US Elections 2012 Part II: The Conventions, Debates and Election results

[ganbaru]

@flying^ Both reaction would be justified:
He had to pay a big sum of tax, but when you look at how much he made he could had pay a bit more without much problem.

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by flying ^

(cue online reaction in 3...2...1...)


Normal American reaction:
"Man, he paid a TON in income tax!"
"I'm glad the Romneys donated nearly 30 percent of their income to charity."

Normal liberal reaction:
"Man, he makes a gazillion dollars and that's all he paid? He needs to pay his fair share!"

flying, question?

How much percent of taxes you pay?

Because of right now, I pay more percent of taxes than he does (I know because I do taxes like my mom)

[solomon]

Does anyone still really care about the whole Romney income tax thing? Frankly if it wasn't for Mother Jones's sting operation, I don't think he would have released it.

It's a big ass distraction. He's not like the rest of us just due to the line of work he's in.

My simple question is this, in addition to paying down the debt, where's the money gonna come from that needs to go to the roads and schools (which need money like YESTERDAY).

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter_Toki

I know that feeling. I have a few relatives that are so adamant about fox being the voice of truth. I remember when fox spinned the whole Obama "you didn't build that" speech I tried having a conversation with one of my relatives about how they could possibly take that speech the wrong way and all they kept doing was going back onto that one line "you didn't build that" without any of the context of the rest of the speech. They sounded like a mouth piece for fox news and I just couldn't continue the conversation.

Honestly at this point I'm embarrassed to tell people I'm Republican because of what the party has become today. The Republican party has become nothing but a joke furthered by the atrocity that is fox news.

I've been quoting Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon, ... even Reagan, Bob Dole, Buckley.... they'll sit there and say "that's liberal crap" and I'll tell them who said it and to look it up. Then I'll say <shrug> you won't look it up because you're too goddamned lazy and just suck up what Fox lies to you about. Know the definition of a cult? One part is where they tell you everyone else is lying to you.

As for the taxes... meh, it takes at least five years of returns to get a good picture because of all the multi-year depreciation, deferred income, etc. He pays so little income tax because we have ass-backwardly decided that UNEARNED income should be taxed less that EARNED income. The idea was that people would invest innovation - what has happened is they are just squirreling it off and it doesn't improve the country's economy.

1) Remove the cap on social security & medicare taxes (which only go to EARNED income btw). There's no damn reason I or anyone shouldn't pay a bit out of every dollar we earn.
2) RETURN the capital gains tax to levels that worked so well in our last economic booms. It only takes grade school math to see that lowering taxes on capital gains or unearned income has not benefited the country at all. You used to get a discount on taxes if you were a long-term investor. Reviving that would put a brake on this lemming horde millisecond stock trading that f's up people's lives.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Vexx

It only takes grade school math to see that lowering taxes on capital gains or unearned income has not benefited the country at all.

I would say rather High School math; the amound of data to take into acount plus the use of statistic plus the current state of the US public school with it's lack of fund.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by flying ^

(cue online reaction in 3...2...1...)


Normal American reaction:
"Man, he paid a TON in income tax!"
"I'm glad the Romneys donated nearly 30 percent of their income to charity."

Normal liberal reaction:
"Man, he makes a gazillion dollars and that's all he paid? He needs to pay his fair share!"

The absolute amount of that tax appears to be much. But let me give you a simple example in math, why absoulte numbers are deceiving:

Lets assume there is a population of 300 million (and an estimated 180 million of these people actually work). And the hypothetical wage distribution in the population is like this:

70 million ~ on average 15k p.a. (-5k p.a. subsidies)
40 million ~ on average 60k p.a. (12k p.a. taxes)
70 million ~ on average 200k p.a. (60k p.a. taxes)

Lets assume those with 15k p.a. need in average 5k p.a. in several types of state subsidies to live at the minimum standard (to survive).
Lets assume those with 60k p.a. pay 20% tax (or 12k) and those with 200k p.a. pay 30% tax (or 60k).
The state would receive 40 million * 12k = 480 billion in taxes from the 2nd income group and 70 million * 60k = 4200 billion in taxes from the 3rd income group. The state would have to subsidize the lowest income group with 70 million * 5k = 350 billion. In that scenario the state has a net surplus of 4330 billion.

The overall money available is 17,450 billion. So precentage wise the state has earned roughly 25% that can be spent for the general good.

Lets say the overall money stays the same, but we have a different, more uneven distribution of it:

110 million ~ on average 15k p.a. (-5k p.a. subsidies)
40 million ~ on average 80k p.a. (12k p.a. taxes)
30 million ~ on average 420k p.a. (60k p.a. taxes)

Now for the sake of the argument lets say those 3 income groups pay the same absolute amount of taxes as in the example above (or receive state subsidies).

The 2nd income group would have a tax rate of 15% then and still pay 12k taxes p.a. And the 3rd income group would have a tax rate of slightly less then 15% then and still pay 60k p.a.

