Comments on: How Romney would tax us

By: siinging

siinging — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 22:58:28 +0000

Every year, 50% to 80% of all created money goes into the pocket of the richest 10%.

Every year, all those hundreds of billions created out of thin air makes the rich richer and the poor poorer (via inflation and wage stagnation).

Let’s see how long this can last. It had never lasted more than a few hundred years.

Cutting taxes for the rich and raising taxes for the poor will merely accelerate the inevitable.

By: stevenmour

stevenmour — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 05:08:29 +0000

I just agree with Johnston , Even we should manage our tax according to him to get more benefits from our money with http://www.californiamortgagedirect.com/

By: MrCoy

MrCoy — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 01:08:13 +0000

“I had a secretary quit to have a child out of wedlock, because she could make more money with a child, not working. Do you think that was a good decision for her, her child or society.
End welfare as we know it and make it charity with a time frame and a way out of poverty, not a life time plantation for the democratic party.”

Or maybe you could, you know pay her more than welfare would.

By: gordoncpa

gordoncpa — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 03:34:36 +0000

The estate tax has never achieved its intended goal, other than to raise revenue. There is no historical proof that great wealth creates a dynasty that will last. The best example is the the Rockefeller and Kennedy Families. The fortunes are gone in a few generations. Big deal. The rule of the family run business (fortune)is the founder had 110% of the knowledge to manage with, the second generation 50%, and the third generation 25%. The third generation runs the business into the ground. The only generation that I am aware of that has ever added to the family fortune, is the Bass Family of Fort Worth, TX. It would be had to place a value on what they have contributed to the community.

By: brecht

brecht — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:26:14 +0000

Indirectly, the presence of the estate tax on taxable but more modest estates also encourages the use of college trust funds which represent an investment in young people. Without the tax penalty to motivate establishment of these trust funds or depletion of estates through charitable giving, more of the moderately rich would simply hold their money.

By: Nickolide

Nickolide — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:07:44 +0000

This is my observations and opinion.
I know this is revolutionary, but the problem is not caused by the volume of money taxed but the velocity of money taxed. Right now companies and wealthy individuals are not spending their money. It is not to their advantage to, so trade slows. It goes back to the notion that a dollar in and of itself has no value but as a standard unit of trade. This is basic stuff, Wealth of Nations. I love when the talking heads with all the letters behind their names get lost in the minutia but ignore the glaring huge problems. There are a few rules that need to be applied and the economy would go back to normal cycles. Stability and consistency creates confidence. Regulation costs time, money and other resources that may not offset the value of the regulation. Remember that most of the Economy consists of small businesses and households. It is not glamorous to right papers or news flashes about, but it is the major portion of what moves this country and economy.

By: JulsMan

JulsMan — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:01:14 +0000

The estate tax epitomizes the most American of virtues.: ‘Poppa may have, Momma may have, but blessed is the child who has his own.’ Through no fault of his own, Romney wouldn’t understand this. We can’t afford the anymore dynasty’s in the White House. Obama2012!

By: jaham

jaham — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:50:04 +0000

@jcfl….yea, screw the “trickle down” – turn on the damn spigot, I’m entitled to handouts and freebies and I want them now!

By: vippy

vippy — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:45:09 +0000

Now if only the masses could read or would be interested in this article but they prefer the next idol on TV.

By: curleybrothers

curleybrothers — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:51:08 +0000

If you are talking strictly about income taxes then I think the poor have to pay more. And by more, I mean they should pay zero in income taxes but they should not be getting refunds greater than what they have paid in. There is rampant fraud whenever you are handing out free money. EIC, First Time Homebuyers, etc. Factor in the refundable child tax credits and the state EIC and it is not unusual to see a client making $16k get a $7k refund if they have two kids. And people know how to work the system inside and out.