Originally Posted By skinnerbox Definitely worth your time reading: <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/09/fantasy-world-of-the-persecuted-rich.html" target="_blank">http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2...ich.html</a> <> A Peek Into the Fantasy World of the Persecuted Rich By Jonathan Chait Mitt Romney’s secretly recorded diatribe against the 47 percent of Americans who pay no income taxes revealed a lot of things about him, one of them being the degree to which he has come to share the paranoia of the rich that has flowered in the Obama era. The paranoia is very weird, not least because the rich have actually prospered under Obama while vast swaths of the populace have struggled, which is in character with the broader explosion of inequality over the last few decades. The recording also shows the degree to which Romney has joined the imaginary world of persecution inhabited by rich conservatives and undergirded by made-up facts. Most of these myths take the form of wildly misleading statistics about the tax system. Taxes at all levels of government account for $4 trillion a year. Many of those taxes — most state and local taxes and federal payroll taxes — tax the poor and middle class at a higher rate than the rich. In part to compensate, the federal income tax does the opposite, hitting the rich at higher rates. The overall total is somewhat progressive: [chart of share of total income vs share of total taxes paid] Now, it is perfectly fair to argue that taxes should be less progressive or should not be progressive at all. But since that is not a popular position to advocate, and also because it fails to capture the feelings of persecution that have seized wealthy conservatives, the right has instead constructed its own pseudo-facts. Reason has a new poll out showing that Americans think the rich pay too much in taxes. Well, it doesn’t really show that. What it shows, according to the poll, is that 57 percent of Americans think “the top 5 percent of earners shouldn’t have to contribute more than 40 percent of the total federal income taxes paid to government.” That is higher than the actual share of federal income taxes paid by the top 5 percent. Of course, this is a trick. Even tiny changes in the wording of a question can swing the result of a poll, so advocacy groups periodically issue polls with questions designed to produce results congenial to their point of view. This particular poll does a couple familiar tricks. It asks about “federal income taxes,” which are one of the most progressive parts of the tax code, and ignores the effect of other taxes, which fall more heavily on the poor and middle class. Its question about what share of federal income taxes the richest 5 percent ought to pay also fails to note what percentage of the income they earn. Kind of hard to answer that question without knowing, isn’t it? And most Americans dramatically underestimate the level of income inequality that exists. So, combine the trick of asking about “federal income taxes,” which most people don’t understand represents merely a quarter of the tax system that is unusually progressive, along with not informing them of the level of income earned by the rich, and you have, in effect, a pseudo-poll, a predetermined answer disguised as a question. There are a few perennial statistical sleights of hand that make up the vast majority of the vast and growing literature of complaints that the rich are being overtaxed. The use of “federal income taxes” as a substitute for all taxes is the most common. That is the device that Romney repeated to his donors. It is literally true that nearly half of America is not paying federal income taxes. That is because the federal income tax is designed to carry the burden of progressivity in the tax system. If conservatives think there is some grand metaphysical difference between different types of taxes that makes it terribly unfair that this one kind of tax hits the affluent but spares the lower classes, then we could think of ways to make the income tax less progressive and other taxes more progressive. Or they could admit that they just object to progressive taxation. Failing that, the mere existence of a single kind of tax that happens to disproportionately hit the rich is not a sign of massive dependency or entitlement or class warfare. It’s a pseudo-fact plucked out of context to whip up class rage from the top down. <> More at the link, with detailed charts and graphs.
Originally Posted By ecdc I saw this and thought it was interesting. A lot's been made of what Mitt Romney said about the 47%, but Bill Maher brought up some of the Q&A statements at that event that I thought were more telling and more appalling than what Romney said. It really did confirm that these people (or at least those who opened their mouthes) live in a fantasy bubble world where only they work hard and where blue collar, middle-class workers are lazy bums just looking for a free hand-out. These people in Boca Raton talked as if they really were the only ones who worked hard. It was absolutely astounding. One guy in particular talked about how they work more than 40 hours a week and how they "kill themselves" and are "away from their families five days a week." Which begs the question: What the hell is wrong with these stupid people! Since when is this something we aspire to in America? When did the party of family values become the party that says we should worship these people who abandon their families for money!
