Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

genxlib

(5,518 posts)
9. 13% IS the issue
Fri Aug 17, 2012, 09:17 AM
Aug 2012

I would like to turn the screw in a different way.

First, a sideswipe at the earlier controversy by saying "We will have to take Romney at his word since we don't have anyway to verify it"

And then go for the kill on the real issue here. Is 13% really an acceptable number? We keep hearing about how overtaxed the job creators are. REALLY?? 13%??

Are we really going to go down a road where it would be less? Possibly far less?

I think this is the winning argument. Partly because it portrays (correctly so) as the elitist out-of-touch pampered rich guy.

But more importantly in the big picture, it destroys the theme that the rich are so downtrodden by burdensome taxes that we need to coddle them more before they will finally trickle on us.

Personally, I would use this fact to go on the offensive and put Capital Gains increases on the table. I have never seen any rational argument for Capital Gains being taxed at a lower rate. I would tax them on the same marginal rate as labor and be done with it. This would almost automatically eliminate the need for the Buffet rule and would do away with the whole "carried interest
nonsense to boot.

Give 'Em More Rope... KharmaTrain Aug 2012 #1
Mitt needs to ProSense Aug 2012 #2
ProSense disagrees with Team Obama! Wow Ichingcarpenter Aug 2012 #3
I wonder how this is all going to play out? nc4bo Aug 2012 #4
They met him half way 10 vs 5years Ichingcarpenter Aug 2012 #5
Romney's sunk. Panasonic Aug 2012 #18
Wow, what a silly comment. n/t ProSense Aug 2012 #12
ProSense is not who you think. I'm surprised I'm the only one that has figured it out. n/t Dawgs Aug 2012 #24
yeah, but asking him for the 5 is a stroke of genius cali Aug 2012 #15
Geezus! ananda Aug 2012 #6
Think about it - it's a brilliant move Panasonic Aug 2012 #19
May not be a good move if they don't specify the last 5 years. n/t A Simple Game Aug 2012 #7
Can't get 10, I think 5 will show exactly what we need to know. nc4bo Aug 2012 #13
Actually, that's part of the brilliance klook Aug 2012 #26
Problem is it doesn't say 5 years in a row. n/t A Simple Game Aug 2012 #27
True, too klook Aug 2012 #30
Romney declines Obama deal on tax return releases Ichingcarpenter Aug 2012 #8
Heh, you win. nc4bo Aug 2012 #10
Good, now they should go back to demanding 12 years, back to 2000. n/t ProSense Aug 2012 #14
13% IS the issue genxlib Aug 2012 #9
Good post. mac56 Aug 2012 #17
Thanks genxlib Aug 2012 #20
welcome to DU maddezmom Aug 2012 #28
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaah hahahaha malaise Aug 2012 #11
I know......LOL Ichingcarpenter Aug 2012 #16
Team Obama KNOWS what's in those returns.... sadbear Aug 2012 #21
Brilliant move! Ruby the Liberal Aug 2012 #22
Because they KNOW that 2009 is the poison pill. nt DCKit Aug 2012 #23
The farther this goes BarackTheVote Aug 2012 #25
could backfire - Romney would give the "good" years - 1987, 2003, etc.. pick and choose Liberal_in_LA Aug 2012 #29
Read my posts ...... I broke the story and Mitt already turned it down Ichingcarpenter Aug 2012 #31
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama offers Romney a dea...»Reply #9