Q: If Romney Should Know the Economy b/c He's Rich... - New England Patriots Forums

PatsFanInVa · 05-02-2012, 06:01 PM

Shouldn't people who are richer know the economy better?

Romney's net worth, $250M...
Mitt Romney Net Worth | Celebrity Net Worth

Buffett's net worth, $44 billion...
Warren Buffett Net Worth &lsaquo; 2012 Celebrity Net Worth

Bill Gates' net worth, $61 billion...
Bill Gates Net Worth 2012: $61.3 Billion - Wealth Inside Story

Sooooo, basically, Buffett and Gates should have a better idea of what's good for the economy... and they both favor raising taxes on the rich.

Romney? He says "look at what Obama did and do the opposite."

4.1 million jobs created under Obama... guess Romney wants to lose 4.1 million jobs...

PFnV

Drewski · 05-02-2012, 06:10 PM

Would you be open to revamping the current tax code we have to close all of the loopholes which are abused or even redoing the whole thing to make it an easier document to follow and work with?

My issue with outright raising taxes and not fixing what is broken about the code is that once the gov gets a certain percentage of most things, it usually doesnt give it back.

I have stated on here many times that I am for everyone paying whatever their rightful share is, but would prefer to fix first and raise later if it is deemed necessary.

PatsFanInVa · 05-02-2012, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drewski

Would you be open to revamping the current tax code we have to close all of the loopholes which are abused or even redoing the whole thing to make it an easier document to follow and work with?

In principle, yes. In fact I often felt that way when I was a little baby businessman, that I would pay more if I just didn't have that day or two of hell trying to figger it all out.

My problem is with tax "reformers" that always just coincidentally come up with more regressive taxation.

Quote:

My issue with outright raising taxes and not fixing what is broken about the code is that once the gov gets a certain percentage of most things, it usually doesnt give it back.

Right now, I don't think they should give it back. That's been the reverse of the case for many years now, by the way. Think about what you hear from pubbies about how letting the Bush rates sunset -- as they told everybody they were supposed to. That's how they sold the rates, they're temporary. Horrible fiscal policy, but we did it.

Now, if you let the sunsets happen, it's "raising taxes."

I'm okay w/the perspective that some of what we do has to come from cuts. I'm not okay with the perspective that you can't ever ever ever raise taxes. Our revenues are at record lows, and our deficits are at record highs.

My problem with "starve the beast" rhetoric is that a lot of what taxes go to is necessary. We've been bleating "starve the beast" for decades, and we always do go after various programs. We've also had a bunch of very specific very expensive responses to the last spasmodic bubble-fueled disaster. So naturally I can see how we're all mad that we spent money on a response. However, there's no excuse for the boondoggle of the Bush tax rates.

Quote:

I have stated on here many times that I am for everyone paying whatever their rightful share is, but would prefer to fix first and raise later if it is deemed necessary.

::shrug:: okay, but while doing that, please don't also get in high dudgeon about how terribly in debt we are. I'm not saying you personally do that, I don't think I've seen you going on that tear, but if you normally do, don't, while waiting to see whether stuff is fixed right.

And while fixing, I just think we should have as our guiding principle that there will be some redistributive effect, because progressive taxation is a desirable counterpoint to the tendency in a capitalist system to concentrate wealth in a way that is inimical to a society's continued existence.

PFnV

Real World · 05-02-2012, 06:50 PM

A: Absolutely not. The reason why people, at least myself anyway, feel that Romney "knows" the economy, is cuz he's been an executive both in the private sector, and at the government level. Also, he's been a very successful business man for the better part of his life. Being "rich" isn't the determining factor.

As for taxes, if those two want to pay more, they can. I'd ask them why they don't. How come Buffett doesn't like to pay what the IRS tells him he owes, or better yet, why did he take $20+ million in deductions off his gross income? Do as I say, not as I do.

Drewski · 05-02-2012, 06:57 PM

Quote:

In principle, yes. In fact I often felt that way when I was a little baby businessman, that I would pay more if I just didn't have that day or two of hell trying to figger it all out.

My problem is with tax "reformers" that always just coincidentally come up with more regressive taxation.

Right now, I don't think they should give it back. That's been the reverse of the case for many years now, by the way. Think about what you hear from pubbies about how letting the Bush rates sunset -- as they told everybody they were supposed to. That's how they sold the rates, they're temporary. Horrible fiscal policy, but we did it.

Now, if you let the sunsets happen, it's "raising taxes."

I'm okay w/the perspective that some of what we do has to come from cuts. I'm not okay with the perspective that you can't ever ever ever raise taxes. Our revenues are at record lows, and our deficits are at record highs.

My problem with "starve the beast" rhetoric is that a lot of what taxes go to is necessary. We've been bleating "starve the beast" for decades, and we always do go after various programs. We've also had a bunch of very specific very expensive responses to the last spasmodic bubble-fueled disaster. So naturally I can see how we're all mad that we spent money on a response. However, there's no excuse for the boondoggle of the Bush tax rates.

::shrug:: okay, but while doing that, please don't also get in high dudgeon about how terribly in debt we are. I'm not saying you personally do that, I don't think I've seen you going on that tear, but if you normally do, don't, while waiting to see whether stuff is fixed right.

And while fixing, I just think we should have as our guiding principle that there will be some redistributive effect, because progressive taxation is a desirable counterpoint to the tendency in a capitalist system to concentrate wealth in a way that is inimical to a society's continued existence.

