Romney: "Middle Income" Means $200,000 - $250,000

Darla said:
Maybe. Who cares? We are talking about the guy who wrote a book falsely stating that the President of the United States went on an apology tour.

This comment should show up in ads. Clobber him with it. And I have the world's tiniest violin for anyone crying over it.
Click to expand...
I can't argue there. That is the nature of politics. Romney would be all over Obama had he made such a gaffe.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Nice wall of "Copy and Paste" but please tell me, using your own analysis. How am I wrong? You didn't even address my point, you just threw up a wall of links and quotes.
Click to expand...

This. I was going to ask the same thing. What statement of yours did his article prove to be wrong?
 
cawacko said:
This. I was going to ask the same thing. What statement of yours did his article prove to be wrong?
Click to expand...
I think maybe they were misconstruing what I said as people who make $250,000 to $500,000 are middle class. I didn't say that. I said that our system of taxation was the most unfair to them.
 
I mean here is where I probably hold the most resentment towards both Mitt and Obama. My federal tax rate is 25% as very little of my income is from investments. Where as Mitt, who makes around $25 to $40 million a year is paying less than 15%? Obama who made about $800,000 last year paid about 20% in federal taxes, again cause he made a significant amount in investment income?

I'm not going to demonize either man for taking advantage of what the law will permit them to do but this infuriates me that this is how much the deck is stacked against me. It's just completely demoralizing that non-productive investement income is considerd to be so much more valuable than productive income that it's taxed at a far lower rate. This is just simply unfair and it has to be stopped!
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Nice wall of "Copy and Paste" but please tell me, using your own analysis. How am I wrong? You didn't even address my point, you just threw up a wall of links and quotes.
Click to expand...

Using my own words? You're wrong...the middle class income is considerably less.

$200,000 is the upper 5%. How's that middle class.

I copy and paste so that you have sources who can clear up your misguided thinking...guess facts aren't something you're interested in so let me continue..it's the working poor who get hosed...even after all their "work" at those 5% incomes and up, their take home pay is ALOT more than the guy making $20,000 gets. And their percentage is greater than the big office guy.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I mean here is where I probably hold the most resentment towards both Mitt and Obama. My federal tax rate is 25% as very little of my income is from investments. Where as Mitt, who makes around $25 to $40 million a year is paying less than 15%? Obama who made about $800,000 last year paid about 20% in federal taxes, again cause he made a significant amount in investment income?

I'm not going to demonize either man for taking advantage of what the law will permit them to do but this infuriates me that this is how much the deck is stacked against me. It's just completely demoralizing that non-productive investement income is considerd to be so much more valuable than productive income that it's taxed at a far lower rate. This is just simply unfair and it has to be stopped!
Click to expand...

Democrats have tried...the republicans refused..what's your answer to solve the problem?
 
Southern Tea said:
Using my own words? You're wrong...the middle class income is considerably less.

$200,000 is the upper 5%. How's that middle class.

I copy and paste so that you have sources who can clear up your misguided thinking...guess facts aren't something you're interested in so let me continue..it's the working poor who get hosed...even after all their "work" at those 5% incomes and up, their take home pay is ALOT more than the guy making $20,000 gets. And their percentage is greater than the big office guy.
Click to expand...
Sorry but I made no comment as to whether making that amount made you middle class. I said out tax system was most unfair to those who make between $100,000 and $500,000. I never said that a person making $200,000 was middle class.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I mean here is where I probably hold the most resentment towards both Mitt and Obama. My federal tax rate is 25% as very little of my income is from investments. Where as Mitt, who makes around $25 to $40 million a year is paying less than 15%? Obama who made about $800,000 last year paid about 20% in federal taxes, again cause he made a significant amount in investment income?

I'm not going to demonize either man for taking advantage of what the law will permit them to do but this infuriates me that this is how much the deck is stacked against me. It's just completely demoralizing that non-productive investement income is considerd to be so much more valuable than productive income that it's taxed at a far lower rate. This is just simply unfair and it has to be stopped!
Click to expand...

And what you are going to do as a result, is kill money available for investment. There is a REASON we tax investment income at a lower rate, those incomes are being derived from money that is made available to banks and lending institutions for loans and start-up capital. If you increase the tax rate on those dividends, there is no incentive for someone with large wealth to make the money available, and it goes away. Now, what happens in our society when there is no money for start-ups and venture capital investments? We have LESS of them! Is this a "good" or "bad" thing, in terms of economic growth and prosperity? I argue, it's a very BAD thing.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Sorry but I made no comment as to whether making that amount made you middle class. I said out tax system was most unfair to those who make between $100,000 and $500,000. I never said that a person making $200,000 was middle class.
Click to expand...

How can you believe that? At even 30% of 100,000, a person takes home MUCH more pay than someone paying 25% of $20,000.
 
Dixie said:
And what you are going to do as a result, is kill money available for investment. There is a REASON we tax investment income at a lower rate, those incomes are being derived from money that is made available to banks and lending institutions for loans and start-up capital. If you increase the tax rate on those dividends, there is no incentive for someone with large wealth to make the money available, and it goes away. Now, what happens in our society when there is no money for start-ups and venture capital investments? We have LESS of them! Is this a "good" or "bad" thing, in terms of economic growth and prosperity? I argue, it's a very BAD thing.
Click to expand...
Phhlllbbbbttt I've heard that nonsense for years. In fact there was more investment and more productivity in eras with higher tax rates as it forces the wealthy to invest that money by putting it into circulation for productive use or risk losing it to taxes. I've heard that nonsense for years and it's simply not true.
 
