Romney, Ryan Refuse To Identify(any) Tax Loopholes Theyâd Close
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
Quote from Arnie:
Why should renters subsidize those that buy? Why is one mode of housing superior to another. Everyone says buying a house is the "American Dream". That's true if you WANT to buy a house. But why can't other lifestyles be the "American Dream"? There's only ONE American Dream??
This is the problem with our tax code. Its become a game of carrot and stick instead of just raising the revenue needed to fund govt. If you look at all the subsidies in the tax code directed at the middle class, it's readily apparent that this is the most subsidized segment in our history. The effective tax rate for a median income family of four is LESS THAN 6%.
Federal income taxes on middle-income families have declined significantly in recent decades. In 2000, the year before the 2001 tax cut enacted by President Bush and Congress, the median-income family of four paid 8.0 percent of its income in individual income taxes, according to Tax Policy Center estimates â a smaller share than in any year since 1967 (except for 1998 and 1999).[4]
The Bush tax cuts further reduced middle-income tax obligations. This year (i.e., when people pay income tax on 2011 income) the Tax Policy Center estimates that the median-income family of four will pay 5.6 percent of its income in federal income taxes.
The 5.6 percent rate (as well as the other rates discussed here for both 2011 and other years) is the effective tax rate, or the percentage of its income that a family pays in taxes. It is well below the 15 percent marginal tax rate â the rate paid on a filerâs next dollar of income â that a family of four in the exact middle of the income spectrum faces. A familyâs effective tax rate typically is significantly lower than its marginal tax rate, because the family takes the standard deduction (or, in some cases, itemized deductions), personal exemptions, and tax credits such as the child tax credit, and because a portion of the familyâs taxable income is taxed at lower rates. (For the median-income family, some of its income is not taxed, some is taxed at a 10 percent rate, and some is taxed at a 15 percent rate.)
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3151
The Buy vs. Rent debate has been going on forever. And, it goes in cycles. Many times over the last 40 years it made more sense to rent a nicer, bigger house for less money that would be wasted on interest payments. I always laughed when people would say Rent is wasted, and then they pay 90% of their house payments to interest.
However, when you can finally pay cash for houses, then it generally makes more sense. You can then rent them out, get about 10-14% return these days anyway. Seems to make economic sense. Some, can even do well by putting down 30% or so with these low interest rates, still rent them out. I'm being courted here in Amsterdam and Denmark to invest in a similar venture, more commercial, but same idea. Can't get any return from the bank.
Here's what we know for sure.
1.Neither candidate will be specific when it comes to money. 2.Whatever tax plan the criminals in congress finally do put forth will be of no benefit to the average American.
3. Four years from now they'll still be blaming each other.
1.Neither candidate will be specific when it comes to money. 2.Whatever tax plan the criminals in congress finally do put forth will be of no benefit to the average American.
3. Four years from now they'll still be blaming each other.
Really? That's your go-to argument? "Why should renters subsidize those that buy?" Fair enough. How about Why should the relatively struggling middle class subsidize further tax cuts for the rich? I understand your point, but your argument is poorly chosen. As for the "American Dream," I didn't conceive it, I merely referred to it as it is generally understood. Also, don't overlook the economic impact of a population that gears towards home ownership. It creates need for more homes to be built, which has a favorable ripple effect on the overall economy, more so than renters can offer. Believe me, I have nothing against renters, and I can appreciate the relatively freer lifestyle. I'm just stating facts.
RALLY, CONFUSE, and SUPRESS:
Yes, it's from a liberal site, but it does explain a lot:
http://current.com/shows/the-war-ro...ld-tricks-secrets-and-lies-flip-flops-evasion
Yes, it's from a liberal site, but it does explain a lot:
http://current.com/shows/the-war-ro...ld-tricks-secrets-and-lies-flip-flops-evasion
Here is the thing. The REAL conservatives think they can win an argument about Obama and his agenda. But their party took the social route instead of the fiscal route. Now, when you see rallies, you have a problem with the background audience. This rendition of the GOP has lost 80 plus percent of the nation.
Now Christie is seeking to repair this. He knows this is not viable, hence the bi-partisan talk from him. Christie will bring the GOP back from the brink, if he can put Hillary down.
Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. That would be a good race between her an Christie. Probably several Pay Per View videos. However, I don't think Hillary will be rested enough to run again. Poor old girl is getting pretty old.
Oh, and yes, I do have some REAL conservative friends who are ok, not great, but ok with most social issues. They're not neocons nor teapartyers, and we can and do have good fiscal discussions. Even Luke said he could care less about abortions.
Hillary won't run. She's going to be 65 next month. Pushing 70 by next election. The visuals won't work. I'm not saying it's right, but we all know looks count. Going to take lot's of surgery to pull that off. I don't see it happening.
My take. Obama wins and has a repub congress to deal with. Country goes to hell and like the end of GW's term it will be impossible for his party to get another person elected. Repubs run a Latino and viva la raza, we're off and running to who knows what.