Posted on 02/27/2012 5:27:15 PM PST by JSDude1
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said on Fox News Sunday that he wants to maintain “the progressivity” of the tax code so that as Americans make more money they are required to surrender increasing percentages of their earnings to the federal government in taxes.
Romney has a long record of opposing a flat tax--even investing more than $50,000 of his own money during the 1996 presidential campaign to run newspapers ads attacking then-presidential candidate Steve Forbes’s flat-tax proposal as a “tax cut for fat cats.”
The guy who pays 15 percent on millions wants to maintain “the progressivity” of the tax code.
I hope Newt wears romneys ass out over this.
What a loser! This is straight out of the communist manifesto and he does not care! We should never be taxed on our income! Never! THe founders would have never allowed it.
To hell with that. To hell with him.
The truth is Mitt doesn’t want to give up the ability the income tax provides the truly rich, who can arrange their affairs such that they have little in the way of “income”, for avoidance, nor the opportunities it (the income tax) provides government for it’s social engineering projects!
NO income tax can be fair for those reasons! Who get’s to decide what is , or is not, “income”?
What we need is a point of retail sale only sales tax which would make individual taxpayers anonymous to the tax collector! ONLY then will we be a TRULY free people!
I heard him say that. It was what he said & the way he said it. How can “conservatives” call him conservative?
The goal of the progressive tax is to 1) keep up and comers from getting big enough to challenge the elite, and 2) limit income for everybody. As Obama said, “at some point, you’ve made enough money.”
Mitt wants to make sure that he is all things to all people. He is no more for a progressive tax than he is for a regressive tax.
Mitt is for Mitt.
Again, Mittens is WRONG!
Obama is HALF right when he says: There is no reason a working person should pay a higher percentage of his income in taxes than someone making much more. (He forgets to mention that many “working people” pay no income taxes.)
The other HALF of that statement would be: There is no reason a working person should pay a LOWER percentage of his income in taxes than someone making much more.
Our current tax code in the name of “progressivity” allows a bit more than half of the population to avoid paying any income taxes. That half of the population are the ones who want more goods and services from “the government”. They would be unlikely to do so if they had to pay income taxes.
My proposal would be to set taxes at about 18% of income with the first $36,000.00 a person pays going into social security. (Yes, I would eliminate the slight of hand that the employer pays half of social security taxes. All taxes above $36,000.00 paid goes into the general fund.
While that proposal would lower the RATE which fat cats pay, it would eliminate ways to avoid paying taxes or reducing tax rates.
It would also downsize the Internal Revenue Service from an heir of the SS into a tax collection agency. The SS portion of the IRS would go after the underground economy populated by people who do not report their income.
But I guess Mittens does not get it.
No. Santorum nearly won Michigan and established himself as a solid conservative, something Mittens can never do.
Having made his mark with conservatives, Santorum has the political skills (many years as a Republican in Democratic Pennsylvania) to reach out to the rest.
Anything slick Romney tries will not be taken seriously, unless he somehow convinces the public that he is a real, genuine “man of the people.” That would be tough.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.