It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Challenger Mitt and the sorcerers stone

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   
I’ll go ahead and drop the bomb on this. Last night during the presidential debate challenger Mitt discussed his take on taxes and how it relates to his plan for office. Everyone on ATS is most likely aware of the question, where is the money to pay off the deposit going to come from if he is going to cut taxes all the way around and spend, spend, spend. The answer is simple. He also wants to remove and limit deductions. He threw out the number of 25,000 dollars. He didn’t say it would be 25,000 for sure, he simply threw out a random number that you would like without telling you what the number is truly for. That number represents where his money will come from to pay for this crap in my opinion. He hasn’t admit to it yet, but that’s my hunch. Without what amounts to a huge tax increase on anyone that owns land in the united states, his policies will not fly. In my opinion his tax plan will destroy the middle class, and the middle upper class. Anyone owning land and a home will get hurt badly. In the midst of so many troubles in that part of the economy, I’m not sure why we would do that?

Let’s look deeper into his plan for taxes. It’s an old trick really. When you have an overly complicated system, you put a “knob” on it. The purpose of this knob is to adjust things easily, exactly where you want it. Historically knobs sound like a smart idea at first, then later anger many people when the knob that can be quickly and easily changed, is adjusted improperly. A knob usually has additional things attached to it. Don’t think it’s going to be as simple as Mitt makes it sound. It’s a means to expedite the taxation system, and it’s a dangerous idea.

For those of you that played WoW before mastery ruined the game, mastery and talent trees all had knobs put into them after WOTLK. Since then WoW has been a dismal failure in the mind of many. I’m curious if the malicious comments made towards the WoW playing politician was a preemptive strike against this comparison. Knobs killed WoW, and they did not result in a balanced game as advertised. Some classes were considered unplayable, and the problem was only compounded. Now we know why WoW players had to be ostracized in the public eye recently.

Overall I think the President brought the truth about challenger Mitt out, and won the debate. I’m not a huge fan of the President, but I am even less a fan of challenger Mitt now. If anyone can tell me another likely place the money will come from let me know. I for one would like that question answered specifically and completely by challenger Mitt.

How can challenger Mitt blame China for taking work given to them by American businessmen that refuse to pay good Americans? Talk about sidestepping accountability and passing the buck. If they manipulate currency and business man challenger Mitt knows it, other business men know it too. Why are THEY not taking responsibility for reaping the rewards of that practice? It’s not China’s fault that people like him are willing to sell out their country in the name of profit.

His entire plan worries me more and more as I hear more information about it. I’ve gone from not liking him, to being scared to death of his plans for America.




posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   
I'm not exactly sure how the WoW analogy relates to Mitt's tax plan; the changes made to WoW were necessary for the game to evolve. It's still primarily the same game, just dumbed down and simplified; the old model made it difficult for new players to get into the game and experienced players simply used cookie-cut builds.

Mitt's plan is a fairy tale; he's gotten into the habit of spewing one lie after the other to the point where he doesn't even try to address the reality of his proposals, but rather tries to appeal to an audience who (usually) doesn't know any better. There are people who actually believe that Mitt can single-handedly fix the economy, rofl.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Mitt can dot this is finnaly our hope and change. It's not what moat people expected



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   
He has already explained (over and over) where the money will come from. But like obama on debate nights, you seem to not want to hear.

1-Cut the fat from the government! Unneccessary programs, such as BILLIONS that obama gave to his campaign doners in the Green movement. PBS-Dont you remember the whole "big bird" thing last week? Etc etc

2-Kill the monstrocity of expense known as obamacare. (BILLIONS HERE!)

3-Create jobs (via the lessened tax burden on employers), who then will be ABLE to hire. People who a re WORKING have more income which can be taxed. Instead of these people NOT working now who pay no income tax.

Its not that hard to understand, STOP spending, meaning the govt now needs less to work with., and the people dont have to contribute as much in taxes, making more spendable income for people, which in turn grows the economy.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Nana2
 


I know it SEEMS like a five-point plan and yes, I've read it and as many independent analyses as I can find. But the fact is, it is a five-point outline at best. No one has been able to show how it will actually remotely accomplish what he is saying it will given the parameters he's been willing to provide.

The sneaky crap he is pulling is the whole 'I'm going to reduce/eliminate the taxes middle-class pays on interest income and capital gains'. What?? Go look and see who really pays any tax on those two categories. The middle class accounts for a tiny fraction of interest income and capital gains exposure. This is a 1% gimme. The only people paying any meaningful tax on interest income and capital gains are the top income percentiles (those who make most/all of their income from investments as opposed to W-2/1099 earners like the majority of us.

