If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Mitt Romney's tax plan might actually make sense   (slate.com) divider line 349
    More: Interesting, Mitt Romney, American conservatives  
•       •       •

6691 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Aug 2012 at 1:05 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



349 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-10 10:07:03 AM
Yglesias is right guys.

If you tax the guy at the top, he'll just cut production, raise his prices, and you might lose your job. You can't tax the rich man. He doesn't use entitlements, nor does he get a military paycheck, which are the vast portion of government spending.

I say, tax downward, and make the people who use the government pay more. Let them pay their share, no more subsidizing the poor. Economics tells us that rewarding you for being poor will keep you there. We need to reward people for working BETTER, SMARTER, and more in tune with DEMAND. If the supply of a labor pool is less, the higher price on the labor drives up the supply.

Taxing the poorer the most will also create a greater economic incentive to get rich.

Why tax the man who's funding the lion's share of our economy? It just doesn't make sense.

Just like how raising taxes on corporations makes the prices for consumers rise, taxing the rich only causes them to pass the costs on to the middle class.

The only sensible tax policy is to tax from the bottom up. Force as much of the tax burden to the lowest brackets as possible, and work up. Those at the bottom have nobody to foist their costs on, as they aren't productive.

The poor use the biggest portion of government services, so they should be the ones to carry the biggest portion of the burden. The poor also don't create jobs, people. Don't tax away the rich's ability to invest in industry and JOBS.

Taxation needs to be graduated as "regressively" as possible. I prefer the term "progressive from the bottom" personally.

A "progressive from the bottom" scheme incentivizes being more productive. If you tax the people at the top MORE, you'll discourage people from being more productive. If you punish people for being less productive, you'll see an increase in average household income. Think of it as an excise tax on being lazy and poor.
 
2012-08-10 10:07:16 AM

Serious Black: God, you guys are farking stupid. I think it was blatantly obvious that he doesn't really believe what he wrote in this article and intended it to be like he was speaking as Mitt Romney rather than himself. If you don't believe that, then why the hell would the same guy have written an article two days ago about why a maximum income law is not a ridiculously awful idea like most people are making it out to be?


Blatantly obvious?
 
2012-08-10 10:11:43 AM

Tenga: [www.slate.com image 568x346]

"You use a red one, then a white one to see if you need another red one".


? You lost me there.
 
2012-08-10 10:11:53 AM

sprawl15: Serious Black: If you don't believe that, then why the hell would the same guy have written an article two days ago about why a maximum income law is not a ridiculously awful idea like most people are making it out to be?

For the same reason he said that Obama has a bad jobs record while Romney wouldn't have to change a thing - and just maintain Obama's policies - to have a good jobs record.

He's an economic hipster.


i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-08-10 10:12:43 AM
palladiate:

Not sure if serious or Republican.

But how do you get money from people who dont have any?
 
2012-08-10 10:16:13 AM
www.slate.com

So we'll lure the Democrats out here, beat them with baseball bats, and bury them alive...
 
2012-08-10 10:16:45 AM

palelizard: Tenga: [www.slate.com image 568x346]

"You use a red one, then a white one to see if you need another red one".

? You lost me there.


Puppy uppers and doggy downers?
 
2012-08-10 10:18:05 AM

palladiate: The poor use the biggest portion of government services,


I know you must be trolling.
 
2012-08-10 10:18:34 AM

GAT_00: MacEnvy: GAT_00: MacEnvy: If you ignore that there are actual people involved and just pretend you're looking at numbers on a page, and throw out the benefits of lower income inequality, then if you squint really hard you can almost rationalize it.

Congratulations. I hope you have a dental pick or something to get that knot out of your logic.

Honestly, we do need to raise taxes some on the middle class. Can't close the deficit realistically with only taxes on the rich.

But there's no reason to raise taxes on the middle class to give the rich another tax cut.

I'm not denying that. But there's absolutely no coherent message in this piece that even remotely justifies Romney's plan.

I think some days the editors at Slate freak out because they haven't published enough and just throw together whatever they can in 10 minutes.


