Mitt Romney's new jobs plan: Fire 145,000 Americans

[tldr]

You just described pretty much every politician, how else do you think they could get elected, especially for a job such as the presidency. And just so you know this is taken out of context, he is referring to the recall election in Wisconsin, and how the American people don't want more government jobs. Here is the quote from Romney.

"He wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.”

Honestly in the deficit America is currently in we have no option other than cutting back on government jobs.

You wouldn't need to fire anyone if you people would bloody tax the rich. Here a rural farmer pays 2% lower taxes (14%) than the average member of your "top 1%," who ironically make more in ONE DAY than any of those rural farmers will make in THEIR ENTIRE LIFE. That's tons of fair...

[tldr]

How to fix the American economy:

1. Slash the corporate income tax (to about 1-3%), so that businesses want to move back.
2. Create a 15-20% flat tax on all income made above the poverty line.
3. Create a 1-2% percent-of-wealth owned tax above a certain amount (for argument let's say $1,000,000).
4. Eliminate all other taxes, except for user fees
5. Eliminate oil / green subsidies.
6. Eliminate farm subsidies (where people get paid not to work)
7. Create a temporary board to delete excessive regulation (things similar to the milk / oil fiasco). Important regulation should be left intact.
8. Leave all unneeded wars, and forget the military industrial complex.
9. Reduce the power (but not eliminate) of unions.
10. Eliminate citizens united.
11. Create a subsidy for new jobs.

1. Create a law adding a 40% import tax on companies who have left or leave the US for a tax haven for their products in US markets. Use a progressive tax from 5% on small/micro businesses to 30% on large corporations like Apple, taxes can be lowered by 15% on the larger companies if they maintain a steady number of jobs in the US).
2. Use a progressive tax system, from 10% for the poorest to 80% of income above $2,500,000 (though by investing in companies that produce jobs in the US, they can get up to 15% in tax exemption).
3. See #2
4. Eliminate the sales tax, take some funding from the military and pay for schools federally, nationalize curriculum, combine school districts to save administration costs.
5. Eliminate oil subsidies, increase green ones, carbon tax on corporations!
6. Eliminate farm subsidies on farms that make over $1,000,000 in profit yearly.
7. No, regulate food more, there's a reason why importing food from America is illegal in most of the first world...
8. I agree!
9. What power? If anything help the unions, they've been virtually destroyed, the only one intact is the teachers one.
10. And ban the tea party and other racist/extremist parties.
11. Coolio.

^ why Germany is doing really well, and amazingly compared to the rest of the world.

[indysolo621]

You wouldn't need to fire anyone if you people would bloody tax the rich. Here a rural farmer pays 2% lower taxes (14%) than the average member of your "top 1%," who ironically make more in ONE DAY than any of those rural farmers will make in THEIR ENTIRE LIFE. That's tons of fair...

The rich are taxed. They just have many loopholes at their disposable, and therefore will usually pay a lower rate. There needs to be a flat tax rate for everyone, without any of these loopholes. None of this progressive or regressive tax. The "top 1%" are just that, the "top 1%" why go after them specifically? That doesn't seem fair. Why punish them for being successful?

[tldr]

The rich are taxed. They just have many loopholes at their disposable, and therefore will usually pay a lower rate. There needs to be a flat tax rate for everyone, without any of these loopholes. None of this progressive or regressive tax. The "top 1%" are just that, the "top 1%" why go after them specifically? That doesn't seem fair. Why punish them for being successful?