So what would the state earn now:

Well the first income group would mean a loss of 550 billion to the state while the second income group remains at contributing a net gain of 480 billion. And the third group would now add another 1800 billion to it. So the overall net surplus of the state is now just 1730 billion. Thats slightly less then 10% of the overall money left to spend for the public good.

But lets take the example to the extremes now. Further tax cuts for everyone, absolute contribution stays at the fixed levels and the natural result will be an even more uneven distribution of wealth:

150 million ~ on average 15k p.a. (-5k p.a. subsidies)
20 million ~ on average 100k p.a. (12k p.a. taxes)
10 million ~ on average 1320k p.a. (60k p.a. taxes)

With the fixed tax margins in the respective income groups the 2nd income group has now a tax rate of 12%. The third income group now has a tax rate of 4.5%.

So what does the state earn under these conditions:

The first income group means a loss of 750 billion. The second income group positively adds 240 billion. And the third income group contributes another 600 billion. The net tax surplus of the state is now 90 billion (or 0.5% of the entire money). So 0,5% can be spend for the public good now.

As you can see, by applying the same absolute numbers in tax money for the 3 income groups, you can retrieve very different results depending on the distribution of money. If you add to the equation that the flawed idea of compounded interests means that those who started with much gain exponentially much more, while those who started with nothing remain with nothing, and those who started with little gain comparably little - you will see, that you need corrective means to keep the whole system balanced.
One of the way to force such a ballance is by the means of progressive tax rates.

Otherwise the situation will end like this:

170 million ~ on average 15k p.a. (-5k p.a. subsidies)
9 million ~ on average 130k p.a. (12k p.a. taxes)
1 million ~ on average 13,730k p.a. (60k p.a. taxes)

The tax rate of the 2nd income group is now slightly under 10% and the 3rd income group has a tax rate of 0.44% now.

The state earns: -850 billion from the first income group. 108 billion from the second income group and 60 billion from the 3rd income group.
So overall the state has a net loss of 682 billion each year. On the long run this doesnt work.

[Destined_Fate]

...Man, I thought I've seen burns before but you just lit the whole forest on fire. Burn....

[Netto Azure]

Could you make a bumper sticker or a sound bite out of that?

If not, people will just parrot whatever comes on the airwaves. (It saddens me a lot with the state of the country when trying to explain and use of extrapolations is looked down upon as being "preachy") u_u

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

It is hardly self-preservation when they keep up the "wipe Israel off the map" doctrine. They need to stop, and either ignore or recognise Israel to get some bit of stability back.

Their president (who doesn't hold the real power in their government) made a statement about wiping Israel off the map once. Have they said anything about that since then? They're no fans of Israel, as we all know, but they wouldn't dare attack it outright. Israel alone could probably defeat them, but they know that the USA is just looking for any justification to take military action against them, too.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

IAs for Iran's motivation for funding and arming insurgent groups, the "Muslim Brotherhood", despite being an aged moral that has little or no place in the modern world, still runs deep - the idea of "a muslim must help another muslim" still runs deep in anywhere with Islam because they don't have anything synonymous to profiteering megachurches that divide humanity for profit in the context of their religion - they still see themselves as servants to Allah.

This is a bit of a simplification. The brand of Islam that Iran follows is different from what the majorities in the other Muslim countries does. Iranians also have a different history than most other Muslims (Persian background). This is partly why Iran is at odds with many of the other Middle Eastern countries.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

IThen you are going to let their nuts glass the rest of the world?

Nobody wants that outcome, but I think we need to be realistic about this. Have any countries that acquired nuclear weapons used them? In the history of mankind, only one country has used nuclear weapons against other people - the USA. The theory of "mutually assured destruction" (MAD) is considered responsible for why we don't see nukes being used at all. Basically, if one country were to use nuclear weapons, they would face immediate retaliation with nuclear weapons. That uneasy understanding keeps countries limited to using standard ballistics and military gear.

There are two worries about Iran and MAD. The first concern is that Iran, as a theocracy, might not care if it gets blown to bits. I think that concern is valid, but I'm also concerned by the religious nuts that are overtaking our government here in America, too. Most Iranians are not devoutly religious and would not go along with a course of action that would bring about the destruction of their country, though.

The second concern is that Iran would supply nuclear weapons to terrorist groups. I'm very doubtful that this would happen. Iran is known to supply gear and training to certain groups, but I'm fairly certain that the moment a nuclear weapon was used by terrorists, it would immediately be pinned on Iran, and then it would be as if Iran had used the weapon itself. Countries would immediately take military action against Iran (possibly nuclear). Iran wants to avoid that.

As I said, unless we go in and completely take them over, I would bet you that Iran is going to gain nuclear capabilities at some point. We need to accept that.

I also think the point that was made earlier about Pakistan being nuclear was excellent. If Pakistan weren't already a nuclear nation, I would tell you that if it were my choice as to which country should be nuclear, I would go for a nuclear Iran over a nuclear Pakistan any day.

Originally Posted by flying ^

Normal American reaction:
"Man, he paid a TON in income tax!"
"I'm glad the Romneys donated nearly 30 percent of their income to charity."

