The Real Mitt Romney

[Adak]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

Yet they have no problem paying for Viagra.

I will never wrap my head around this logic.

What's not clear?

The Lord commanded Adam to be fruitful and multiply. Viagra helps make that possible.

[Stormieweather]

Originally Posted by Adak

What's not clear?

The Lord commanded Adam to be fruitful and multiply. Viagra helps make that possible.

Maybe I believe that God took away that function from certain people for a reason. Why should I pay for them to artificially get it back? No Viagra for YOU!

Or maybe I believe that gluttony is a sin and so obesity treatment and/or diabetes treatments is against my religion and shouldn't be covered? (1 Corr 3:16,17)

Or maybe I believe that rehab should never be covered by insurance since drunkenness is forbidden in the Bible? (Eph 5:18)

And lets not cover infections from accidents/carelessness, or lung cancer from smoking, or skin cancer from sunbathing, or vision care/contacts, or any number of things that could remotely be tied to vanity or mistreatment of your body (temple of God).

And diseases that are hereditary. God said the sins of the father will be visited upon children (Exodus 20:5), so clearly that person's ancestor's did something bad against God and these diseases are his will. Why should I pay for insurance to rectify this?




/sarcasm off

Using insurance coverage to force one person's beliefs on someone else is absolute bullcrap. It's insurance. YOU don't have to partake or utilize it or participate if it violates YOUR beliefs. But forcing me to suffer for your religion is asinine. And I, personally, will fight it to the bitter end.

[infinite monkey]

Is anyone still listening to this shill?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

Is anyone still listening to this shill?

You asked the question, and I answered it quite civilly.

I didn't even call you

< STUPID! >

in big bright red letters.

[infinite monkey]

Don't worry. I'll pray for you.

The bible sayeth: let no man, no matter how old and decrepit, be denied the gift of a boner. Go forth, 85 year old man, and get some 30 year old pregnant. Then Adak thumped it.

Remember men, YOU are in charge of YOUR bodies. The government has no right to tell you you can't swing your stupid dick all over the place.

[infinite monkey]

There's no better way to protect yourself from future children than birth control.

Except abstinence. Penises (penii?) don't get women pregnant people get women pregnant.

[infinite monkey]

Awesome, stormie!

[Flint]

Did a little digging... wow this was buried quite deeply.

Flint, bless his heart, *did* actually say it when he jumped from point 2) to point 3), though he gave no justification for it (don't worry, I'm gonna give him a chance to 'splain it to me)

For reference, here are the points 2 and 3:

The way I understood him to be explaining it in the debate:

1. Reduce ‘individual’ tax rate
...a. Individuals in households pay less
...b. Individuals who own small businesses pay less
2. Tax revenues decreased at this point
3. Small businesses stimulated at this point
...a. Resulting in tax revenues going back up
4. Also, deductions eliminated for households
...a. Households end up paying the same amount

Firstly did this all make sense to you, with the exception of points 2 and 3; and to be clear, was it a point '2, a.' that you needed--or a new point '3, a.' moving the current point '3, a.' to '3, b.' ??? I don't see a gap, but if you can point it out I will try to do a better job.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Flint

The way I understood him to be explaining it in the debate:

1. Reduce ‘individual’ tax rate
...a. Individuals in households pay less
...b. Individuals who own small businesses pay less
2. Tax revenues decreased at this point
3. Small businesses stimulated at this point
...a. Resulting in tax revenues going back up
4. Also, deductions eliminated for households
...a. Households end up paying the same amount

Originally Posted by Flint

BigV, post #211, did you see? A few pages back...

Originally Posted by Flint

Did a little digging... wow this was buried quite deeply.



For reference, here are the points 2 and 3:



Firstly did this all make sense to you, with the exception of points 2 and 3; and to be clear, was it a point '2, a.' that you needed--or a new point '3, a.' moving the current point '3, a.' to '3, b.' ??? I don't see a gap, but if you can point it out I will try to do a better job.

Flint, thanks for your patience. Here's what I see in your first description.

1. Reduce ‘individual’ tax rate

check. for the purposes of this thought exercise, let's start here.

