How does it stimulate the economy to cut taxes and then raise them the same amount?

[Jarhead]

To be determined. Relax. Romney doesn't get to choose which loopholes get axed. He has to involve Congress. Certainly you'd agree it's a good thing to try to eliminate loopholes, right?

Regarding the history of how tax cuts often result in increased tax revenues, read this:

The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes Will Doom the Economy--If We Let It Happen: Arthur B. Laffer,Stephen Moore,Peter Tanous: Amazon.com: Books

actually, it seems the left MUCH prefers a man to walk into the WH and make demands.....debate and discussion is off the table.

Which loopholes would MItt like to eliminate?

I am not one of th euber wealthy, so I dont know all of the deductions allowable....but my guess is he will cap the amount you can deduct....he actually admitted that was part of his idea.

For example.....if he caps it at 50K...it will have no affect on most of us.....but it will have a major affect on those that deduct 100's of thousands.....

 

[eflatminor]

Which history suggests this?



How does this boost revenue to the government when the rates are lowered in exactly the same amount?



Which "loopholes" is he eliminating? How do we know how few people benefit from them if we don't know which ones they are and if so few people benefit from them how is it going to make up multi-trillion dollar gap left by the rate reduction?




How do we know this when the "loopholes" haven't been specified?

??? What is MITT'S plan? To just say "hey Congress, I want you to cut taxes across the board by 20%, and then magically find enough loopholes to make up the difference but not enough for anyone to actually notice it in their tax bill" ? That's his plan?

Its funny how Mitt's plan is very detailed in the tax reductions he plans to ask Congress for but entirely vague in the area of how these reductions are going to be paid for, don'tcha think?



WHICH LOOPHOLES?

To be determined.

So how do we know there are enough of them to make up the difference?

There is no way to know before a tax rate cut if there will even be a difference to make up! As the Laffer curve demonstrates, often the revenue INCREASES following the rate cut. In that case, you could think of eliminating loopholes as further contributing to revenue and more importantly, making our tax structure more fair.

He has to involve Congress to get the rates cut, too, yet he has no trouble revealing the specifics of that part of the plan!

Certainly you'd agree it's a good thing to try to eliminate loopholes, right?

Which ones?

Personally, I'd eliminate ALL of them. I advocate a low, flat tax with no loopholes. We should be able to do our taxes on a sticky note. And no IRS!

Regarding the history of how tax cuts often result in increased tax revenues, read this:
So you can't actually give a single historical example of what you're talking about in your own words
OK. I'm getting the picture now

No need to be an asshole about it. Read the book, which will explain in great detail the many instances over the years in which a tax rate reduction has led to economic growth and subsequently, an increase in tax revenues.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Which deductions, credits, and loopholes will Mitt want to eliminate?

Did I talk about loop holes or a flat tax? Perhaps you should attempt to read (use some basic literary skills) with what I said and proposed, instead of sticking to your tunnel-vision liberal talking points. This is why the economy under Obama isn't creating enough jobs, you get people like this stuck to the same ideology talking points. They wouldn't know HOW to stimululate the economy outside of what's already been done...... a temp fix that raises the debt and offers no long term high paying solution.

Are you running for President? If not, I don't give a shit about your proposals. I started this thread to talk about MItt ROmney's tax plan. Is your name Mitt Romney?

You brought up taxes, but can't leave from your tunnel vision liberal talking points. This is why Obama's economy is failing, when "ideology" seems to interfere with basic economic knowledge (see below). Raising taxes on the business does not equate to creating more revenue to allow businesses to hire more employees. Where do you do your math?

Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.

Zogby researcher Zeljka Buturovic and I considered the 4,835 respondents' (all American adults) answers to eight survey questions about basic economics. We also asked the respondents about their political leanings: progressive/very liberal; liberal; moderate; conservative; very conservative; and libertarian.

Rather than focusing on whether respondents answered a question correctly, we instead looked at whether they answered incorrectly. A response was counted as incorrect only if it was flatly unenlightened.

To be sure, none of the eight questions specifically challenge the political sensibilities of conservatives and libertarians. Still, not all of the eight questions are tied directly to left-wing concerns about inequality and redistribution. In particular, the questions about mandatory licensing, the standard of living, the definition of monopoly, and free trade do not specifically challenge leftist sensibilities.

Yet on every question the left did much worse. On the monopoly question, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (31%) was more than twice that of conservatives (13%) and more than four times that of libertarians (7%). On the question about living standards, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (61%) was more than four times that of conservatives (13%) and almost three times that of libertarians (21%).

The survey also asked about party affiliation. Those responding Democratic averaged 4.59 incorrect answers. Republicans averaged 1.61 incorrect, and Libertarians 1.26 incorrect.

 

[Vast LWC]

Since corporations generally don't actually pay their taxes, there's no reason not to.

Companies that paid the most in taxes 2011 (amount income tax paid/effective tax rate):

Exxon Mobil - $27.3 billion, 42%
Chevron - $17.4 billion, 43.3%
ConocoPhillips - $10.6 billion, 45.6%
JP Morgan - $8.2 billion, 29.1%
WalMart - $5.9 billion, 32.6%

Now, what were you saying?

Citizens for Tax Justice did a study that included 280 of the nation's most profitable corporations.

In that study only 25% of the corporations actually paid 30 percent or more in taxes.

The rest paid far less, and 12% paid "less than zero".

Here is the complete study:

http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf

In other words, since Corporations aren't actually paying the tax rate they supposedly pay, at all, it is senseless not to lower the corporate tax rate, and not allow any loopholes, which is what both candidates have suggested.

