A rare accurate statement from Romney!

[Tiberius]

Mitt Romney recently commented on Obama's so-called "Buffett Rule" (i.e. raising tax on earners over $1,000,000).

"Someone calculated that the taxes he [Obama] would raise in his Buffett Rule would pay for 11 hours of government."

Turns out, it's not only true, but the Buffett Rule would actually cost the government money for the first 2 years of implementation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact..._blog.html

[frankiej]

There was a good bit on the Daily Show last week about how long it would pay for. Can't be bothered searching for it though...

[Creed of Heresy]

Sadly true. Taxes are, unfortunately, not a simple matter. People just think "taxes get raised on the rich" automatically means "more tax revenue," but thanks to the ridiculous complexity of the tax code and the silliness involved with the stock market, it usually ends up achieving the exact opposite effect. Basically, the system is geared so that the rich can essentially dodge taxes indefinitely and through a ridiculously convoluted mess, the poor don't really pay much if anything [the only part of it I agree with], and the middle class gets fucked in the ass.

I appreciate what Obama's trying to do with the Buffet Rule but alas it's just not going to work. The entire tax code needs an extensive rewrite, government spending needs more accountability, and fucking hell people need to start focusing on that kind of shit instead of whining about fucking abortions.

[Shell B]

Bah, he wasn't right. Whoever told him to say that was right.

[downbeatplumb]

The whole industry of finance has been allowed to grow too complex and automated. It is almost impossible to police.

[Minimalist]

The rich will always have their hired mouthpiece out there explaining why the poor should be taxed and they should not.

Fuck 'em. Repeal the Reagan Tax Rates and give the cocksuckers something to whine about!

[Autumnlicious]

Mitt Romney recently commented on Obama's so-called "Buffett Rule" (i.e. raising tax on earners over $1,000,000).

"Someone calculated that the taxes he [Obama] would raise in his Buffett Rule would pay for 11 hours of government."

Turns out, it's not only true, but the Buffett Rule would actually cost the government money for the first 2 years of implementation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact..._blog.html

Because obviously there is /no/ way the rule can be reworked to be more effective. /sarcasm

Did it ever occur to you that changing the tax code is inherently expensive?

What a lazy bit of skepticism.

"Hurr-durr, some change will cost money! Therefore I'm against it but for an even GREATER extant of changes (of which I've not calculated the expense for). Derp"

[Anomalocaris]

What is a thought... compared to a mind?

A real thought is an everest compare to the mole hill of a christian mind.

[Creed of Heresy]

The rich will always have their hired mouthpiece out there explaining why the poor should be taxed and they should not.

Fuck 'em. Repeal the Reagan Tax Rates and give the cocksuckers something to whine about!

Basically. The Reagan tax rates are precisely the reason for our current economic and budgeting issues. Every fucking last problem with the government can be traced back to Reagan and his idiotic tax and economic policies. Bush WISHES he could've been half as destructive.

[Tiberius]

Because obviously there is /no/ way the rule can be reworked to be more effective. /sarcasm

Did it ever occur to you that changing the tax code is inherently expensive?

What a lazy bit of skepticism.

"Hurr-durr, some change will cost money! Therefore I'm against it but for an even GREATER extant of changes (of which I've not calculated the expense for). Derp"

Eh? Did I ever state there was no way the tax code could be reworked? No I didn't. I merely pointed out the fact that Romney's criticism of Obama's current tax plan was valid; it would pay for 11 hours of government, and that's after it costs the government money in order to set it up.

I'm not against it because it'll cost money, I'm against it because (a) it's been shown that it generates barely any revenue, and (b) it's inherently unfair.