Advertisement

Archive for Friday, September 28, 2012

Letter to the Editor: Tax focus

September 28, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

In your Sept. 20 editorial, you equate “the 47 percent” with those who will vote for President Obama “no matter what.” I disagree with that statement. A good portion of that 47 percent are retired Republicans who are loyal to the GOP. Romney is putting Republicans in the company of working Americans of all parties whose income tax  liabilities on a modest income are likely reduced through personal, child care, and other exemptions which they need in order to get by. Moreover, these persons do pay sales and property taxes, and the elderly in retirement may be taxed on Social Security income, if they earn enough.

Food, shelter, school expenses, clothing, child care expenses, etc., all come out of modest wages with a much more significant effect on the spending power of less affluent families than that “suffered” by millionaires and billionaires.

Focusing only on income taxes is ignoring the rest of the story. We must not forget how a near depression put so many out of their homes and jobs — a situation not easily fixed. Romney himself said in one of his “truth telling” speeches, that by the end of his second term, he would have everything fixed. Can’t we give Obama the same time with a cooperative Congress to add to already significant economic progress?

History shows us that protecting the rich from taxes they can afford does not necessarily result in the much vaunted positive effect on the economy, the middle class and the working poor. Let’s not fool ourselves.

Comments

Richard Heckler 2 years, 2 months ago

Memo To Mitt Romney: The 47% Pay Taxes Too

From FORBES

Of course, it goes without saying, that those folks who aren’t paying federal taxes are almost all paying state and local taxes—state sales taxes, real estate taxes (either on their homes or built into their rents) and possibly state income taxes too, since those taxes tend to exempt fewer poor families than does the federal income tax. If they buy gasoline, liquor or tobacco, or have telephones, they’re also feeding the federal purse.

So maybe a higher share of the American public should be paying at least some amount of federal income tax. The tax code would be simpler, and probably fairer, if we reduced the number of tax expenditures for the wealthy and non-wealthy alike. We all might give more thought to spending restraint.

Then, too, we’re all protected by the military and rely on public infrastructure to get to our jobs, schools, stores and doctors—and yes, to build our businesses.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2012/09/17/memo-to-mitt-romney-the-47-pay-taxes-too/

Richard Heckler 2 years, 2 months ago

Neither Republican nor Democrat Upper Middle Class/Middle class can afford the Republican Party

Is the market value of your home worth less than your mortgage? How much market value have home owners lost since 2007? Trillions of $$$$.

Let's talk about entitlements that have literally destroyed jobs,economies and retirement plans. And made owning a home a risky investment - now that is remarkable.

DC republicans have been successful at wrecking our economy big time twice in the past thirty years. Because of the pattern I am convinced it is their economic policy established under the direction of Reagan/Bush.

Bush/Cheney accomplished a remarkable achievement by destroying the world economy which of course makes it difficult for the USA to bounce back quickly. The question becomes how in the world did they sucker financial institutions worldwide into buying bundles upon bundles upon bundles of bad USA home loans worth trillions of dollars in bad debt?

What an incredible and criminally insane economic policy? I don't believe the entire world can afford the economically reckless republican party that was born in 1980.

Let's talk about entitlements that literally destroyed jobs,economies,retirement plans. And made owning a home a risky investment - now that is remarkable.

--- This ENTITLEMENT - Bailing out The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist aka home loan scandal sent the economy out the window costing taxpayers many many $$ trillions (Cost taxpayers $1.4 trillion), Plus millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

--- This ENTITLEMENT Bailing out the Bush/Cheney Home Loan Wall Street Bank Fraud cost consumers $ trillions, millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. Exactly like the Reagan/Bush home loan scam. Déjà vu can we say. Yep seems to be a pattern. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html

--- This ENTITLEMENT - Bush/Cheney implied many financial institutions were at risk instead of only 3? One of the biggest lies perpetrated to American citizens. Where did this money go? Why were some banks forced to take bail out money? http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year

Is the market value of your home worth less than your mortgage? How much market value have home owners lost since 2007?

Katara 2 years, 2 months ago

How much do you think forklifts cost?

A middle class forklift driver can afford to purchase one and there are many independent contractors that own a forklift.

Additionally, a rich person isn't going to stay very rich if they don't have a forklift driver to load their goods into a truck for transport.

The rich person is much more dependent on the middle class forklift driver.

It is amusing how some folks think middle and lower class folks are so dependent on the wealthy.

Katara 2 years, 2 months ago

You have a very overinflated figure for a forklift. And you don't have to have a shiny-brand-new-one-fresh-from-the-factory-still-with-that-new-forklift-smell to find work.

It is so cute when you post silly things such as "Question: how does the middle class forklift driver have a job if there wasn't a rich person to buy the forklift?" and then go on to say " The capitalist as well as the employee are both necessary parts to make the system work."