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<It really did confirm that these people (or at least those who opened their mouthes) live in a fantasy bubble world where only they work hard and where blue collar, middle-class workers are lazy bums just looking for a free hand-out. These people in Boca Raton talked as if they really were the only ones who worked hard. It was absolutely astounding.>> I've always believed that the upper 1% has traditionally demonized the middle class in order to sleep at night. They would otherwise be racked with guilt if they didn't concoct some BS fantasy belief that the middle class -- the economic group they continue to screw over -- is some shiftless, lazy, immoral, worthless, depraved group of parasites. Such thinking gives them "justification" (albeit lame) for their selfish actions. <<When did the party of family values become the party that says we should worship these people who abandon their families for money!>> That's the rub, isn't it? Deep down at their very core, they never were the "party of family values." That's just political PR rhetoric designed to distract the middle class from voting for their own self-interest, thereby supporting the uber rich who don't give a rat's arse about them.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'm so in the minority on this that maybe I have to reconsider my position. But, if someone...no matter how much money they earn...is paying $2 million in taxes and donating another $4 million to charity then I just inherently believe they have done their duty. I'm not rich and I will never be rich. So, I think I'm being pretty objective about this. I don't begrudge anyone who is rich and, to be honest, I don't rely have envy or resentment. I am part of the minority middle class in a largely upper class community. They drive their nicer cars, live behind their gates, have their club memberships and so forth and I just can't get worked up about it. None of this makes me think Romney should necessarily be President but the sheer hatred for him because he is rich is no better in my opinion than those who would accuse him of hating the poor. I don't care where his money is stashed. If he has filed legally acceptable tax returns then he has followed the law and it is time to find something else to chastise him for.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I really don't think people "hate Romney because he's rich." I don't see that here, anyway. I do think he ought to pay his fair share, and no, I don't think 14% is fair, but the law allows that now. I DO wonder why he won't release his returns, though. I do wonder if indeed he was caught crossing the line between tax avoidance (legal) and tax evasion (a felony), and if he took the 2009 amnesty as a result.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<None of this makes me think Romney should necessarily be President but the sheer hatred for him because he is rich is no better in my opinion than those who would accuse him of hating the poor.>> How many times to liberals such as myself have to say this: WE DO NOT HATE ROMNEY BECAUSE HE IS RICH! Geez, this is not rocket science. I don't hate Romney because he is rich. If I did, then I should also hate the Kennedys for being rich. I should also have hated FDR for having been rich. I should also hate Bill Gates for being rich. And he's far more wealthy than Mitt Romney. But I don't hate any of these people because of their wealth. Why? Because those individuals work to accomplish good in the world for people less fortunate. They fully recognize the hard work of the poor and middle class, and work to make their lives better through their foundations and/or political activity. FWIW, Romney's charitable contributions mostly go to the LDS Church and Mormon-backed charities. How does that help less fortunate individuals outside his inner circle? <<I don't care where his money is stashed. If he has filed legally acceptable tax returns then he has followed the law and it is time to find something else to chastise him for.>> But if he took part in the Amnesty program, then by definition, he did not file legally acceptable tax returns. The Amnesty program was for tax cheats who hid wealth in Swiss bank accounts. The Amnesty program was a compromise put in place by the Feds. It was a way for the tax dodgers to pay up what they owed without having to face criminal charges nor the international humiliation of being caught red-handed when UBS was about to serve their crooked heads on a silver platter to the global media.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I'm so in the minority on this that maybe I have to reconsider my position. But, if someone...no matter how much money they earn...is paying $2 million in taxes and donating another $4 million to charity then I just inherently believe they have done their duty.<< This made me think of Luke 21:1-4 "As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins.a “I tell you the truth,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.” "
Originally Posted By utahjosh <FWIW, Romney's charitable contributions mostly go to the LDS Church and Mormon-backed charities. How does that help less fortunate individuals outside his inner circle?> By the millions and millions that the LDS church donates to those who are not LDS.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Who cares if you are helping unfortunate people inside your circle or outside your circle as long as you are helping unfortunate people? I give my money to Catholic Charities, among other organizations, who help people of any or no faiths. (You need not be Catholic to benefit from their works.) So, am I less of a person for choosing to give my money there and not to the Salvation Army? If he did something illegal with his money that is one thing. But, that is not what most people are arguing. Most people are arguing he didn't give ENOUGH and I just think that is ridiculous. $2 million in tax and $4 million in charity for any one family, regardless of wealth, seems to be "fair" in my unwealthy opinion.