Stupidest Statement by a Presidential Candidate - Ever

[SixNein]

Recall that the total tax bill for partners or officers of an LLC like Romney's Bain Capital or Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway includes more than their personal income tax. Before payouts are made to owners or shareholders, the corporate tax must first be paid. I don't know the Bain-Romney accounting, but http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/112560/what-top-companies-pay-taxes-forbes. Buffet apparently owns 23% of the company, controls 32%.

One would also have to factor that tax into wages offered and price of product.

 

[SixNein]

Romney never said that the same 47% are in each group. He was merely pointing out an amazing coincidence. Well, actually, he implied that the same 47% are in each group, so just keep in mind he never actually said it.

Let me ask you a question. How much has the baby boomer generation payed into the system, and how much will they collect?

If we are going to talk about moochers, we might as well start talking about the baby boomer generation.

 

[mathwonk]

I'm not sure what that graph means, but in terms of social security, its the older "greatest generation" that are the biggest moochers. Baby boomers get back less than they paid in now, and higher wage earners have gotten lkess for over 20 years according to this article.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ocial-security-than-paid-in-marking-historic/

 

[SixNein]

I'm not sure what that graph means, but in terms of social security, its the older "greatest generation" that are the biggest moochers. Baby boomers get back less than they paid in now, and higher wage earners have gotten lkess for over 20 years according to this article.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ocial-security-than-paid-in-marking-historic/

Not according to the IMF.

The graph shows the result of taxes paid over a lifetime vs benefits received over a lifetime. A negative indicates that one is receiving more benefits than paying in taxes.

The economists has a write up on it here.

Here is an IMF paper on the issue...
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/wp1172.pdf

And another article...
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2011/06/batini.htm

And mind you were just talking about the central government. States and local are targeting those people as well.

 

[mathwonk]

I have perused the first two articles you linked and cannot find any contradiction to the one I linked whatsoever. perhaps you can point it out to me. They seem to consider two related but different questions, 1) whether current retirees have paid more in soc sec taxes than they will receive in soc sec, and 2) whether current retirees are projected to receive a larger overall share of government benefits than they will have paid for.

I see nothing to contradict the first point in your articles that they will lose on soc sec taxes, which they have been paying for a very long time (in my case 54 years) , and indeed it appears from the IMF articles that the excess burden projected to be presented by current retirees has to do significantly with the medicare drug benefit recently enacted, for which they will not pay enough.

Thus it seems to me that it may indeed be true that although current retirees will lose money on their soc sec taxes, they may gain on medicare benefits, enough to more than offset the soc sec loss.

have i missed something in the articles you linked that would say otherwise in reference to soc sec, (which was the only point I made)?

Furthermore, the "mooching" the economist speaks of is projected mooching, which may not actually occur due to possible reforms, whereas the soc sec bounty collected by the more elderly has been going on for some 80 years.I.e. in your articles, mooching which we could at one time afford is being ignored as a cause of fiscal problems, while anticipated mooching which has not occurred, is getting the blame. Indeed it was the baby boomers whose working pay financed the relatively handsome retirement of the entire older generation for the last 40 years.

 

[alan2]

No offense, but the brains of otherwise intelligent people frequently turn to mush when ideology is introduced. Everyone is trotting out numbers to support some solution or other to an ill posed problem. Why not start at the beginning and define the problem? Do you believe that the goal of an economic system is to serve the collective welfare of society or do you believe that it is a competition with winners and losers? Unless you are able to agree on the goal you are wasting your own time. You will never convince anyone of anything if you can't agree on the statement of the problem. If a student comes to you unable to solve a problem, what do you do? I always make sure that they understand the statement of the problem before proceeding. I know why everything is such a mess. It's because nobody can agree on the objective yet nobody will discuss that. Once the objective is defined the solution becomes much more tractable.

 

[Astronuc]

"All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49... he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax." - Romney

I believe many object to Romney's derisive statement concerning the 47% who he claims won't vote for him, and in fact, the objection is Romney's misrepresentation of those 47%.

I think the fundamental mistake is roughly the same in both cases: an arrogant condescension to a large part of the country as to why they won't support him.

Agree. It is an example of poor campaigning. It's uncoming of someone running for the office of president of the entire country - or any political office for that matter.

As far as I can tell, The Economist offered some elaboration on the 47% (or 46.4% - it fluctuates). I believe The Economist is economically conservative, but relatively socially liberal.

