Romney: "Obama supporters are dependent on the government"

[Irving]

Did I say that? I think you're confusing me with someone else.

I only pointed out the flaws in dwalker's two examples.

I know, I just took your post to mean that you agreed that consumption task would cause companies to lower prices; which I disagree with.

HoneyBadger was right, he didn't say that, I did. Though not in those exact words.

I was definitely paraphrasing what you were saying there.


Side note about the title of this thread: I think Romney is retarded to directly relate the people who don't pay federal income tax to Obama supporters. I think that 47% of people don't pay Federal income taxes, and probably 40+% of people that blindly support Obama, but they are certainly NOT the same people.

[xring]

On top of that, they subsidize some of the product they export. All the more reason to give our guys a hand via the consumption tax I explained. It won't fix the problem completely, but it will help, with China, and every other low wage paying country. The rest we can make up for with tariffs and such. Look for Romney to perhaps do some of that. He's been talking about it.

The competitive help to American businesses is not the only benefit of the consumption tax. Don't forget the benefit I explained about getting all Americans invested in and concerned about Federal fiscal responsibility. Many will balk at the idea, because they're currently not contributing little to the benefits they receive from federal spending and don't want to wreck a good thing, but if we don't change that we're doomed.

A tax or tarrifs can not restore a free market. A market is eithor free and regulates efficently or it is not. If there is a distortion a second distortion does not enable it to regulate efficently. Debasing our currency to match Chinas currency manipulation would be a example. If there is a abomination present, do you correct it or create a second abomination? Free markets are what be must be restored or we are doomed. The budget must be balanced or we are doomed. Would you consider a corporation with 20 USA employees and 200 chinese employees to be an "American business" that needs a tax break? Would you consider a corporation on USA soil that had contract employees from another country working at its USA facility an "American business" that needs a tax break? This is the new normal this is how it works;

USAcorp contracts with mumbaicorp to provide services xyand z. USAcorp arranges for visas for the employees of mumbaicorp. These mumbaicorp employees come to the USA work at the USA facility but pay no income tax. Mumbaicorp employees are not citizens and only employed by mumbaicorp in another country. Mumbaicorp employees only relationship to USAcorp is that of a representitive of a foreign corporation fufilling a contract. All of mumbaicorp employees expenses while in the USA are paid by mumbaicorp. Mumbaicorp employees are paid by mumbaicorp in the banking system and currency of the country mumbaicorp is from.

If you dont consider the two examples above to be "american business" that need a tax break how would you apply the tax break to one corporation but not the other? This is why free markets regulate efficently but multiple distortions within a non free market do not.

[Rucker61]

Incorrect- of the public that doesn't account for children and retired people, 47% is accurate.

That turns our not to be the case. Here's the link from the conservative Heritage Foundation, you know, the ones on the conservative side:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/19/...-income-taxes/

"percentage of Americans not represented on a taxable return. That includes spouses and dependents. Where are you getting your data?

As of 2010, the census data shows age and employment status comparatively to income tax. Something to the effect of $24,000/year and lower pay 0% income tax, and to be in the top 50% of income earners in the US you need only make roughly $33,000/yr. The top 10% make about $114,000/yr. And do you know where the top 1% actually is? $380,000/yr. That's probably a lot lower than you thought.[1]

Again, that turns out not to be the case. I know where me and mine stand, in that top ten percent.

Also, corporate tax is not as much of a revenue generator as personal income tax.

Yet again, not news. I don't think I've said anything about what the tax rates should be, only pointing out that the denigration heaped upon the 47% is largely undeserved.

[ChunkyMonkey]

^^ keep in mind those are based on AGI.

[osok-308]

In other shocking news Romney tells us that; Trees are made of WOOD!

I couldn't have said it better myself.