Can't be too biased to the "liberals" even if reality does skew that way, or at least reality skews away from what the 'tards who serve as the "cons" are trying to sell...
 
2012-08-10 10:19:18 AM

NateGrey: But how do you get money from people who dont have any?


maybe he has a new invention that can extract blood from stones
 
2012-08-10 10:20:34 AM

Headso: NateGrey: But how do you get money from people who dont have any?

maybe he has a new invention that can extract blood from stones


You could always harvest their bodies for replacement organs and sell the remaining gristle to dog food factories and rendering plants.
 
2012-08-10 10:20:40 AM

Serious Black: God, you guys are farking stupid. I think it was blatantly obvious that he doesn't really believe what he wrote in this article and intended it to be like he was speaking as Mitt Romney rather than himself. If you don't believe that, then why the hell would the same guy have written an article two days ago about why a maximum income law is not a ridiculously awful idea like most people are making it out to be?


I don't think it was blatantly obvious. I can't imagine a Republican, let alone Mitt Romney, saying "The good thing about taxes is they raise revenue, which can be used to do useful things." Can you?

If I take what you are saying as true, then in a four paragraph article only one is to be taken sarcastically and the rest are to be read seriously, save for the second to last sentence in the article. But as you suggest, given the author, it seems likely you are right. But rather than say it was blatantly obvious, lets go with this is the worst satirical article written in the history of the world.
 
2012-08-10 10:20:40 AM

Slives: Even though others have posted this, I will do it too, with my own thought on it.

FTA: But here there are two considerations. One is the "incentive effect" of taxes-higher taxes mean less incentive to do economically valuable things. The other is the "income effect"-less money in your pocket means more incentive to do economically valuable things.

My thought: WTF? This guy switches positions faster than Romney.


The quote that pretty much sums this up is as follows:

The central belief of Republicans is that the rich will work harder if you give them more money, and the poor will work harder if you give them less money.
 
2012-08-10 10:21:48 AM
nice spin on the headline.

Tax plan would make sense, if he used it right to reduce deficit or increase services to the same income range of people, but instead he's decreasing other taxes on higher income brackets with the increase in revenue.

That's bullshiat ,not sense.
 
2012-08-10 10:22:30 AM

indylaw: Headso: NateGrey: But how do you get money from people who dont have any?

maybe he has a new invention that can extract blood from stones

You could always harvest their bodies for replacement organs and sell the remaining gristle to dog food factories and rendering plants.


that proposal is so modest it just might work!
 
2012-08-10 10:23:14 AM

indylaw: palladiate: The poor use the biggest portion of government services,

I know you must be trolling.


I'm as serious as the WSJ Op-Ed page.
 
2012-08-10 10:23:24 AM

NateGrey: palladiate:

Not sure if serious or Republican.

But how do you get money from people who dont have any?


They could always try getting jobs.
 
2012-08-10 10:23:38 AM

RexTalionis: So yeah, Yglesias is being stupid. But, frankly, what can you expect from someone with a degree in philosophy who decided to appoint himself an economics journalist?


The foundations on which modern economics stands is more philosophy than fact. Economics oversimplifies human actions, market conditions, and the general milieu of the society it's applied to, which is exactly what he did in the article.
 
2012-08-10 10:23:40 AM

bigbadideasinaction:

The quote that pretty much sums this up is as follows:

The central belief of Republicans is that the rich will work harder if you give them more money, and the poor will work harder if you give them less money.


What the rich actually do with the money is what Romney does with his. They take it overseas and hide it out of the US economy. 12 trillion so far, so let's give them more and see if they do something different this time!
 
2012-08-10 10:24:05 AM

bigbadideasinaction: The central belief of Republicans is that the rich will work harder if you give them more money, and the poor will work harder if you give them less money.


What do you mean by "give them more money"?
A tax cut isn't giving them more money as much as it is taking less of their money.
 
2012-08-10 10:24:19 AM

palladiate: indylaw: palladiate: The poor use the biggest portion of government services,

I know you must be trolling.

I'm as serious as the WSJ Op-Ed page.


Trololololo lolololololo
 
2012-08-10 10:27:25 AM

NateGrey: But how do you get money from people who dont have any?