Doing this will also remove the argument used for low capital gains tax rates, that they are "taxed twice". This will allow the Cap Gains Rates to be raised to be more in line with other income tax.

 

[Vast LWC]

LOL


What a tool.

Ooh, 8%.

Without any reference as to how much profit they are making relative to the average citizen, that number is utterly meaningless.

Obviously I was not saying corporations pay no taxes at all, I was saying they don't pay the taxes they're supposed to, at the rates they're supposed to.

 

[Vast LWC]

Why would you make such a ridiculous claim when it is so easily refuted?

LOL

So many responses, all in a row.

First of all, I was responding to a poster who was using hyperbole when speaking about the Obama administration, saying that Obama was a "diva", and that no legislation got done because of it.

My response was meant to be in the same vein, and was as hyperbolic as said poster, to act as an effective counter.

Since you inserted yourself into said conversation, perhaps you should have brought up your point about the hyperbole being used to the poster who originally started using it.

Obviously there was some legislation passed during both the Obama and the Bush periods. I could provide a similar list of legislation that became law during the Obama administration as you provided for the Bush administration.

The point was that neither President could work efficiently with the opposition congress that they were presented with, proving the point made by the poster in question to be moot.

 

[Vast LWC]

If you want investors to invest to grow companies, raising the capital gains taxes isn't such a good idea. But if you prefer not to have investments, it's a good plan.

BTW, C corps do pay taxes, those are the big guys, you know the ones that are included in the 1%.

That's also false.

Are you suggesting that no-one invested in companies in the '80s or '90s, when rates were much higher than they are now?

The only thing having 15% Cap Gains rates does is create massive bubbles, based on over-leveraging, which then proceed to burst and crash the economy. It happened in the 1920's, the only other time the rate was 15% or lower, the exact same way it happened in the last decade.

You are reduced to lame all-or-nothing bifurcation fallacy, then?

He didn't say NO ONE invested in the 80's and 90's, he said raising capital gains is not a good idea for encouraging investment.

Hell, even Clinton knew that as he worked with the Republicans to lower capital gains taxes to 20%.

Actually, he did in fact say that "no-one invested". His exact words were: "if you prefer not to have investments", which would indicate a complete lack of investments.

And, while having a relatively low capital gains rate does in fact encourage investment, history has proven that having a cap gains rate that is too low encourages people to quite their day jobs, and go borrow some money to invest.

It happened in the 1920's and in the 2000's with the exact same result:

Massive over-leveraging, and a giant bubble, that popped with catastrophic results.

Of course, extremely low Cap Gains taxes were not the ONLY factors leading to that conclusion, but they certainly helped.

 

[Vast LWC]

Wow. A poor student of history as well.

Clinton was the first elected President to be Impeached in our history on two charges: Obstruction of Justice and perjury.

He will forever be a stain on American history, not to mention Monica's dress.

Charges which, you can't refute, resulted from an investigation over a blow job.

There was not some other crime that magically appeared that wasn't related to said blow job.

The secondary charges that resulted in impeachment all stemmed from said blow job.

So, my statement is in fact correct.

 

[Vast LWC]

Romney got things done with a legislature which was 87% hostile party to him.

He did it by compromise and skill, neither of which Obama can bring to negotiation.

What he did was completely fold, because he had no other choice.

The state of Massachusetts is one of the most liberal states in the nation. If Mitt Romney didn't go along with what the Liberals wanted, he would have lost his job.

And the result of that was ObamaCare, oh I mean RomneyCare.

This is too easy sometimes.

Would a Chief Executive that issued 844 vetos be someone that could be characterized as completely folding to his legislature?

LOL

1. That completely refutes the point that you originally made, which was that Romney worked with the legislature through "compromise and skill". 844 vetoes would indicate outright hostility to the legislature.

2. He did fold on this issue, which is one that was very important to all the Liberals in Massachusetts. As I said, he had no choice.

 

[eflatminor]

...it is senseless not to lower the corporate tax rate, and not allow any loopholes...

This I agree with.

 

[Vast LWC]

So much wrong here it is hard to decide what to piss all over first.

Let's just say that your assumption that lower taxes will not raise revenues assumes a zero sum economic fishbowl where GDP is a fixed pie.

That is, of course, utter horseshit.

The entire point is to grow the economy to grow the tax base. Reagan knew this, when even as a NET TAX CUTTER, he almost doubled Federal income tax receipts because he was able to DOUBLE GDP in just 8 years.

The entire theory is flawed in that it assumes a fishbowl with a single tax rate and single labor supply.

I am not assuming the GDP is a fixed pie, and neither was the CBO when it decided essentially the same thing under a Republican administration and congress in 2005.

Reagan was a tax cutter, because the tax rates at the time were at a point where cutting them would provide a large amount of help for the economy.

Even so, Reagan still ran at a deficit, and ended up raising taxes again in his second term.

In fact, he raised the cap gains tax back to 28% from 20% in 1987.

According to Laffer's own theory, the rates of return on revenue diminish as the tax rates go lower and lower, eventually returning less revenue than you started with.

That's what makes it a "curve".

 

[jwoodie]

LOL, do I sense desperation on the part of the Obamaniacs?

 

[Vast LWC]

You aren't bright. I just told you.

Reagan was a net tax cutter, yet nearly doubled Federal tax receipts in just 8 years.

How, say?

By unleashing a tidal wave of liberty, freedom and entreprenurialism that fully DOUBLED OUR GDP IN JUST HIS 8 YEARS ALONE.


Now you know. Stop asking stupid questions.

You mean by adding 3 Trillion dollars in debt?

Clinton doubled GDP too, without quadrupling the debt.