PFnV

Agreed, I am not looking for a regressive system, just looking for a simpler, working system.

For instance, Ricky Perry’s “postcard” idea...I thought it was a simple enough idea and liked it. No frills, no questions or confusing forms, just a “you made this, you owe us that”.

As for my preference in fixing our tax code then coming back for a raise if need be...its really as simple as “If somethings broke, you fix it”.

I would be interested to see what our country’s revenues from tax would be if we closed every loophole. I honestly have no idea what the loopholes that people and companies take advantage of cost us each year, but I would guess that it is quite a bit.

If simply fixing the code gets us that revenue and we bring our financial house in order, great. I think we have a progressive enough tax system as is that the bones are there if you will.

Now if we close all the loopholes, as well as cut spending (significantly) and make our government more efficient (a guy can dream right?) and then incremental rates as they are don’t suffice, then yes, lets have a discussion about raising the rates.

I think raising first, while ignoring the clear broken-ness of our tax system isn’t the way to get us back on track.

As for the Bush tax cuts on the “job producers” I used the analogy of excise tax on cigarettes in a discussion with Wolf once and I think it fits here. You raise taxes on smokes to disuade the behavior.

With the Bush tax cuts, we cut the taxes of people in a hope they would return that money by and large into the system, through jobs etc.; the desired outcome being a trickle down effect. Doesn’t seem to me that that really happened...instead the money from the cuts was kept close to the vest of those getting the cuts.

D

***patsfan13*** · 05-02-2012, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Real World

A: Absolutely not. The reason why people, at least myself anyway, feel that Romney "knows" the economy, is cuz he's been an executive both in the private sector, and at the government level. Also, he's been a very successful business man for the better part of his life. Being "rich" isn't the determining factor.

As for taxes, if those two want to pay more, they can. I'd ask them why they don't. How come Buffett doesn't like to pay what the IRS tells him he owes, or better yet, why did he take $20+ million in deductions off his gross income? Do as I say, not as I do.

Buffett is being sued for 4B in unpaid taxes....

Funny libs shining about the unfairness of the tax code they spent 90 years fabricating and they oppose the flat tax that is transparent and fair.

Why?PJ · 05-03-2012, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

In principle, yes. In fact I often felt that way when I was a little baby businessman, that I would pay more if I just didn't have that day or two of hell trying to figger it all out.

My problem is with tax "reformers" that always just coincidentally come up with more regressive taxation.

Right now, I don't think they should give it back. That's been the reverse of the case for many years now, by the way. Think about what you hear from pubbies about how letting the Bush rates sunset -- as they told everybody they were supposed to. That's how they sold the rates, they're temporary. Horrible fiscal policy, but we did it.

Now, if you let the sunsets happen, it's "raising taxes."

I'm okay w/the perspective that some of what we do has to come from cuts. I'm not okay with the perspective that you can't ever ever ever raise taxes. Our revenues are at record lows, and our deficits are at record highs.

My problem with "starve the beast" rhetoric is that a lot of what taxes go to is necessary. We've been bleating "starve the beast" for decades, and we always do go after various programs. We've also had a bunch of very specific very expensive responses to the last spasmodic bubble-fueled disaster. So naturally I can see how we're all mad that we spent money on a response. However, there's no excuse for the boondoggle of the Bush tax rates.

::shrug:: okay, but while doing that, please don't also get in high dudgeon about how terribly in debt we are. I'm not saying you personally do that, I don't think I've seen you going on that tear, but if you normally do, don't, while waiting to see whether stuff is fixed right.

And while fixing, I just think we should have as our guiding principle that there will be some redistributive effect, because progressive taxation is a desirable counterpoint to the tendency in a capitalist system to concentrate wealth in a way that is inimical to a society's continued existence.

PFnV

the more you write the more clueless everyone knows you are. 99% of what the feds waste money on is flat out illegal.

PatsFanInVa · 05-03-2012, 02:37 AM

Somebody call PJ's mommy and tell her he's on her computer again...

Got something to contribute, PJ? Do feel free to. Otherwise "everybody knows" you're hijacking the thread & personally attacking the other members

Bye now.

pFnV

PatsFanInVa · 05-03-2012, 02:41 AM

BTW, Drew, on the way to closing all loopholes (& goring all the oxes,) it would be interesting to see who wins and loses & the economic impact.

Last observation: Also prepare the country for far more "thou shalt/thou shalt not" regulation.

You can have a simple tax code, but you lose the ability to encourage/discourage behavior.

So if a given behavior use to be discouraged, you just fine people for it. Really, what's the diff, other than the psychological "police state" feeling?

PFnV

sdaniels7114 · 05-03-2012, 05:32 AM

Yeah but what are loopholes?

What do I pay if I go out and buy $3000 in carpet and then spend a day or two installing it in someone's house and then get a check for $4000?

Is it a loophole that I'm not taxed on the $3000 in carpet?

Is it a loophole that I'm not taxed on the tools I have to buy?

Or the supplies?

Or the gas/cargo van expenses?

Or any help I hire?

Seems to me that if we do this with the tax code it'll kick off a giant fight over what's a legit expense and what's a loophole. I can also assure you that y'all will be putting your own carpets in if us carpet installers loose those legit write offs. I'd speculate that the carpenters, plumbers, electricians, painters... ain't gonna be thrilled either.