They would have money if they weren't too busy looting their own bank accounts to buy unnecessary luxuries. And I'm not taking the Fox News approach of calling refrigerators "luxuries." A refrigerator saves you a good deal of money by extending your food supply, it's why we all own one.

But consider how much lower and middle income families eat out regularly, or own TV, or pay for satellite, or choose to live in suburbs that require thousands a year in auto maintenance? If that money were no longer available to them because of higher taxation, they wouldn't spend the money they don't have.
 
2012-08-10 10:28:26 AM

indylaw: palladiate: The poor use the biggest portion of government services,

I know you must be trolling.


Trolling =/= Satire
 
2012-08-10 10:30:12 AM

tboucher: nice spin on the headline.

Tax plan would make sense, if he used it right to reduce deficit or increase services to the same income range of people, but instead he's decreasing other taxes on higher income brackets with the increase in revenue.

That's bullshiat ,not sense.


That's probably why the headline says "might", and why Yglesias covers precisely that topic (what should be done with extra revenue): "Now a separate issue is what do you do with the money. You could use it to reduce the budget deficit. You could use it to build new aircraft carriers. You could use it to pay for early childhood education. Or you could do what Rommey does and use it to finance a reduction in marginal income tax rates for high income people. I don't think that's a smart use of the money, but the idea that high-end tax cuts are more socially beneficial than increased public services is a longstanding American conservative position."
 
2012-08-10 10:30:24 AM
d.pr

d.pr
 
2012-08-10 10:32:11 AM

Wendy's Chili: MaudlinMutantMollusk: To whom?

To Matthew Yglesias. The guy who thinks subsistence wages are good because otherwise rich people might waste their time doing laundry.


Huh... I thought he was just a singer
 
2012-08-10 10:32:28 AM

palladiate: NateGrey: But how do you get money from people who dont have any?

They would have money if they weren't too busy looting their own bank accounts to buy unnecessary luxuries. And I'm not taking the Fox News approach of calling refrigerators "luxuries." A refrigerator saves you a good deal of money by extending your food supply, it's why we all own one.

But consider how much lower and middle income families eat out regularly, or own TV, or pay for satellite, or choose to live in suburbs that require thousands a year in auto maintenance? If that money were no longer available to them because of higher taxation, they wouldn't spend the money they don't have.


No, they'll just break out the credit card more often, or go bankrupt.

Do you seriously expect them to resort to bread and water, with no entertainment, no vehicles, and live in the urban projects or something? What you consider 'unnecessary' may be the only source of non work enjoyment a lot of folks have. It's retarded to say they should give that up so some rich guy can buy another boat.
 
2012-08-10 10:35:04 AM

palladiate: If that money were no longer available to them because of higher taxation, they wouldn't spend the money


sounds great for the economy
 
2012-08-10 10:35:58 AM

sprawl15: NateGrey: palladiate:

Not sure if serious or Republican.

But how do you get money from people who dont have any?

They could always try getting jobs.


And give up the lavish lifestyle of being poor? psssh

palladiate: NateGrey: But how do you get money from people who dont have any?

They would have money if they weren't too busy looting their own bank accounts to buy unnecessary luxuries. And I'm not taking the Fox News approach of calling refrigerators "luxuries." A refrigerator saves you a good deal of money by extending your food supply, it's why we all own one.

But consider how much lower and middle income families eat out regularly, or own TV, or pay for satellite, or choose to live in suburbs that require thousands a year in auto maintenance? If that money were no longer available to them because of higher taxation, they wouldn't spend the money they don't have.


Tax them to change their behavior?

Stupid socialist lib.
 
2012-08-10 10:37:07 AM

Antimatter: Do you seriously expect them to resort to bread and water, with no entertainment, no vehicles, and live in the urban projects or something? What you consider 'unnecessary' may be the only source of non work enjoyment a lot of folks have. It's retarded to say they should give that up so some rich guy can buy another boat.


But the poor are subhuman parasites who bleed the middle class dry and laugh at them as they sit on their porch and drink beer while you have to drive to your pointless job everyday. They ride the gravy train of food stamps and daytime TV while you sit in your cube filling out TPS reports and wondering why you're such a failure.

