Gyroscopic Investing

Obama has an ad out where he has some woman talking about how hard her life is and how she's not going to vote for Romney because he is all about tax cuts for millionaires while she's struggling hard to make ends meet.

Two observations....

1.) Over in the main forum there is a post about living off of $1 million dollars in the PP and whether you could do it or not. If you were a millionaire trying to do that you wouldn't even need a tax cut because you wouldn't be paying any taxes.

2.) Are there really people out there gullible enough to fall for this kind of personal attack against Romney - that he really wants to get elected so he can cut tax rates for millionaires and leave others to fend for themselves? I don't really think so - at least not that many - though I may be overestimating the average intelligence of the American voter.

notsheigetz wrote: Are there really people out there gullible enough to fall for this kind of personal attack against Romney - that he really wants to get elected so he can cut tax rates for millionaires and leave others to fend for themselves?

Yes. And those not gullible call it supply side or trickle down economics.

Watching ads like that is sort of like watching wrestling.

Think of the most average person you can?



Got it?



Ok, half of America is dumber than that person.

notsheigetz wrote: 2.) Are there really people out there gullible enough to fall for this kind of personal attack against Romney - that he really wants to get elected so he can cut tax rates for millionaires and leave others to fend for themselves? I don't really think so - at least not that many - though I may be overestimating the average intelligence of the American voter.

Yeah, it's called rank-and-file Democrats.  The rank-and-file means they slop up every inch of propaganda dispensed by the Party as truth.  Like all the non-pigs on Animal Farm.

MachineGhost wrote: Yeah, it's called rank-and-file Democrats.  The rank-and-file means they slop up every inch of propaganda dispensed by the Party as truth.  Like all the non-pigs on Animal Farm.

Unique to Democrats? Hmm.

BearBones wrote: Unique to Democrats? Hmm.

Heck no!

notsheigetz wrote:
2.) Are there really people out there gullible enough to fall for this kind of personal attack against Romney - that he really wants to get elected so he can cut tax rates for millionaires and leave others to fend for themselves? I don't really think so - at least not that many - though I may be overestimating the average intelligence of the American voter.

It seems obvious that tax cuts for the wealthy are his primary objective.  Are there really people out there gullible enough to think he cares about the poor, when he has explicitly stated (on multiple occasions) that he does not?

dragoncar wrote: It seems obvious that tax cuts for the wealthy are his primary objective.  Are there really people out there gullible enough to think he cares about the poor, when he has explicitly stated (on multiple occasions) that he does not?

The problem with this line of thinking is where is the ROI?  Considering how much billions he's spent on his campaign all to get a pissy decrease in top marginal income tax rates really doesn't make up for the expense of getting there -- and that's only if he wins.  Its not a very smart bet.  I think you've got to look at his other beliefs and concerns to get less of a caricuture as to why he is running.  He has some strong and ill-informed beliefs on certain topics that appeal to certain socio-economic demographics and industrial-complexes.  Its really hard to say where the pandering ends and the real Romney begins.

I don't think any of the Presidential candidates that ever ran have ever cared about fairness to society.  Its always class warfare of some kind.  It's not that hard to have an across the board reduction in tax rates that has a equalized net economic gain for all classes in society.  I can't be the first to have thought of it.

Bean wrote: Think of the most average person you can?



Got it?



Ok, half of America is dumber than that person.

Now that was priceless!

Anytime I hear someone say they like the idea of taxing millionaires more, I always ask them how that benefits their finances.  I always get this dumb look.  Apparently they just get off by hurting someone more successful than they are. 

FarmerD wrote: Anytime I hear someone say they like the idea of taxing millionaires more, I always ask them how that benefits their finances.  I always get this dumb look.  Apparently they just get off by hurting someone more successful than they are. 

That's exactly what it is in my experience. They have a mental image of these people that's like Uncle Moneybags and they just relish the thought of him being taken down a few notches.

FarmerD wrote: Anytime I hear someone say they like the idea of taxing millionaires more, I always ask them how that benefits their finances.  I always get this dumb look.  Apparently they just get off by hurting someone more successful than they are. 

Once you explain to people that really rich people get much of their income from capital gains and thus higher taxes on income really only tend to hurt upper middle class people like successful attorneys, surgeons, and some small business owners, they often have a different perspective on the matter.

Higher income taxes never seem to actually reach really rich people.  People like Warren Buffett have never paid any taxes on most of their wealth.

MachineGhost wrote:
Considering how much billions he's spent on his campaign all to get a pissy decrease in top marginal income tax rates really doesn't make up for the expense of getting there -- and that's only if he wins.  Its not a very smart bet.  

As usual, that's other people's money.  It's a very smart bet when you yourself put up little to none of the capital.  Plus, I'm sure it's fun. 

FarmerD wrote: Anytime I hear someone say they like the idea of taxing millionaires more, I always ask them how that benefits their finances.  I always get this dumb look.  Apparently they just get off by hurting someone more successful than they are. 

It benefits their finances because they can get a lower tax rate themselves or more services.  You must speak to inarticulate people.

MediumTex wrote: Once you explain to people that really rich people get much of their income from capital gains and thus higher taxes on income really only tend to hurt upper middle class people like successful attorneys, surgeons, and some small business owners, they often have a different perspective on the matter.

Higher income taxes never seem to actually reach really rich people.  People like Warren Buffett have never paid any taxes on most of their wealth.

Isn't the capital gains rate what most of the debate focuses on?  I'm personally for strengthening the middle class, which might mean lower earned income taxes. 

dragoncar wrote: Isn't the capital gains rate what most of the debate focuses on?  I'm personally for strengthening the middle class, which might mean lower earned income taxes. 

I think that the capital gains rate is invisible to most people, since most people don't have any taxable capital gains.

The fact that Social Security withholding stops when an employee reaches the wage base is also something that I think lots of working class people are not aware of.

Awesomely put, except the last statement. How can people like Warren Buffet "never paid any taxes on most of their wealth".  In order to have money to invest, you have to earn it first.  That earned income is taxed at ordinary income rates.  Any when he, and Romney and others, generate dividends and capital gains, they pay 15% on realized profits.  The only way you pay 0 income taxes is on investments in muni bonds from your own state.

Isn't most (a majority of) of Buffet's wealth unrealized capital gains on Berkshire stock? If he ever does realize them, he will pay taxes on those gains; until then, I suppose it is technically true that he "never paid any taxes on most of his wealth."

D1984 wrote:

Awesomely put, except the last statement. How can people like Warren Buffet "never paid any taxes on most of their wealth".  In order to have money to invest, you have to earn it first.  That earned income is taxed at ordinary income rates.  Any when he, and Romney and others, generate dividends and capital gains, they pay 15% on realized profits.  The only way you pay 0 income taxes is on investments in muni bonds from your own state.

Isn't most (a majority of) of Buffet's wealth unrealized capital gains on Berkshire stock? If he ever does realize them, he will pay taxes on those gains; until then, I suppose it is technically true that he "never paid any taxes on most of his wealth."

That's what I'm getting at.  I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with that.  I just don't know if many people realize that this is how it is with the super-rich.

If Buffett decided he wanted to start spending his wealth, then it would be taxed, but as long as he just holds it, no tax.