Lol, I'm apart of the South African top 1% (which isn't that impressive it means my family has an annual income of more than R1,000,000, $120,000), and trust me, just like here, most of those people are not successful, they're rich, their children will be successful, because they had money at their disposal and never had to work for anything (i.e. there are more famous people from the five richest towns in the US (total population: a little more than 70,000) than from the entire state of Michigan and Wisconson, total population: 15 million), it seems more to me now that I'm older, it's less about talent and more about who you are, luckily that isn't the case in all places, hopefully the US and moreso South Africa can change.
I don't want people to be punished for being successful, but if I was making $30 million a year, I wouldn't mind giving 70% of the money up, anyone who says they can't
live off $13,000,000 is insane and anyone who says they can work enough to deserve $13,000,000 a year (let alone the original $30m) is full of $#!t. The rich make more, they need to pay more, it's been long enough the poor (moreso the middle class) have been paying for everything.
The middle-class in the US pays something like 70% of the total taxes, despite making 25% of the income and making up 30% of the population. If the rich are making 50% of the yearly income, they damn-well need to be paying more than 20%, and the poorest 20% pay virtually no taxes (though they make about $13,000/year, so lol) and earn just 3% of the entire yearly income! 3% for 20% of the population! Inequality like that is wrong and even if you take out the moral issue, it's not sustainable, countries with huge income inequality have huge economic problems that will eventually cause social unrest or worse.

[indysolo621]

Thats why the loopholes need to be eliminated and just tax everyone the same amount. Why would you want to tax the rich 70% when they are the ones, for the most part, creating the jobs? All that will do is make unemployment worse. I do agree that 30 million is crazy, but for the most part they earned it. Even if they did inherit it their parents worked hard for it, and there is no reason they should be taxed an insanely higher percent on it than everyone else.

[xtmx]

Lol, I'm apart of the South African top 1% (which isn't that impressive it means my family has an annual income of more than R1,000,000, $120,000), and trust me, just like here, most of those people are not successful, they're rich, their children will be successful, because they had money at their disposal and never had to work for anything (i.e. there are more famous people from the five richest towns in the US (total population: a little more than 70,000) than from the entire state of Michigan and Wisconson, total population: 15 million), it seems more to me now that I'm older, it's less about talent and more about who you are, luckily that isn't the case in all places, hopefully the US and moreso South Africa can change.
I don't want people to be punished for being successful, but if I was making $30 million a year, I wouldn't mind giving 70% of the money up, anyone who says they can't
live off $13,000,000 is insane and anyone who says they can work enough to deserve $13,000,000 a year (let alone the original $30m) is full of $#!t. The rich make more, they need to pay more, it's been long enough the poor (moreso the middle class) have been paying for everything.
The middle-class in the US pays something like 70% of the total taxes, despite making 25% of the income and making up 30% of the population. If the rich are making 50% of the yearly income, they damn-well need to be paying more than 20%, and the poorest 20% pay virtually no taxes (though they make about $13,000/year, so lol) and earn just 3% of the entire yearly income! 3% for 20% of the population! Inequality like that is wrong and even if you take out the moral issue, it's not sustainable, countries with huge income inequality have huge economic problems that will eventually cause social unrest or worse.

You're wrong, 80% of millionaires are first-generation affluent (in America). As for your arguments, we should not punish making money. We should punish hoarding money. People like Warren Buffett who hoard billions of dollars should have to pay more that Mark Zuckerburg during the time Facebook was first rising. People have a right to be among the richest if they start a highly successful business from the ground. For regulations, I can see where you're coming from, however Obama recently fixed a regulation treating spilling milk as dangerous as spilling petroleum. Those are the regulations I'm talking about. Green subsidies are just as bad as oil subsides, however cap-and-trade could be a necessary evil. The first amendment should not be banned, unless you're willing to outlaw groups such as the Black Panthers, the NAACP, PETA, which are just as bad as the tea party (the black panthers are actually worse, contrary to what Eric Holder believes).

[Micky]

I don't want people to be punished for being successful, but if I was making $30 million a year, I wouldn't mind giving 70% of the money up, anyone who says they can't
live off $13,000,000 is insane and anyone who says they can work enough to deserve $13,000,000 a year (let alone the original $30m) is full of $#!t. The rich make more, they need to pay more, it's been long enough the poor (moreso the middle class) have been paying for everything.