Also, although off-topic, I'd like to call out Mitt on a bald-faced lie. I'm a long-time gun owner from MA. The whole 'we got pro-gunners and anti-gunners to come together and work-out legislation' response to the assualt weapons ban discussion is a load of steaming crap. Check with GOAL. The truth is VERY different. Liar, liar pants on fire.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Nana2
 


How can he cut fat when he wants to add to our already obese military? How does creating jobs lower the national deposit unless those workers are paying high taxes? How does sending troops and resources to the middle east add up to reduced spending? How does cutting ties with China and doing whatever else he intends to do when he says, "label China as a currency manipulator" cut spending? If anything he is going to spend much more money than Obama, and there's no reasonable answer to the question of where it's coming from.

Mitt is a CEO and that's great. In business when you need more money, you cut payrates, lay people off, demand more from the people you do have, and you make no apologies. That's how business is run. That's how the country will be run. When he needs money, that knob will be adjusted.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by AnarchysAngel
 


To dog-pile on your post, Anarchy, Mitt ikes to point-out that he has tons of experience as a businessman in the private sector. Well, so did George Bush. And where did THAT get us?



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Nana2
 




3-Create jobs (via the lessened tax burden on employers), who then will be ABLE to hire. People who a re WORKING have more income which can be taxed. Instead of these people NOT working now who pay no income tax.


Romney has said it, but most people don't understand what he's talking about on how this relates to small businesses.

Most small businesses are set up as an "S Corporations" and not a "C Corporations", meaning that all profits get broken down by the small business and funneled through the shareholder's individual tax returns, not a corporate tax return.

If a majority shareholder has an individual tax return showing that his portion of profits comes to $1 million, chances are that the shareholder is going to have to go back to the company for a dividend payment in order to cover those taxes. More money out of the business to cover taxes and not enough left over to hire more employees.

If Obama really wants to be successful at protecting small businesses, he's going to have to raise the $1 million on individuals to a higher amount in order to allow them room to grow. He needs to allow them a higher reserve to do it.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


That's one of the many problems I have with him. A CEO has the advantage of being in complete control. A President is anything but in control. The business world is not a democratic world. Our nation is and the demands on a President to handle a variety of situations while on even ground with others is high. It's a real test of an authority figure. His plan is bad, but I think he also loses out when evaluated as an authority figure. Obama doesn't speak well, but he seems to handle an even playing field better than challenger Mitt. Which is the sign of a real authority figure.

I'll be watching the next debate, which I predict will be the one area that Obama is very strong. Right now I think my vote will go to the President. Mitt side steps too much and is too vague for my taste. I've never been behind anyone that avoids specifics as often as he does.

As has been pointed out, he's a CEO not a politician. He doesn't have enough of a political record for me to accept his vague declarations. He also side stepped his time as governor of mass. last night. I'm not sure anyone noticed but he said, "as much as anyone is governor of mass". I'm curious to know why he made that subtle comment, side stepping what would seem to be a beneficial credential.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 


I've had my own businesses including an S-Corp for almost 10yrs. Last time I checked employee wages and benefits paid by the employer are a normal cost of doing business and as such are subtracted from the business' gross revenue (along with all the other costs of doing business) to arrive at the actual taxable income.

This whole 'businesses aren't hiring cause of taxes is absurd. At no time in the country's economic history will you find hiring and tax rates correlating. Hiring is driven SOLELY by demand. If a business has orders it hires to meet those orders and will adjust it's workforce based on the business pipeline. If we take Romney at his word (he being king of the businessmen) a company right now would TURN AWAY BUSINESS because they don't have the workforce to service any additional business/orders rather than hire additional employees. Really?? Really??? You people ACTUALLY believe this?

I call BS. This is political smoke and mirrors. And the masses are too deaf, dumb and blind to see through it. This argument is meritless and Mittens knows it (or should).



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
reply to post by Deetermined
 


I've had my own businesses including an S-Corp for almost 10yrs. Last time I checked employee wages and benefits paid by the employer are a normal cost of doing business and as such are subtracted from the business' gross revenue (along with all the other costs of doing business) to arrive at the actual taxable income.


That's right, so what part about profits did you miss in my statement?


This whole 'businesses aren't hiring cause of taxes is absurd. At no time in the country's economic history will you find hiring and tax rates correlating. Hiring is driven SOLELY by demand. If a business has orders it hires to meet those orders and will adjust it's workforce based on the business pipeline. If we take Romney at his word (he being king of the businessmen) a company right now would TURN AWAY BUSINESS because they don't have the workforce to service any additional business/orders rather than hire additional employees. Really?? Really??? You people ACTUALLY believe this?


Yes, hiring is driven by demand, but in order to meet that demand, you have to pay those employees in advance before you have a finished product to sell to meet those expenses. Due to banks not giving out commercial loans like they used to, a small business needs to rely on it's own profits to keep it going instead of relying on heavy debt and loans. It depends on what kind of business you're in as to whether or not a bank is going to jump in and help you until you can make a profit (whether there are contracts guarantying orders or not and who these contracts are with).