Dixie said:
And what you are going to do as a result, is kill money available for investment. There is a REASON we tax investment income at a lower rate, those incomes are being derived from money that is made available to banks and lending institutions for loans and start-up capital. If you increase the tax rate on those dividends, there is no incentive for someone with large wealth to make the money available, and it goes away. Now, what happens in our society when there is no money for start-ups and venture capital investments? We have LESS of them! Is this a "good" or "bad" thing, in terms of economic growth and prosperity? I argue, it's a very BAD thing.
Click to expand...

Show examples of where this "capital investment" has occurred in the US since the FIRST Bush tax cuts of 2001. Wouldn't we have JOBS if this were true?
 
Dixie said:
Well the Bush tax cuts produced about 6 million jobs 11 years ago, when they were implemented.
Click to expand...

Not your words...the facts...bush REMOVED 2.3 million middle class private sector jobs and replaced them with hundred of thousands of government worker jobs and part-time minimum wage jobs...the tax cuts gainers didn't do that....Loans to companies from the FEDS for zero interest did.

Show me the tax cuts making jobs...and show me a link to your statement that the tax cuts produced 6 million jobs.
 
Southern Tea said:
How can you believe that? At even 30% of 100,000, a person takes home MUCH more pay than someone paying 25% of $20,000.
Click to expand...
Do you even understand what I'm saying? You're comments to mine aren't making much sense.

First a person making $20,000 doesn't pay 25% in Federal taxes. They pay no federal taxes. They do pay more regressive State, local and sales taxes but no federal taxes. So yea a person making $100,000/year doing productive work and being taxed at a rate of 30% is quintessentially unfair when a person who makes $20 million through non-productive investment income pays only 15% in taxes. That is unfair. A person making $20,000 per year and paying no federal taxes seems pretty damned fair to me.
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-36742298/extending-the-bush-tax-cuts58-would-they-create-more-jobs63-or-just-comfort-the-comfortable63/

. . .
A strong pace for job creation is two million or more a month. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 were followed by job losses for about a year, and didn't get near two million a month until November 2003.

More to the point is that the job creation after the Bush tax cuts was not stronger than earlier recoveries -- look at the experience back to 1970. The Reagan tax cuts of 1986 were a big deal, but gains in jobs were no bigger than in prior upswings. The Clinton administration presided during strong growth and no tax cuts.

Tax cuts may comfort the comfortable, to quote consultant Robert Shrum, but there's not a convincing case that they result in new jobs.
Click to expand...

HAsn't any data to back up the claim that tax cuts create jobs.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Do you even understand what I'm saying? You're comments to mine aren't making much sense.

First a person making $20,000 doesn't pay 25% in Federal taxes. They pay no federal taxes. They do pay more regressive State, local and sales taxes but no federal taxes. So yea a person making $100,000/year doing productive work and being taxed at a rate of 30% is quintessentially unfair when a person who makes $20 million through non-productive investment income pays only 15% in taxes. That is unfair. A person making $20,000 per year and paying no federal taxes seems pretty damned fair to me.
Click to expand...

That's not what I show.

http://www.hrblock.com/taxes/tax_calculators/rate_tables/earnedincome_childtax.html

http://press.princeton.edu/blog/2012/08/07/are-mitt-romneys-wealth-and-taxes-taxing-his-campaign/

Information about how federal tax rates for different income levels compare to Romney’s: “In this country, a person making under $20,000 each year pays about 2% of their income in federal taxes. A person making $60,000 pays about 13% of their income in federal taxes. A person making $250,000 pays about 20% of their income in federal taxes. Last week, Mitt Romney suggested that he paid about 15% of his income in federal taxes.”
Information about average income and tax rates, with no mention of Romney: ““The Census Bureau has estimated that the average American household earned about $50,000 in 2010. In this country, a person making under $20,000 each year pays about 2% of their income in federal taxes. A person making $60,000 pays about 13% of their income in federal taxes. A person making $250,000 pays about 20% of their income in federal taxes.”
Click to expand...

UNDER $20,000 pays 2% of their income.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2011/09/30/2012-federal-income-tax-brackets-irs-tax-rates/

Federal Income Tax Brackets for 2012

Here’s a quick rundown of what the Federal income tax brackets are expected to look like in 2012:
Tax Bracket Married Filing Jointly Single
10% Bracket $0 – $17,400 $0 – $8,700
15% Bracket $17,400 – $70,700 $8,700 – $35,350
25% Bracket $70,700 – $142,700 $35,350 – $85,650
28% Bracket $142,700 – $217,450 $85,650 – $178,650
33% Bracket $217,450 – $388,350 $178,650 – $388,350
35% Bracket Over $388,350 Over $388,350
Click to expand...

Pesky facts....copy and paste urls...kinda need to redirect this discussion, huh? 28% of $150,00 is a LOT more take home pay than 15% of 20,000
 
Damocles said:
Basically Romney was defining what he meant by who would get what tax breaks. It is the same measure that Obama uses to tax the "very rich"... People who make more than $200,000 to $250,000 would be at the same tax level they currently are while others get breaks, those people will lose many of their deductions, etc, while people who make less will not...

I think he is smart to build in places where compromise can be reached. If you present a full budget the other side digs in, if you set parameters and let them work it out you can often get laws passed that would otherwise languish, unless you got super majorities in both houses...
Click to expand...

Horseshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top