tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post7082945874194535110..comments2024-03-27T18:24:19.683-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: IndeedUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-12492081759316611522012-09-22T05:15:44.875-07:002012-09-22T05:15:44.875-07:00""Say what you will about percentages, t...<br />""Say what you will about percentages, the man contributed about as much as a thousand 'average' citizens.""<br /><br />"Yes, the one year of his life, that he actually released a tax return."<br /><br /><br />This is the official statement released about Romney's past tax filings. Basically, it just goes to show that Team Obama has been trying to create a false picture and don't care if they have to lie about the facts to do it:<br /><br />'Regarding the PWC [PricewaterhouseCoopers] letter covering the Romneys’ tax filings over 20 years, from 1990 – 2009:<br /><br /> In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes.<br /><br /> Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.<br /><br /> Over the entire 20-year period, the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate was 13.66%.<br /><br /> Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income.<br /><br /> Over the entire 20-year period, the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI.<br /><br /> During the 20-year period covered by the PWC [PricewaterhouseCoopers] letter, Gov. and Mrs. Romney paid 100 percent of the taxes that they owed.'<br /><br />Incheon Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-56200469545181138302012-09-21T23:28:10.607-07:002012-09-21T23:28:10.607-07:00"Romney's policies won't lead to incr...<i>"Romney's policies won't lead to increases in jobs. How will increased legal immigration, not deporting illegals and more "free trade" lead to more jobs? You seem to be drawing a distinction between Romeny's policies and the WSJ's where there is none. In practice, a Romeny regime is unlikely to governmen much differently than Bush. Maybe spending will be controlled better. Maybe. "</i><br /><br />Well, for one thing, Romney is less dogmatic about trade than the WSJ -- he has send repeatedly that he'd designate China as a currency manipulator on day one, which would pave the way for tariffs on them. That's a clear break with Bush, the WSJ, and Obama. <br /><br />I'd also disagree with your claim that a Romney admin would govern the same as a W. Bush admin. In addition to being smarter, more numerate, and having more executive experience than Bush coming into office, Romney would have a long list of talented people he could draw on to advise or to fill key positions, whereas Bush largely relied on his father's retreads. <br /><br />A third distinction, is that Romney has had a career of analyzing organizations that aren't working and figuring out how to fix them. That engenders a certain amount of empiricism and pragmatism, which means that if his initial policies don't produce sufficient results, he's likely to change them as necessary. Bush was driven more by emotion and ideology than pragmatism or empiricism.DaveinHackensackhttp://www.thehackensack.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-26799115532203509472012-09-21T12:10:14.320-07:002012-09-21T12:10:14.320-07:00"Douthat is essentially a George W. Bush Repu..."Douthat is essentially a George W. Bush Republican on domestic issues, as he showed in a recent post. W's and Ross's approach -- of trying to woo lower income Americans to the GOP with transfer payments, etc. -- is doomed to failure, because the Dems can always promise more bennies than the GOP. The better approach is the one Romney is groping toward now: policies that will lead to jobs that pay well enough that people don't have to be so dependent on government. <br /><br />That's really the only viable path, if you think about it. The Democrat-lite, W./Douthat approach fails because no one prefers the lite version to the real thing; the WSJ/open borders/unrestricted, unilateral free trade/libertarian approach fails because, faced with a global race-to-the-bottom on wages, voters will vote for the party offering them some measure of economic security, over the one that's throwing them to the wolves."<br /><br />Romney's policies won't lead to increases in jobs. How will increased legal immigration, not deporting illegals and more "free trade" lead to more jobs? You seem to be drawing a distinction between Romeny's policies and the WSJ's where there is none. In practice, a Romeny regime is unlikely to governmen much differently than Bush. Maybe spending will be controlled better. Maybe. ATBOTLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-14003986354920626682012-09-21T07:30:26.896-07:002012-09-21T07:30:26.896-07:00"Romney paid $3.2 million in federal taxes la..."Romney paid $3.2 million in federal taxes last year. In return, he's too wealthy to qualify for most of the governmental benefits that others get."<br /><br />Yes, but his companies are not. That is what is significant here. Mitt Romney, and all of the rest of them, took advantages of LARGE CORPORATE HANDOUTS to MAKE their money, then complain about others getting SMALL PERSONAL HANDOUTS.<br /><br />"Say what you will about percentages, the man contributed about as much as a thousand 'average' citizens." <br /><br />Yes, the one year of his life, that he actually released a tax return.<br /><br />"I ask:<br />Would the iSteve redistributionists support a candidate with Mitt Romney's fiscal policy and Tom Tancredo's immigration policy, were he running against an open-borders soak-the-rich Democrat?"<br /><br />Sure, all of the Ayn Randers on this site who spend 40 hours a week putting money in someone else's pocket would. The true Republicans, the ones who actually have businesses and real money, you know, the ones that Dutch and Mittens don't think are losers (not you guys), actually want cheap employees and lots of consumers; so, their answer, in ComptonSpeak, would be HAYELLLLLL FUCKING NO! <br /><br />That, Rand Paul, is why the Republicans keep nominating whom they do.*<br /><br />*I just saved you $60,000 in tuition on your masters in International Economics, you owe me.Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-15380256906761550452012-09-21T00:32:35.359-07:002012-09-21T00:32:35.359-07:00People do this kind of thing all the time.