...a. Individuals in households pay less

and this logically follows

...b. Individuals who own small businesses pay less

and this logically follows.

2. Tax revenues decreased at this point

paying less taxes logically produces this result, fine.

3. Small businesses stimulated at this point

this is where I get stuck.

I think you're saying this small business owned by someone who gets their income from that business will have more money since less money is being paid in taxes. Ok. BUT. What is this stimulation? There aren't more sales (no logical argument being made for this proposition). More money isn't *coming in*, they're just not paying as much in taxes. What's the business going to do with this marginal amount of additional money? How is this stimulation? There's no way the amount would be enough to justify hiring someone. I have read that the cost of an employee ranges from 1.25 to 1.4 times the base salary.

What is SBA's definition of a small business concern?

SBA defines a small business concern as one that is independently owned and operated, is organized for profit, and is not dominant in its field. Depending on the industry, size standard eligibility is based on the average number of employees for the preceding twelve months or on sales volume averaged over a three-year period. Examples of SBA general size standards include the following:

Manufacturing: Maximum number of employees may range from 500 to 1500, depending on the type of product manufactured;
Wholesaling: Maximum number of employees may range from 100 to 500 depending on the particular product being provided;
Services: Annual receipts may not exceed $2.5 to $21.5 million, depending on the particular service being provided;
Retailing: Annual receipts may not exceed $5.0 to $21.0 million, depending on the particular product being provided;
General and Heavy Construction: General construction annual receipts may not exceed $13.5 to $17 million, depending on the type of construction;
Special Trade Construction: Annual receipts may not exceed $7 million; and
Agriculture: Annual receipts may not exceed $0.5 to $9.0 million, depending on the agricultural product.

hm... well, sidetracking myself, perhaps a "small business" could have a tax burden that 20% of which would represent enough savings to pay for a new employee... maybe. However! I find it *counterintuitive* to say the least that the first thing a business would want to do with newfound cash is to hire new people. Business are built to increase profit, not to expand employment opportunities. Their reason for existence is to increase profits and they take the path or least resistance to do so.

But I digress.

All this is moot, since Romney's plan is to make the changes to the tax code REVENUE NEUTRAL. This is service to his pledge to avoid increasing the deficit, which would be a logical result of lower tax revenues as we have previously established. So, respectfully, your point Romney's point that businesses would be stimulated by the increased unchanged revenue/tax burden is supported by wishful thinking only. This is my primary complaint.

...a. Resulting in tax revenues going back up

by "broadening the base", meaning more money is subject to taxation by the result of fewer deductions. No one telling this story has provided any understandable, reasonable justification for the growth that is required to fulfill these promises. It's like 1 + 1 + 1 = 5. It just doesn't add up, when you look at each point. It's fine to just assert "5", but it's not rational.

4. Also, deductions eliminated for households

Ok, this is the base broadening part I mentioned a moment ago...

...a. Households end up paying the same amount

But this doesn't follow logically in my mind. How can households pay the same amount of tax if they have fewer deductions, meaning their taxable income is greater? Or are you saying broader base, fewer deductions, lower rates, same tax amount?

[infinite monkey]

Where was it buried? Somewhere in the last 18 pages? Who buried it? What's the context?

[glatt]

I bet it was those damn Republicans and their dirty tricks, burying Flint's post.

[Flint]

Sorry, BigV asked if anyone could explain Romney's tax plan, so I posted a brief summary of "The way I understood him to be explaining it in the debate."

Then there was three or so pages of poo-flinging... (nothing to do with my post)

...and I never saw BigV's reply. Then I went back and did a post search for the terms "flint" and found BigV making a reference to my post (so now I know he read it) ...so I posted again asking BigV for clarification.

Basically, to BigV, "which part did I not explain well?"

[plthijinx]

threadjack



/threadjack

[Adak]

@Stormieweather: You're free to interpret the Bible any way you like, but it may not be Catholic Doctrine.

He asked the question, I answered it, not with my opinion, but with the answer from the Bible.

[Adak]

You may not like Romney and Ryan's tax plan, but at least it's moving us in the right direction: cut spending, lower taxes a bit, and cut some loopholes in the tax code.

What's NOT to like, here?