What the GOP, Ryan and the Mittster stand for

[Xavier_Onassis]

Again, for most Americans earnings get t5axes deducted from them before the individual gets to do anything with them. Taxes therefore reduce earnings. No9 matter who you are, taxes do not increase real earnings.

[BT]

Again, for most Americans earnings get t5axes deducted from them before the individual gets to do anything with them. Taxes therefore reduce earnings. No9 matter who you are, taxes do not increase real earnings.

That would be true if taxes were before the fact. They aren't. They can't be in a progressive taxation system. Taxes are based on earnings, ergo earnings are first in the sequence. Then taxes are calculated based on those earnings. Taxes do not reduce earnings. They reduce the spending power of the taxed.

[Plane]

  What is the role ,in the economy, of disposable income?

Is less ever better? 

[BT]

  What is the role ,in the economy, of disposable income?

Is less ever better?

The better question is why do Democrats hate earners.

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is silly, because they clearly don't, except in the tiny minds of talk radio hatemongers.

[BT]

That is silly, because they clearly don't, except in the tiny minds of talk radio hatemongers.

Sure they do. Every time they want to increase spending they want to increase taxes on earners.

[Xavier_Onassis]

They have only proposed a 4% increase on the highest bracket.

That does not mean that they hate anyone.

Has sirs bitten you? You seem to have become infected with sir-ossis.

[BT]

Are the highest bracket folks earners?

Picking out one group to punish or reward is not the role of any government of the people, by the people and for the people.

[sirs]

They have only proposed a 4% increase on the highest bracket.

And what exactly does that accomplish??  Not only is it grossly unfair to hit those who ALREADY pay the highest taxes, to hit those who faciltate the greatest amount of job creation with even higher taxes, the math doesn't add up.  That paltry amount of increased revenue, doesn't even start denting the debt, while the repercussions are an even worsening job market & stagnating economy

So what is the purpose, if not done to spite & punish those who have been successful??

[Xavier_Onassis]

It accomplishes more revenue for a government that fought two unfunded wars, that benefitted their social class more than all the others put together.

Taxes do not have the purpose of punishing people. Fines are what does that.

[sirs]

The amount of revenue it accomplishes is no more than a fraction of the deficit, while spending under Obama is set to put us another trillion in debt.  In other words, the math doesn't add up, all the while the folks that do the bulk of hiring the unemployed, are getting hit the hardest with even higher taxes

Call it what you want, it's punishing them for their apparent success, which incidentally you've made very clear your disdain for "the rich"

[Xavier_Onassis]

Romney's figures come even less likely to add up.

If he abolishes the home mortgage interest deduction, he will depress the housing industry for a decade.

It is probably a sane thing to do, in the long run, in my opinion.

Suppose he abolishes the IRA and Roth IRA deductions: I see that as a far worse thing to do, if he wants people to be responsible for themselves. If one abolishes tax deductions, then goodbye IRAs.

We do not know what he and Lyin' Ryan are planning, because they refuse to say.

Obama has a plan, they have a hidden agenda. They are selling a pig and a poke.Perhaps the pig has lipstick on, perhaps not: but it is surely a pig.

[Plane]

Obama's plan has little appeal to me.

There is no room to speculate that it will releive the debt in any signifigant way, and what increase in revenue it might do, disappears into Obamacare, which still leaves many thousands of us totally uninsured.

If I were angry at wealthy people for being wealthy , I think that Obama would appeal to me more.

[BT]

It accomplishes more revenue for a government that fought two unfunded wars, that benefitted their social class more than all the others put together.

Taxes do not have the purpose of punishing people. Fines are what does that.

Raising taxes on everyone would accomplish even more revenues for the government. So why not do that? If the purpose is raising revenues.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I am not opposed to that, either. But at the present moment, taxing the majority would lower the amount spent by consumers in a consumer-driven economy, or so they say.

Romney's plan could not possibly work. You cannot reduce revenues. increase spending and eliminate the debt. There are not enough tax deductions to abolish to make up the difference.

Ryan and Romney should divulge their plan and try to sell it to the people. It is the only fair thing to do.