Katara 2 years, 2 months ago

Even cuter!

In the first sentence you make it clear that the middle class forklift driver would not have employment if it were not for the rich person purchasing a forklift for them to use. I pointed out that it is not necessary for the rich person to do that as the middle class forklift can afford to purchase a forklift (Forklifts are not cost prohibitive.).

Your response is "well, they are both necessary" although your first sentence clearly shows that you believe that the rich person is the component for the middle class to be employed. Why the middle class wouldn't be able to afford the equipment to do the job if it wasn't for the benevolent rich person!

Capitalism ≠ social cooperation. Social cooperation can be part of capitalism but the nature of capitalism is competition. One may form alliances (cooperate) so one can accumulate more capital but those are not permanent and if the alliance turns out not to be beneficial after all, it is dissolved.

If you are in favor of social cooperation, I suggest that you hang with the hunter-gatherers groups such as the !Kung. Hunter-gatherer systems are nowhere near capitalism and are the ultimate in a social cooperation society.

/pats Liberty_One on the head

Katara 2 years, 2 months ago

You are so silly and cute. I could just pinch your little fat cheeks! So so so amusing you are!

Yes, yes, of course you are so rational. That is why you come back with a wall of text that basically is a bunch of nonsense that contradicts your original statements. I think you are just simply posting now to impress yourself. You do quite the job of stroking your ego.

You made a statement, I pointed out where it is not true. A middle class forklift driver can afford their own forklift and is not dependent on the the rich person for their equipment in order to be employed. You haven't the slightest idea of actual cost. You really should check those things out before you post such silly naive things.

It is absolutely adorable how you make statements and declare them to be fact. My children did that too prior to kindergarten (that's when children start to understand the difference between their fantasies and reality.).

You really have no concept of what constitutes proof but given your posting behavior, I don't expect such things from someone with an obvious inability to separate fact from fiction.

People produce things because they have the ability to do so and it benefits them, not to be socially cooperative. They make money from it. They also compete with others who wish to do the same. We agree that they are not doing it out altruism but to assume that because an outcome has the potential to benefit others is an equivalent to social cooperation is foolish at best.

Further, all actions have motivations and, certainly, feelings behind them. Actions don't exist in a vacuum. People without the ability to understand that are known as sociopaths.

Anyhow, I am just going back to ignoring you. I only interacted with you because I was amused that you had the belief that only a rich person could afford a forklift. Really, if you are going to use something like that to illustrate a point, you should check into the info first.

Oh, as for your baker example (you do use that quite a bit), many people make their own bread. It isn't difficult and the results can be quite tasty. Maybe you should try producing your own products instead of anticipating that someone may do it for you because you are of the belief that capitalism = social cooperation.

/awaits entirely predictable post by Liberty_One (Yay! Capitalism! Woot! Capitalism! I'm smarter than you! Childish insults! Yay Capitalism! Claims empty and unearned victory on the internet! )

Flap Doodle 2 years, 2 months ago

"...Americans must be wondering how much more of this “recovery” they can afford. New figures from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, compiled by Sentier Research, show that the typical American household’s real (inflation-adjusted) income has actually dropped 5.7 percent during the Obama “recovery.” Using constant 2012 dollars (to adjust for inflation), the median annual income of American households was $53,718 as of June 2009, the last month of the recession. Now, after 38 months of this “recovery,” it has fallen to $50,678 — a drop of $3,040 per household. Yet it gets worse. Amazingly, incomes have dropped even more during the “recovery” than they did during the recession. In fact, they’ve dropped more than twice as much as they did during the recession. From the start to the end of the recession, the real median income of American households fell $1,413, or 2.6 percent. From the end of the recession to the present day, it has dropped $3,040, or 5.7 percent. This begs the question: What kind of “recovery” compares unfavorably with the recession from which it’s ostensibly recovering?..." http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/americans-incomes-have-fallen-3040-during-obama-recovery_653116.html

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

Yes, we do. Romney himself, however, doesn't know who he is referring to. He threw a lot of people under the bus with his 47% statement, including a lot of people who will still end up voting for him despite his saying he doesn't care about them. The people he was likely referring to (those who live off the government without trying to work) are only a very small portion within that 47%. Either that, or he really was saying he doesn't care about the apparent "poor" people, no matter how they got there (retired, military, those in school, underemployed).

Hanging with the rich will get you into the country club, but it won't get you elected.

jafs 2 years, 2 months ago

I wonder what people think it means or proves to find one person who says dumb things and supports a candidate for president.

I'm pretty sure we can find a number of such people, all of whom support different candidates.

Katara 2 years, 2 months ago

Well, of course we can. Plenty of them post here. ;)

Commenting has been disabled for this item.