Normal liberal reaction:
"Man, he makes a gazillion dollars and that's all he paid? He needs to pay his fair share!"

I think you're missing the point about why people get upset about these things.

Romney paid close to $2 million in taxes. That's a lot of money - more than the taxes paid by many people combined. But Romney also made $13.7 million. Even after taxes are taken out, he had over $10 million dollars. For your average family making $50,000 a year, a tax rate of 14.1% (what Romney paid) is $7,000. $7,000 compared to $2 million? It's a big difference, for sure. But $7,000 compared to $43,000 (the amount that family makes after taxes) is substantial; $2 million compared to $10 million is a few drops in the bucket. And of course, I'm using the same tax rate for purposes of comparison, but most Americans are paying a higher percentage than that.

The real issue is about how burdensome these taxes are. $43,000 is barely scraping by in some areas of the country. The $7,000 (which would realistically be even more) is a big hit to those families. I'm not going to say that a million dollars means nothing to a multi-millionaire, but they can pay it and not have to worry about paying rent or buying food. Do you know what I mean?

Is it fair that they should have to pay so much? In a way it is; in a way it isn't. Look, the unfortunate reality is that for all of the wonderful infrastructure and services that our society is built upon, it has to be paid for. We expect people to pay what they're able. The rich arguably do subsidize the poor in many cases, simply because the poor could not afford to pay much more than they already are. The rich aren't being taken advantage of, though: they benefit from our society. They don't have to worry about being kidnapped and held for ransom, nor do they need to worry too much about being stolen from (both of which are concerns in many other countries) in part because we have a police system in place, and in part because our society offers enough opportunities and support to people that there aren't many who are forced by desperation to a life of crime.

It's just the reality that we need to deal with.

[monir]

If I was playing politics and had two nightmarishly horrible week back to back because of my own big mouth, I'll do everything I can to change the subject. My understanding would be based on the proverb, "how much worse can it be?" Hence, my cue that this is the perfect moment to release my taxes at a rate of 14.1% of my taxable income.

The funny thing here is that Romney's legal obligation could have been much lower than 14% if he used the total amount of deduction from his charitable donations. Mind you, he still has two more years to add those deduction when he file his next tax return. Of course, by then people won't care much when he isn't running for a president anymore.

[Lord of Fire]

Originally Posted by solomon

Does anyone still really care about the whole Romney income tax thing? Frankly if it wasn't for Mother Jones's sting operation, I don't think he would have released it.

Given that there are still people who complain about Obama's birth certificate, I'd say it can't hurt to give them a taste of their own medicine.

[aohige]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter_Toki

I think this will be seen as a win for Romney. Gotta love that logic.

"Entitled to foooooood!
MMMmedicine!!
ROOOOVES!!"

"Oh my god, your campaign got blown up by Jimmy Carter's GRANDSON!?"

"That's 14 Mays ago!"

Jon. Is. The best.
My sides. They are irrepairable.

[Eragon]

^ He absolutely is!! And it seems like the republicans are succeeding in helping at least some (normal)people - The Daily Show staff - Jon doesn't even have to try to make it funny, the GOP is hilarious as it is

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Eragon

^ He absolutely is!! And it seems like the republicans are succeeding in helping at least some (normal)people - The Daily Show staff - Jon doesn't even have to try to make it funny, the GOP is hilarious as it is

It wouldn't be as funny if they manage to win the election ...

[Eragon]

^ Well it would still be funny to see how many idiots there are in the U.S.(no disrespect).

Jokes aside, I can't believe someone like him is standing for Presidency. Even more so the fact that, at the GOP convention nothing concrete was said about how they are gonna get the U.S. economy(which I presume is the biggest issue) up and running. All that was said was this

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-epi...michael-steele

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by Eragon

^ Well it would still be funny to see how many idiots there are in the U.S.(no disrespect).

Jokes aside, I can't believe someone like him is standing for Presidency. Even more so the fact that, at the GOP convention nothing concrete was said about how they are gonna get the U.S. economy(which I presume is the biggest issue) up and running. All that was said was this

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-epi...michael-steele

Again, a lot of it comes down to millions of Americans who just wanna get the black man outta the white house, and they just assume the white man will do things better. Sad but true.

[Netto Azure]

Originally Posted by Eragon

Jokes aside, I can't believe someone like him is standing for Presidency.

Need I remind how sad the crop of GOP candidates were during the primaries? Romney seriously seemed to be the most sensible out of that crazy fest. xP
(As for Ron Paul, sensible social policies, horrible outdated economic proposals)

[Xacual]

Originally Posted by Netto Azure

Need I remind how sad the crop of GOP candidates were during the primaries? Romney seriously seemed to be the most sensible out of that crazy fest. xP
(As for Ron Paul, sensible social policies, horrible outdated economic proposals)

Well I think Huntsman was fine but sadly as others mentioned he was too intelligent for the GOP.

[ganbaru]

It was either for this thread or the ''A laugh a day' one:

[aohige]

That was awesome, and even more so considering that the Simpsons airs on none other than FOX.