Politi...People do this kind of thing all the time.<br /><br />Politics is where enmity meets history.rhonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-85895888439337242272012-09-20T23:38:39.263-07:002012-09-20T23:38:39.263-07:00Truth,
Welfare only accounts for .7% of GDP.
Tho...Truth,<br /><br /><i>Welfare only accounts for .7% of GDP.</i><br /><br />Those must be some super strict criteria you're using for "welfare."<br /><br />My calculations put the total of federal unemployment insurance, supplemental security income, food and nutrition, housing, tanf and the earned income tax credit excess at about $400 billion. 400/15000 = a lot more than .7%<br /><br />That's not even mentioning healthcare, which I think qualifies as a form of welfare and at least doubles the above figure.<br /><br />That's not really an exorbitant cost, but while staunch right-wingers tend overestimate it, you're obviously severely minimizing it.<br /><br /><br />Silvernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-64376797431204885992012-09-20T23:05:42.232-07:002012-09-20T23:05:42.232-07:00Truth,
Without kids, you probably would have some...Truth,<br /><br />Without kids, you probably would have some net tax liability. Big difference in the EITC whether you have no kids or one kid: <a href="http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/EITC-Income-Limits,-Maximum-Credit--Amounts-and-Tax-Law-Updates" rel="nofollow">http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/EITC-Income-Limits,-Maximum-Credit--Amounts-and-Tax-Law-Updates</a>. But take, for example, someone making $20k with a couple of kids, and chances are they are getting more back from the EITC than they paid in federal income taxes and payroll taxes combined. <br /><br />EITC and Child tax credits aren't characterized as welfare, as far as I know.DaveinHackensackhttp://www.thehackensack.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-46508001549009195462012-09-20T20:50:41.531-07:002012-09-20T20:50:41.531-07:00Olave d'Estienne said... "Some say it alr...Olave d'Estienne said... "Some say it already is this year, with Romney talking tough on this issue on each Wednesday and second Thursdays, but I'm not sure that counts.)"<br /><br />That's a good way to characterize it... LOL ... Classic. <br /><br />My vote for post of the thread.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-53622213347312570972012-09-20T18:37:06.661-07:002012-09-20T18:37:06.661-07:00Yeah, disagreements over tax policy may well preve...Yeah, disagreements over tax policy may well prevent any unity among the pro-White (and anti-anti-White) voters and thinkers. It's too bad. Some people still support estate taxes, even though it's not clear that they generate any revenue. It just feels so good to stick it to "the rich", who are defined as either the wealthy or high-income people, depending on which tax we're arguing about.<br /><br />I continue to ask:<br />Why does income redistribution have to be done at the Federal level? At the state level it would be just as practicable, with the added bonus of being constitutional. Plus, at the state and local levels you can actually <i>tax the wealthy</i> with the basic form of tax: the property tax. At the Federal level, you are forced tax people who are merely high in income, not the same group at all. <br /><br />But beyond that, since it's a question which isn't likely to generate any sort of consensus or even a ceasefire, I declare:<br />In spite of my hatred of personal income taxes (not because of progressive marginal rates, but because they are invasive and tax exactly what government should be encouraging), I would vote for a stop-immigration, progressive/redistributionist candidate over a country club (open-borders, anti-progressive taxer) Republican. <br /><br />I ask:<br />Would the iSteve redistributionists support a candidate with Mitt Romney's fiscal policy and Tom Tancredo's immigration policy, were he running against an open-borders soak-the-rich Democrat? <br /><br />I ask only out of curiosity. No issue--not AA, not prison security, not even gun control--is as important as immigration. I am wondering if there is even a chance of it becoming a national election issue in the near future. (Some say it already is this year, with Romney talking tough on this issue on each Wednesday and second Thursdays, but I'm not sure that counts.)