Romney has gotten a bit more specific about his Medicare plans. He says he will (understandably) leave it alone for people 55 and older. He says otherwise, Medicare will give out funds to go towards individuals to buy their own insurance. The amount given out will vary by income level. Those who make more will receive less, average Americans will receive an amount that will help support medical costs but not pay them outright, and poorer Americans will receive more. If any of the above is wrong, please correct me. I just heard him describe his plan in an interview, so I may have misunderstood something. My questions: 1. What happens if medical costs and inflation continues to rise well above the benefits received? How does this address private insurance companies dropping people when they are no longer profitable (i.e. not healthy), without Obamacare's legislation that he plans to appeal ASAP? 2. Why does a progressive system make sense for Medicare but not for taxes? What is the fundamental difference I am missing?
Also a flat tax results in richer people paying a higher burden too. So I'm not sure what the basis of that argument is.
You are missing his stance: Reducing and stabilizing federal spending is essential, but breathing life into the present anemic recovery will also require fixing the nation’s tax code to focus on jobs and growth. To repair the nation’s tax code, marginal rates must be brought down to stimulate entrepreneurship, job creation, and investment, while still raising the revenue needed to fund a smaller, smarter, simpler government. The principle of fairness must be preserved in federal tax and spending policy. Individual Taxes America’s individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform. •Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates •Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains •Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains •Eliminate the Death Tax •Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) Corporate Taxes The U.S. economy’s 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in the industrial world, reducing the ability of our nation’s businesses to compete in the global economy and to invest and create jobs at home. By limiting investment and growth, the high rate of corporate tax also hurts U.S. wages. •Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent •Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit •Switch to a territorial tax system •Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
On this forum, many times it has been declared that it is unfair for the rich to pay the majority of the taxes in this country by percentage. I.e., progressive taxes are unfair. Specifically because the rich allegedly do not receive the same level of benefits as the poor. The concept of raising taxes on the wealthy to the levels they have been at for much of the last 60 years has been called "unfair" here as well. So I am seeking clarification as to whether a progressive system is indeed fair or if Romney is a communist.
That is a deflection from my question, and an undermining of an argument for a flat tax over a progressive tax (if that is what "fair" means, it is still unfair). Either progressive systems are wrong and "socialist," or they are not. Which is it?
I agree a flat tax system is unfair, but without the rich this country can't afford anything so fair has little to do with it. I object when Obama starts arguing that even with a massively progressive tax system that the rich aren't paying enough. I've never argued it's feasible to have everyone pay their fair share. But how is what Romney is suggesting progressive? If I cut your medical care costs by .50 for every reduced dollar in income that's a flat system no? How is this materially different? You are just arguing semantics.
Seems like very few have proclaimed Romney the Messiah and most consider him an acceptable replacement at best.
Seriously, those are the only options? How about they are clearly socialist but work because the majority benefits, therefore making the idea look more "fair." Progressive systems are inherently unfair and socialist at their core. Who made the argument that Romney or conservatives in general are railing against the progressive system we have today? Calling it unfair isn't asking that it be abolished. Romney floating something in the name of vote buying doesn't change the dynamics of right and wrong any at all.
Who? How about 90 % of conservatives on the internet. You can't be serious. Are you pretending like conservatives don't constantly moan about progressive systems? And now you are saying right and wrong are immutable, but it is okay for Romney to push for something "wrong" because it "buys votes?" What the hell? You have no rational moral position on this.
... Speechless. You just described a progressive system. An argument based on semantics would clearly be a waste of time.