And at the end of the day, when you climb into your 8 year old Hyundai and get cut off by that cocksucker middle manager in his new BMW, you're going to drive by Mr. Welfare Recipient, still drinking beer and laughing at you.
 
2012-08-10 10:37:46 AM
Serious question here - has trickle-down economics ever been more than just a theory, or a myth even? Has it ever helped any economy, ever?

To me, the whole thing collapses unto itself because it is based on the hope that the rich will invest their profits back into the infrastructure that is allowing them to succeed, which seems even more unlikely when you also provide them with enough loopholes to put those profits back into personal investments, and not pay a goddamn dime in taxes.

The masses are being fed the tale that if you lower taxes for Job Creators™ (peace be unto them), they will put that money back into the economy and you know, create jobs, but when it comes to the tax code you're giving the rich plenty of freedom to do the exact opposite. Why would they do anything other than send that shiat to an account overseas and watch it grow completely free of regulations?

It's the same kind of naiveté that you see in the most devout Paultards, who are thoroughly convinced that if you give people absolute freedom, they will infallibly do the right thing. How do you get to this kind of disconnect from reality?
 
2012-08-10 10:47:04 AM

Zerochance: Serious question here - has trickle-down economics ever been more than just a theory, or a myth even? Has it ever helped any economy, ever?

To me, the whole thing collapses unto itself because it is based on the hope that the rich will invest their profits back into the infrastructure that is allowing them to succeed, which seems even more unlikely when you also provide them with enough loopholes to put those profits back into personal investments, and not pay a goddamn dime in taxes.

The masses are being fed the tale that if you lower taxes for Job Creators™ (peace be unto them), they will put that money back into the economy and you know, create jobs, but when it comes to the tax code you're giving the rich plenty of freedom to do the exact opposite. Why would they do anything other than send that shiat to an account overseas and watch it grow completely free of regulations?

It's the same kind of naiveté that you see in the most devout Paultards, who are thoroughly convinced that if you give people absolute freedom, they will infallibly do the right thing. How do you get to this kind of disconnect from reality?


They zealously hold a belief that God rewards good people with untold riches and punishes bad people by making them poor. It's basic Prosperity Gospel.
 
2012-08-10 10:51:57 AM

palladiate: indylaw: palladiate: The poor use the biggest portion of government services,

I know you must be trolling.

I'm as serious as the WSJ Op-Ed page.


Lol... This is how you do it, Kiddies.

Bravo, Sir.
 
2012-08-10 10:53:00 AM

MacEnvy:

I'm not denying that. But there's absolutely no coherent message in this piece. that even remotely justifies Romney's plan.


FTFY
 
2012-08-10 10:54:18 AM
This just in: Republicans think the wealthy are just better than you. YOU need a brush with crushing poverty to motivate you. The wealthy don't need such silly motivation.
 
2012-08-10 10:54:22 AM
The problem with the logic of this article is that it bases economic growth on "hard work" and "working harder." That's not what spurs an economy. Money in everyone's pockets does. People buying merchandise gets the wheels turning, resulting in increased demand, which is addressed with increased production. You'll never guess what companies have to do to handle higher production demands.
 
2012-08-10 10:55:47 AM

domino324: The problem with the logic of this article is that it bases economic growth on "hard work" and "working harder." That's not what spurs an economy. Money in everyone's pockets does. People buying merchandise gets the wheels turning, resulting in increased demand, which is addressed with increased production. You'll never guess what companies have to do to handle higher production demands.


Outsource to China?
 
2012-08-10 10:57:22 AM
Wtf did I just read? Was that a horrible attempt at satire or what?
 
2012-08-10 10:57:50 AM

palladiate: The poor use the biggest portion of government services


Suuuuuuuuuure they do.

Go ahead and tell that to the poor next time large banks borrow hundreds of billions of dollars with no interest, and have their toxic asset losses backstopped by the US government. All in the name of golden parachutes.
 
2012-08-10 10:58:37 AM
I agree with the author of TFA that Mitt Romney's plan to cut taxes for the wealthy and pay for it through middle class tax hikes is a good idea.