<br /><br />* Obviously Federal income taxes are constitutional; welfare and health policy is not.B322https://www.blogger.com/profile/18257802768718375656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-80476653167580581152012-09-20T18:25:54.342-07:002012-09-20T18:25:54.342-07:00"the Republicant[sic] Party is merely the pol..."the Republicant[sic] Party is merely the political wing of the tax avoidance industry"<br /><br />"A little less than 1/4 of people who do not pay taxes are S.S. retirees. The lions share are people who limit their tax liabilities through Republican-sponsored exemptions. Even then, they pay a higher percentage in taxes (via exemption-free payroll taxes) than Mitt did the ONE year he released his tax return."<br /><br />-If the first quote is true, then he should have no problem winning the presidency- he's the champ at what everyone else aspires to do. <br /><br />But actually these analyses based on NBC soundbites are deeply deceiving. It's interesting we hear about the percentages Romney and other millionaires pay. That's because the actual $ amount they shell out vastly dwarfs what anyone else pays. Romney paid $3.2 million in federal taxes last year. In return, he's too wealthy to qualify for most of the governmental benefits that others get. Say what you will about percentages, the man contributed about as much as a thousand 'average' citizens. He definitely paid vastly more than his 'fair share'. <br /><br />Honest Kleinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-84122721426336205902012-09-20T18:03:21.774-07:002012-09-20T18:03:21.774-07:00Do you have a link for that? I've been a minim...Do you have a link for that? I've been a minimum wage guy when I was just out of college, and not having children, there just isn't much help, I would doubt that a significant number of Americans make back more money than they pay in taxes. Welfare only accounts for .7% of GDP. <br />Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-31793590814530854212012-09-20T14:10:20.317-07:002012-09-20T14:10:20.317-07:00"Even then, they pay a higher percentage in t...<i>"Even then, they pay a higher percentage in taxes (via exemption-free payroll taxes) than Mitt did the ONE year he released his tax return."</i><br /><br />That's not true, Truth. The effective marginal tax rate, taking into account all federal taxes (not just income, but payroll taxes, etc.), is something like negative 40% at the lowest end: low income workers often get back more in government grants (e.g., EITC, child tax credits) thank they pay in total federal taxes. <br /><br />It is true that Republicans (W., in particular) supported these grants, and are partly responsible for taking so many Americans off of the net federal tax rolls.DaveinHackensackhttp://www.thehackensack.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-13911798695605007572012-09-20T10:24:51.816-07:002012-09-20T10:24:51.816-07:00Actually Ben, I doublechecked and I was off:
A li...Actually Ben, I doublechecked and I was off:<br /><br />A little less than 1/4 of people who do not pay taxes are S.S. retirees. The lions share are people who limit their tax liabilities through Republican-sponsored exemptions. Even then, they pay a higher percentage in taxes (via exemption-free payroll taxes) than Mitt did the ONE year he released his tax return.<br /><br />http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/17/1133077/-A-breakdown-of-the-47-income-tax-debacle-very-well-doneTruthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-19652863058230429552012-09-20T07:13:33.751-07:002012-09-20T07:13:33.751-07:00Given the question, the term "our culture&quo...Given the question, the term "our culture" and the implied "our nation" beg to be defined.<br /><br />Coming from the NYT, I would interpret this more as status anxiety, as in "wait... I always thought we were the elites, but which side of that divide are we on, really?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-78943837072756280902012-09-20T06:55:18.227-07:002012-09-20T06:55:18.227-07:00Strunk said...