Folks collecting social security may indeed pay income tax.
http://www.ssa.gov/planners/taxes.htm

Incidentally, in the group who do not pay income tax, apparently about 4000 are millionaires.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/18/pf/taxes/romney-income-taxes-millionaires/index.html

ABC's characterization of the 46% - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/mitt-romneys-47-percent-pay-income-taxes/story?id=17263629

The issues of who pays taxes and who doesn't, who gets government aid/subsidies and who doesn't, and the appropriateness of US government taxes and expenditures are entirely separate topics for other threads.

Meanwhile while researching on who fits in the 47%, I found:

A substantial benefit provided not to the poor, but those with sufficient or substantial resources.
http://news.yahoo.com/decades-federal-dollars-helped-fuel-141648115.html

Neither Obama or Romney are [effectively] addressing the issues of poverty and unemployment.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/pol...ing-poverty/sZhd9i4Z0gMGahFKxknDXM/story.html

 

[Evo]

This thread is not about taxes, let's please get back to the topic.

 

[SixNein]

I have perused the first two articles you linked and cannot find any contradiction to the one I linked whatsoever. perhaps you can point it out to me.

No, you are correct and I do apologize. According to the CBO2010 report on SSI (p19), they state:

The first generations of Social Security participants received more in benefits than they paid
in taxes. As the program is currently structured, however, total taxes must equal total
benefits on a present-value basis. For today’s participants, the present value of lifetime taxes is, on average, more than the present value of benefits.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi...x/doc11943/10-22-socialsecurity_chartbook.pdf

Thus it seems to me that it may indeed be true that although current retirees will lose money on their soc sec taxes, they may gain on medicare benefits, enough to more than offset the soc sec loss.

I think your assessment is spot on. The IMF basically attributes our current fiscal situation to:

After a consolidation process that took up most of the 1990s, the United States went through a substantial fiscal deterioration since 2001 as a result of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the expansion of Medicare and the rapid increase of per-capital healthcare costs. The stimulus measures recently implemented, although helpful for the economic recovery, have further expanded the fiscal deficit, accelerating the accumulation of public debt.

And the above statement of course goes against everything Mit Romney and the republicans have been saying. And hopefully this brings a little more clarity in terms of the discussion of the 47 percent. In a basic nutshell, the 47 percent comment is simply matter of passing off blame.

 

[mathwonk]

SixNein, you are a gentleman and a scholar and it is a pleasure to make your acquaintance.

In particular with your analysis, it seems to be emerging that some of the 47% who collect less social security than they paid in, and may not pay income tax, may in fact not be dependent on government but are in fact subsidizing the government.

this goes toward the falsity of the original statement by Mr. Romney, which relates to its stupidity, if he expected it to be accepted.

 

[SixNein]

SixNein, you are a gentleman and a scholar and it is a pleasure to make your acquaintance.

In particular with your analysis, it seems to be emerging that some of the 47% who collect less social security than they paid in, and may not pay income tax, may in fact not be dependent on government but are in fact subsidizing the government.

this goes toward the falsity of the original statement by Mr. Romney, which relates to its stupidity, if he expected it to be accepted.

The same to you sir.

Again, I think your assessment is correct. In fact, If I'm not mistaken, the CBO graph on page 19 of the link indicates that nearly half of the lowest quartile of earners will pay more then receive. The CBO also stated that

The uncertainty about benefit-to-tax ratios is greatest for workers in the lowest quintile of
lifetime earners. (CBO’s estimates are based on 500 simulations in which most of the key
demographic and economic factors in the analysis vary according to historical patterns.)
However, when the uncertainty range is compared with the median ratio for each quintile
and birth cohort, it is approximately equal for all quintiles.

 

[Alfi]

Re: Stupidest Statement by a Presidential Candidate - Ever"I accept the nomination"

 

[mheslep]

Re: Stupidest Statement by a Presidential Candidate - Ever


"I accept the nomination"

 

[Mentalist]

Re: Stupidest Statement by a Presidential Candidate - Ever"I accept the nomination"

Romney makes windows in the plane even though people tell him, "bad idea".

Romney: "I'm the friggin boss here, SHUT UP!"

Fire breaks

Romney: "QUICK! Open the windows so we can get some oxygen in here!"

Lol

I accept the nomination is a bit silly, but no where near tops "stupidest statement" nor does it get anywhere near the top 10. Bush alone would take up most of the 10, with Romney leading at no.1 and no.2.

The plane comment obviously which I love. And, "I care about the 100% because I believe in God" lol