I call BS. This is political smoke and mirrors. And the masses are too deaf, dumb and blind to see through it. This argument is meritless and Mittens knows it (or should).


Here are the facts. Right now anyone with a net income of $1 million is paying 35% in federal income taxes while the average american is paying between 15% - 25%. Obama wants those with $1 million or more to pay more, although he's never said how much more, which is going to keep people from hiring if they think it's going to affect them greatly.

What we do know is that for owners and shareholders who are paid dividends, their dividend payments are now being taxed at a rate of 44% instead of 35% due to the tax changes tied to Obamacare.

So, let me ask you this. How have you managed to keep your small business going for 10 years? Did you take out business loans? How many employees do you have? I'm guessing your business has never had $1 million in profits, or even $388,000 in net income in order to raise you up to the 35% level of paying taxes?



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined

Here are the facts. Right now anyone with a net income of $1 million is paying 35% in federal income taxes while the average american is paying between 15% - 25%. Obama wants those with $1 million or more to pay more, although he's never said how much more, which is going to keep people from hiring if they think it's going to affect them greatly.

What we do know is that for owners and shareholders who are paid dividends, their dividend payments are now being taxed at a rate of 44% instead of 35% due to the tax changes tied to Obamacare.

So, let me ask you this. How have you managed to keep your small business going for 10 years? Did you take out business loans? How many employees do you have? I'm guessing your business has never had $1 million in profits, or even $388,000 in net income in order to raise you up to the 35% level of paying taxes?


The highest rate of job creation since WWII occurred during the Kennedy/Johnson administrations when the top tax bracket was 91% and 71% respectively. Next was the Carter administration when the top rate was 70%. Then Reagan dropped the rate to 28% in his second term and immediately afterward (Bush I) the job creation rate cratered at 0.6%. Bill Clinton got the job creation rate up to 2.5% AND he raised the top tax rate to 39.6%. Goerge Bush lowered the tax rate to 35% and gave us a job creation rate of 0.5% (he wins for lowest job creation rate ever). Under Obama it's trended back to 0.97% as of 9/12. So much for the tax rate/job creation correlation myth.

Oh, and yes, Obama has said numerous times that he would like to raise the rates back to where they were during the Clinton administration.

My business? I had some modest loans, mostly self-financed. Never did $1MM. I grossed about $750-$850M per year. I paid taxes on about $275M - $340M/yr. When the economy cratered in 2007 the majority of my clients went bankrupt or scaled way, way back. I had to close my business. No bailouts for me. I was lucky. I got recruited by a large, privately owned (major Republican) company. We've been hiring hand-over-fist in the 2yrs I've been there in order to keep up with the incoming business.

tax rates
job creation



edit on 17-10-2012 by jtma508 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-10-2012 by jtma508 because: added links

edit on 17-10-2012 by jtma508 because: add'l content



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 




The highest rate of job creation since WWII occurred during the Kennedy/Johnson administrations when the top tax bracket was 91% and 71% respectively.



The president (Kennedy) finally decided that only a bold domestic program, including tax cuts, would restore his political momentum. Declaring that the absence of recession is not tantamount to economic growth, the president proposed in 1963 to cut income taxes from a range of 20-91% to 14-65% He also proposed a cut in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. Ironically, economic growth expanded in 1963, and Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress insisted that reducing taxes without corresponding spending cuts was unacceptable. Kennedy disagreed, arguing that “a rising tide lifts all boats” and that strong economic growth would not continue without lower taxes.

The battle over the tax cut and the deficit continued unabated through 1963. The House Ways and Means Committee voted a tax bill out of committee in August and the grateful president reiterated that lowering taxes was the surest path to full employment and lower deficits. Polls showed that over 60% of Americans favored the tax cuts. But, even with the public support of key business leaders like Henry Ford II and David Rockefeller, the Congressional log jam remained unbroken. JFK became increasingly convinced that domestic issues, the economy and civil rights, rather than foreign policy, would prove to be decisive in his 1964 reelection campaign.


www.jfklibrary.org...



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 




Oh, and yes, Obama has said numerous times that he would like to raise the rates back to where they were during the Clinton administration.


During the Clinton administration, manufacturing and construction were booming and loans were plentiful. Now they are not. It's a lot easier to raise taxes when other sources of money are plentiful in order to make up the difference. Not so much any more.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Cool stroy I like it is it supposed to be real?



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 


Government gets it's money from one place mainly. Challenger Mitt has been careful to say that he's lower tax rates. When a politicians say they will lower tax rates, it means you're going to get boned on deductions. Keep supporting the bums. I could care less, I don't use any deductions.




top topics



 
3

log in

join