Disappointing that supposed refined...<i>Strunk said...<br />Disappointing that supposed refined classicist Douthat writes of "dystopia" which is a redundant neologism by etymology</i><br /><br />Dystopia, like dysgenics, is a handy word in English, even though it's missing from my Liddell and Scott. You could grumble that it arises from a perverse misreading of Utopia, "no place", as Eutopia, "good place", but I don't see how it's redundant.L'Esprit de l'Escaliernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-38646644674893901532012-09-20T03:15:24.064-07:002012-09-20T03:15:24.064-07:00It's stupid to bunch in all the "net taxe...It's stupid to bunch in all the "net taxeaters." Some of them work, some of them don't. Some of them are net taxeaters because they have childen and earn EITC. Some of them haven't worked a day in their life and are signed up for every damn welfare program under the sun. Some of them pay no taxes because they're on social security which, like it or not, is our method for ensuring the elderly don't die in cardboard boxes under the freeway. It's a form of pension retirees have earned <i>by working for decades and paying payroll taxes of ~14%</i>, which, in itself, is higher than Mitt Romney's effective tax ratef 13%. It's kinda hard for 92-year-olds to go out and make some extra money mowing lawns and painting houses.<br /><br />I've known a few of the working poor. Some of them have college degrees, and are actually conservatives. To write these people off as lazy, good-for-nothing mooches is a huge mistake, especially when it's being done by a candidate proposing more tax cuts for the rich. ROmney proposes eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, both on individuals and corporations; proposes cutting the corporate tax rate to 25%; an, of course, proposes eliminating the "death tax."Matthewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-5386099886639626532012-09-19T22:13:15.319-07:002012-09-19T22:13:15.319-07:00Yes, correct, but he did not mention that half the...<i>Yes, correct, but he did not mention that half the people who do not pay taxes DO NOT PAY BECAUSE THEY ARE OVER 65 AND ON SOCIAL SECURITY.</i><br /><br />Good point (if you're right). ben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-30421523399702975922012-09-19T22:13:04.503-07:002012-09-19T22:13:04.503-07:00"Yes, correct, but he did not mention that ha...<i>"Yes, correct, but he did not mention that half the people who do not pay taxes DO NOT PAY BECAUSE THEY ARE OVER 65 AND ON SOCIAL SECURITY."</i><br /><br />Plenty of people over 65 and on Social Security still pay income taxes. It depends on their income levels. DaveinHackensackhttp://www.thehackensack.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-40738144799018040192012-09-19T22:11:45.524-07:002012-09-19T22:11:45.524-07:00Seriously, how do you pronounce "Douthat"...<i>Seriously, how do you pronounce "Douthat"?</i><br /><br />We've been through this before. There's nothing French about it.<br /><br />DOW-thit.ben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-82937616483899906102012-09-19T19:07:28.960-07:002012-09-19T19:07:28.960-07:00"One thing I'd like to establish is that ..."One thing I'd like to establish is that Romney's numeric claims were approximately correct."<br /><br />Yes, correct, but he did not mention that half the people who do not pay taxes DO NOT PAY BECAUSE THEY ARE OVER 65 AND ON SOCIAL SECURITY.Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-53889317369912030742012-09-19T18:53:48.949-07:002012-09-19T18:53:48.949-07:00Seriously, how do you pronounce "Douthat"...Seriously, how do you pronounce "Douthat"?<br />Silvernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-80805571225340150132012-09-19T17:59:37.589-07:002012-09-19T17:59:37.589-07:00One thing I'd like to establish is that Romney...One thing I'd like to establish is that Romney's numeric claims were approximately <a href="http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/may/09/eric-cantor/eric-cantor-says-almost-50-percent-americans-dont-/" rel="nofollow">correct</a>. I don't think he should write off net taxeaters entirely, since he could win some of them with stances on the usual issues like abortion, but that is strategy, not fact.B322https://www.blogger.com/profile/18257802768718375656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-6884226534182199182012-09-19T16:13:45.253-07:002012-09-19T16:13:45.253-07:00"What Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban have in ..."What Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban have in common?"<br /><br />They collect puppets.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-56736760859150459792012-09-19T15:44:57.367-07:002012-09-19T15:44:57.367-07:00Basically, the Republicant Party is merely the pol...<i>Basically, the Republicant Party is merely the political wing of the tax avoidance industry.<br />Once you understand that insight, everything else about the Republicans falls into place.</i><br /><br />Once you believe that you're ready for a straightjacket.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10330712047609650184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-71562354864830212402012-09-19T12:52:31.149-07:002012-09-19T12:52:31.149-07:00What Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban have in common...What Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban have in common?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com