First of all, I hope you think first before underestimate the rich.. The rich who fund organizations, non-profits, or set up their own foundations to aid the disadvantaged poor -- on top of their pressure to keep their companies running. It's a gross misconception saying that all rich people are greedy and self-centered. With the amount of work they do, why punish them with more taxes, when they can save those money and directly help the poor, as many already have? Instead of taxing the rich, give them incentives to fund their money into social programs and non-profits directly. @cpvr is right here that hoarding money is the main problem in the economy; however, instead of punishing the people who hoard, I say give them incentives to spend their money -- not on luxuries, but on social programs. I rather pay less taxes if I'm rich and be able to use those funds in a foundation or organization than give them to the government, whereupon my money disappears and I don't get a say what sort of charity I can donate to --- or the lives I can directly influence and benefit by setting up my own foundation.

There are rich people in the world who prefer a conservative lifestyle rather than spending all their money on luxuries. You are confusing "famous people" with "rich people". There are serious differences between "rich" and "famous", of which I shouldn't need to explain.

Also, it is a gross generalization saying that "the poor has been paying for everything". It's border-line ignorance. With higher taxes for the rich, and lower taxes for the poor/middle class, the poor clearly haven't been paying for EVERYTHING. The poor simply can't pay for "everything", because they can't afford to. Please specify what "everything" is, and until then I will not debate further on this statement, because it's detrimental for both of us to argue about such a vague statement.

"Why should the rich do so much work and be punished, when there are people who do less work than them and reaps all the benefits and do not appreciate the work that the rich do for them?"

And to quote @indysolo621 -- "Why would you want to tax the rich 70% when they are the ones, for the most part, creating the jobs?"

---------------------------------

Tl;dr - give incentives so that the wealthy funnel their money towards social programs, or give incentives (or tax rebate stuff) to those who start a foundation, non-profit, or charity towards a cause and has been seen to make a difference in that field.

[TheTeen]

I really do not understand this hate that some people have toward the wealthy. You know, I was watching some documentary that said before Oprah Winfrey had her OWN network, she was working 100+ hours a week on her industry. I am sorry, but an individual who works that much week after week deserves their wealth. Especially those who have to always be innovative and staying ahead of the pack otherwise, you'd risk completely failing. The "99%" is always complaining about the "1%", but I can guarantee you MOST of the 99% do not work nearly as hard or long as the wealthy all while having the pressure of being "fresh". The life of a wealth person, be it rich or famous, is not an easy one, no matter what you may think. Sure singing on a stage is easy. Until you have to work all day, sing all night, and get pumped with steorids in the morning to do it all over again all over the span of a few months. Let them have their money...I certainly don't want their job.

[cpvr]

I really do not understand this hate that some people have toward the wealthy. You know, I was watching some documentary that said before Oprah Winfrey had her OWN network, she was working 100+ hours a week on her industry. I am sorry, but an individual who works that much week after week deserves their wealth. Especially those who have to always be innovative and staying ahead of the pack otherwise, you'd risk completely failing. The "99%" is always complaining about the "1%", but I can guarantee you MOST of the 99% do not work nearly as hard or long as the wealthy all while having the pressure of being "fresh". The life of a wealth person, be it rich or famous, is not an easy one, no matter what you may think. Sure singing on a stage is easy. Until you have to work all day, sing all night, and get pumped with steorids in the morning to do it all over again all over the span of a few months. Let them have their money...I certainly don't want their job.

Not to mention she'll only get richer because of the commercials on her network. P Diddy has his own channel/music network coming out soon as well. I applaud that because there's enough garbage on TV, that good label reps should have their own network so they can push the music game even further. MTV used to specialize in music, now they're main focus in reality tv. I guess that's where the money is at?

[ronnie92]

Uagh. Seriously, USA, Seriously?

Things like this really enforce the USA stereotype that keeps floating around...