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I'm not as focused on how much he gave as I am on the fact that he didn't write off everything that he was eligible to write off because he had said in an interview that he paid about 14% in taxes. He would have owed less had he taken every deduction, but he didn't want to make himself into a liar.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Who cares if you are helping unfortunate people inside your circle or outside your circle as long as you are helping unfortunate people?>> Giving the bulk of their charitable contributions to the LDS Church and BYU doesn't necessarily mean it's going to 'unfortunate' people. That money isn't being specifically earmarked for Mormon charities. The leadership in Salt Lake is free to spend it anyway they choose, including funding Prop 8 passage. Which, btw, Mitt directly donated thousands towards in 2008. Donating to Catholic Charities is different than donating to LDS. That would be like donating directly to the Vatican, which I doubt you actually do.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 However... if he loses in November, I'll bet you anything he goes back and amends his return for 2011 (which he's entitled to do) and claims those deductions after all, and gets a hefty refund. <I just think that is ridiculous. $2 million in tax and $4 million in charity for any one family, regardless of wealth, seems to be "fair" in my unwealthy opinion.> I think it's ridiculous that someone can make 20 million bucks in a single year by essentially doing nothing but parking money in various investments. That's more money than most people could make in several lifetimes of working harder than he ever has.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<He would have owed less had he taken every deduction, but he didn't want to make himself into a liar.>> Bingo. Mitt will definitely amend his return at a future date and take those deductions he could have taken now.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer And then you have other wealthy people like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates who don't think that they pay enough in income taxes. Romney is obsessed with money. It is what drives him.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<$2 million in tax and $4 million in charity for any one family, regardless of wealth, seems to be "fair" in my unwealthy opinion.>> See, this is the problem. People see Family X gave a million dollars, see that as a lot of money (which it is), and assume that these people have given their "fair share". They see a dollar value and form an opinion. But you can't look at that value in isolation - you have to look at it as a percentage of their overall wealth. If a person makes 100 million dollars in a year, and they only give $2 million in taxes, as you suggest, then they've only given 2% of their income. They still take home $98 million dollars. Think about that - and compare it to someone who only makes $40,000 in a year. If they gave the same 2%, they'd only give $800 total - which sounds small, but at the end of the day, they still only take home $39,200 - for the whole year. When you compare that to $98 million, it starts to seem less onerous to ask the rich to pay a larger percentage of their income. And if that doesn't convince you, think of it this way - even if you took 99% of the income from a person who makes 100 million dollars in a year (which I'm not advocating, fyi) they would still take home $1,000,000.00 - which is more than 99% of the people in this country make!!
Originally Posted By utahjosh <The leadership in Salt Lake is free to spend it anyway they choose, including funding Prop 8 passage. Which, btw, Mitt directly donated thousands towards in 2008.> Since 1985, LDS Charities (aka Humanitarian Services) of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has provided aid regardless of cultural or religious boundaries. Emergency assistance is provided through the Humanitarian Aid Fund, and long-term aid is provided through major initiatives such as clean water, wheelchairs, neonatal resuscitation training, vision care, immunization, food production, and a variety of local area initiatives. Two tenets of humanitarian aid define LDS Charities: 1) One hundred percent of every dollar donated is used to help those in need without regard to race, religion, or ethnic origin, and 2) LDS Charities helps people attain self-sufficiency so they can be self-reliant long after LDS Charities departs. In 2011, help was provided to more than 2 million people in 132 countries. Also... <a href="http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/topic/welfare-and-self-reliance" target="_blank">http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/...reliance</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 That doesn't negate what Skinner said, Josh. If you give the the LDS church in general, some will go to LDS Charities, but some will also go to things like Prop 8.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The infrastructure and mechanisms that are in place in this country allow for people to be entrepreneurial and enjoy the benefits of owning a major business. Since they derive the most benefit from this infrastructure, you'd think that they wouldn't begrudge paying into maintaining it at a higher percentage. But it seems like people can never get enough money. Look at the NHL, for example. Here's an enterprise that rakes in a few billion dollars a season, and the wealthy owners and the wealthy players are at a stalemate because neither side can stand to think the other will wind up with a few more bucks. So the hockey season is delayed, and might not happen at all if it drags on long enough. Similarly, our country is headed towards a real fiscal calamity because any sort of compromise is seem as "losing." Selfishness will be the death of us.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <Romney is obsessed with money. It is what drives him.> I think you are so wrong. <a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/MsgBoard-T-124769-P-3.asp" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/Ms...-P-3.asp</a>