Think about it: Cutting taxes for the wealthy creates more jobs, then the government takes a bigger cut of those middle class incomes, and boom - balanced budget.

I support Mitt Romney's plan to raise taxes on the middle class.
 
2012-08-10 11:00:23 AM

The Homer Tax: I agree with the author of TFA that Mitt Romney's plan to cut taxes for the wealthy and pay for it through middle class tax hikes is a good idea.

Think about it: Cutting taxes for the wealthy creates more jobs, then the government takes a bigger cut of those middle class incomes, and boom - balanced budget.

I support Mitt Romney's plan to raise taxes on the middle class.


Lame. 0.5/10. Needs more chicken farking.
 
2012-08-10 11:00:30 AM

homelessdude: Mitt Romney's tax plan might actually make sense

Yeah, but does Romney make sense?


Romney will be against his own tax plan by tuesday.
 
2012-08-10 11:01:25 AM
less money in your pocket means more incentive to do economically valuable things

Yep, by not being able to afford food or go to hospitals and getting medicines (remember Mittens will repeal the ACA) you'll do the economically valuable thing of dying before you become a burden to your family or the State.
 
2012-08-10 11:02:26 AM

keylock71: Lol... This is how you do it, Kiddies.


I've been arguing this since 2006. I'm glad it's gaining traction.

Antimatter: No, they'll just break out the credit card more often, or go bankrupt.


They are obliged to pay that credit back. Gone are the days where you can force a debtor to pay, but not paying damages the social order and contract. Nobody has to lend to those families, but banks do on the promise of repayment.

But they if they declared bankruptcy, it proves why they're poor and classless. That's why I'm all for taxing them to pay for all the government assistance they'll be demanding now that their income is lower.

Headso: sounds great for the economy


It is. The lower classes do not create jobs or invest capital. India has far more poor than us, and an economy that's growing much faster than ours. Same with China. Why are they growing faster? Because they know the burden of taxation belongs on the poor. It's far cheaper to be rich in India, and labor even has a better price. Their workers are also far more productive than the over-educated workers here. Even the state government Utah of all places has discussed going to a "French-style" four day work week.
 
2012-08-10 11:05:45 AM
less money in your pocket means more incentive to do economically valuable things

so wouldn't that rule apply to the "job creators"?

the more you tax them the more incentive they have to create more jobs right?
 
2012-08-10 11:06:08 AM

palladiate: consider how much lower and middle income families eat out regularly, or own TV, or pay for satellite, or choose to live in suburbs that require thousands a year in auto maintenance


+

palladiate: The lower classes do not create jobs


= lol wut?
 
2012-08-10 11:08:30 AM

Headso: palladiate: consider how much lower and middle income families eat out regularly, or own TV, or pay for satellite, or choose to live in suburbs that require thousands a year in auto maintenance

+

palladiate: The lower classes do not create jobs

= lol wut?


doublethink or cognitive dissonance
 
2012-08-10 11:09:00 AM

dennysgod: less money in your pocket means more incentive to do economically valuable things

Yep, by not being able to afford food or go to hospitals and getting medicines (remember Mittens will repeal the ACA) you'll do the economically valuable thing of dying before you become a burden to your family or the State.


Just move to Massachusetts. I hear they have a great healthcare plan.
 
2012-08-10 11:09:49 AM
So let me get this straight. The logic here is that if you tax the middle class more while keeping taxes lower on the higher brackets, you are creating a double incentive for them to go out and do economically valuable things to make more money?

I guess that makes sense, because everyone I know has ample opportunity to make more money and they just choose not to. God, I'm really sick of all those people who just don't want to make more money.
 
2012-08-10 11:11:14 AM

imontheinternet: dennysgod: less money in your pocket means more incentive to do economically valuable things

Yep, by not being able to afford food or go to hospitals and getting medicines (remember Mittens will repeal the ACA) you'll do the economically valuable thing of dying before you become a burden to your family or the State.

Just move to Massachusetts. I hear they have a great healthcare plan.


Vermont is better. Single Payer and Medical MJ
 
Displayed 50 of 349 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report