for, and no one else is going to give it to you.
Whether I agree with him or not is irrelevant; the point is that he believes that a lot of the people who receive what he deems excessive support from the government are a drain on the economy, and those who think and believe that they're entitled to that support are never going to vote for him, simply due to his financial stand.
Being offended isn't really a good reason for someone to not do something. I know a lot of people feel offended by this statement of his and like I said before, I agree that it might not have been as elegantly stated as it could have been (although I am a fan of bluntness, TBH), but the point remains - just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right.
One day, I'll make up a t-shirt that says that.
So by this logic, since my tax rate is higher than whatever Romney has admitted to, he is milking the government more than I am, correct? If he's paying a 14% tax rate and I'm paying 20%, he is clearly one of those draining the government, yes? Unless, of course, he is forgetting that a lot of the people who pay 0% are simply taking advantage of the tax code the same way he is. They work, but due to all of their deductions and credits, they don't owe anything. How is that any different than what he does? Romney would KILL to be part of the 47% who pay zero and for him to chastise everyone who utilizes the tax code to their advantage is truly incredible coming from him.
In fact, I suspect that if you look on a county by county basis at the counties with the highest percentage of recipients of SS, SSDI, unemployment benefits, SNAP, VA benefits, Medicare, Medicaid etc. you will find they are largely red, not blue.
Can anyone find me a fairly unbiased source on this? Would like to show my (Republican) husband...
Well, this has UE rates and per capita income. But its the WSJ, so it even leans right.
Also, this website has a ton of information about participation in SNAP (food stamps): frac.org/.
I haven't found a specific state-by-state comparison of the percent of the population participating in SNAP, but coupled with the census data, it wouldn't be too hard to figure out.
If I get bored not giving any fucks at work this week, maybe I'll figure that out for you.
I paid federal income taxes last year. I'm planning to vote for Obama. But here's what's keeping me up at night: does Romney care about me, or not? I need a quiz or something to find out where I stand with him.
I am in the top 1% and "rich" by most standards. I would happily pay more in taxes. And not just based on some altruistic idea that I should, but also because it does not serve my interests to have a disappearing middle class, bad public schools and a large number of people without access to quality healthcare. That is what I think the Republican party misses - that we are all strengthened by raising the standards of the poor/uneducated/those that need help/etc.
This. Most 1%ers I know (my family included) would happily pay more for these services for the community. Going back to the Clinton rates for the wealthy would not suddenly turn us into a socialist society.
I am in the top 1% and "rich" by most standards. I would happily pay more in taxes. And not just based on some altruistic idea that I should, but also because it does not serve my interests to have a disappearing middle class, bad public schools and a large number of people without access to quality healthcare. That is what I think the Republican party misses - that we are all strengthened by raising the standards of the poor/uneducated/those that need help/etc.
This. Most 1%ers I know (my family included) would happily pay more for these services for the community. Going back to the Clinton rates for the wealthy would not suddenly turn us into a socialist society.
I know many 1% that sure as hell would not. Don't judge them, either. it is THEIR money, they can do with it what they wish, just as you and I do.
This. Most 1%ers I know (my family included) would happily pay more for these services for the community. Going back to the Clinton rates for the wealthy would not suddenly turn us into a socialist society.
I know many 1% that sure as hell would not. Don't judge them, either. it is THEIR money, they can do with it what they wish, just as you and I do.
Where is this magical place that I can go live and do whatever I wish with my money?