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

[toomuchtime_]

Oh please.
In none of those cases did the hostile party make it their goal to have the President fail. You're such a drama queen.

In all of these cases the hostile legislatures opposed the administration's proposals, but Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Romney managed to prevail nonetheless. The difference today is not that the Congress in more hostile than those were in the past but that Obama is less competent than those leaders.

Oh baloney. Never before has the opposing party set out with their only goal being to make the President fail and stating ahead of time they would all vote against him - no matter what. In all of the above cases the opposing party did not act in lockstep to obstrcut legislation.The entire Republican plan for the past 4 years has been to obstruct plain and simple, they have stated essentially that and their voting record reflects it. Not a single one of them voted for ObamaCare even though it was a fucking REPUBLICAN idea to begin with! What fuckin' more do you need to know?

That's the conspiracy theory the Democrats are pushing to explain Obama's incompetence, but if you examine his career, it is clear that he has failed to achieve any notable accomplishments in any job he has ever had, so his failure as President should come as no surprise and it shouldn't require a conspiracy theory to explain.

 

[LoneLaugher]

These nutters do not dig deeper once Mitt hands them the shovel. They just stand there and admire the pile of shit that he just created.

 

[Vast LWC]

Which loopholes, deductions, credits, and exemptions will he eliminate?

The same ones the liberals always complain about the rich taking advantage of.

And those are, specifically?

 

[eflatminor]

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

By lowering rates for those that pay taxes now, history suggests investments will increase and the economy will improve, thereby increasing the tax actual revenue realized.

If the economy does not expand as much as is hoped following the tax rate decreases, eliminating loopholes will certainly boost revenue to the government.

While these two actions tend to have opposite effects on the economy, the overall effect on the economy is very likely to be stimulative given the relatively few that benefit from loopholes vs. the many that will benefit from lower tax rates.

As to what happens to the actual revenue to the government following these actions, that depends on how much the economy improves following the rate changes and the sum total of the eliminated loopholes.

Romney's plan is to cut tax rates and then get rid of deductions, credits, and loopholes to make up the difference. How is that a tax cut?

Overall, it's a tax cut because so many more people and businesses will benefit from lower rates than will 'suffer' from the elimination of loopholes.

Which loopholes ultimately get eliminated is a matter of debate among Congress. While I say eliminate ALL loopholes, it really doesn't matter that much. The tax rates are far more effective in nudging the economy, if that's the issue you're really concerned about.

Why hasn't he been more specific about which deductions, loopholes, and credits he's going to ax? Do we not have a right to know or is that a secret?

Because Congress gets a say in this. Unlike some Presidents (cough, cough), one hopes that Romney doesn't believe he can override laws written by Congress. Many of those loopholes are written into law, so it will require Congress to eliminate them.

 

[Vast LWC]

Before asking that question, you first have to remember how the US government works. The President cannot lower tax rates or end deductions without first negotiating with Congress about his proposals, so at this point all Romney can tell us is the outline of what he will propose to Congress and the details will emerge from negotiations between the WH and Congress.

Tax deductions for the most part are government incentives intended to direct spending or investment in certain directions instead of allowing free markets to guide consumers and investors. Vigorous free markets induce price competition and direct capital to its most productive (highest valued) use, so lowering tax rates will put more money into the hands of consumers and investors and ending the government's attempts to micromanage the economy through deductions will allow free market competition to stimulate the economy.

So, in other words, he will ask Congress to lower the rate, and then hope and pray that Congress will actually close deductions and loopholes.

If it's a Republican Congress, they'll lower the rate, and then not close the loopholes, increasing the debt even more.

If it's a Democratic Congress, they won't do either, leaving the situation where it is.

So, Mitt's plan is a failure, either way.

 

[Vast LWC]

Romney said that has to be worked out in Congress.

It may shock you, but before Obama became a tinpot dictator, Congress used to decide these sort of things.

ROFL, now that's a laugh.

Was that during the second Clinton term, where Congress did nothing but try to get the President impeached over blow jobs?

Or was it during most of the Bush term, where Congress was so damn ineffectual that they still try to blame the fact that they couldn't fix Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on the Democrats, even though the Republicans held Capital Hill and the White House?

 

[Vast LWC]

You should know them already. They're the ones that the liberals always complain about the rich taking advantage. Bastards like Romney use them to avoid paying their fair share. Why else would Romney want to get rid of them? He's a cruel, heartless con, you know.

"the ones that the liberals always complain about the rich taking advantage", like?....

 

[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.

 

[eflatminor]

Before asking that question, you first have to remember how the US government works. The President cannot lower tax rates or end deductions without first negotiating with Congress about his proposals, so at this point all Romney can tell us is the outline of what he will propose to Congress and the details will emerge from negotiations between the WH and Congress.

Tax deductions for the most part are government incentives intended to direct spending or investment in certain directions instead of allowing free markets to guide consumers and investors. Vigorous free markets induce price competition and direct capital to its most productive (highest valued) use, so lowering tax rates will put more money into the hands of consumers and investors and ending the government's attempts to micromanage the economy through deductions will allow free market competition to stimulate the economy.

So, in other words, he will ask Congress to lower the rate, and then hope and pray that Congress will actually close deductions and loopholes.

That's the law.

If it's a Republican Congress, they'll lower the rate, and then not close the loopholes, increasing the debt even more.

There is no way you can know this but even if you're right, you're missing the point of lowering tax rates. There is every reason to believe, if you know economic history, that revenue will INCREASE following a tax rate reduction as the economy expands and more people pay taxes. The rich in particular tend to pay more tax revenue following a tax rate reduction. Bottom line, lowering tax rates, even with all the loopholes, will result likely result in more revenue.

Whether we add to or reduce the debt is ENTIRELY a matter of spending. That's also on Congress to fix or not.

If it's a Democratic Congress, they won't do either, leaving the situation where it is.

True.

So, Mitt's plan is a failure, either way

Not likely. See above. If you want to educate yourself on this, I recommend this book:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/End-Prosperity-Higher-Economy-If-Happen/dp/B0064XGGVE]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[/ame]

 

[NYcarbineer]

How does it stimulate the economy to cut taxes and then raise them the same amount? Romney's plan is to cut tax rates and then get rid of deductions, credits, and loopholes to make up the difference. How is that a tax cut? The federal government still extracts the same amount of money from the economy.

Why hasn't he been more specific about which deductions, loopholes, and credits he's going to ax? Do we not have a right to know or is that a secret?

It doesn't but Romney has made up a story about how he's not cutting taxes for the Rich every since his camp found out that was a very unpopular position.

They're just saying anything now that polls well.

 

[g5000]

Romney's plan is to cut tax rates and then get rid of deductions, credits, and loopholes to make up the difference. How is that a tax cut?

First of all, when you talk about taxes, there's two main things: rates and revenues. He's talking about cutting the rates there.

Second, would everyone not agree that deductions, credits and loopholes benefit the rich far more than the middle or lower class?

No. Everyone would not agree. The middle class benefits the most from tax expenditures. If you reduced their tax rate by 20 percent (as Romney says he will do), and then removed all of their deductions, that would result in a net tax increase for the middle class. That is why it is critical to know the specifics of Romney's tax plan.

If we lower rates but manage to cap deductions at say $10,000 per household which prevents billionaires from being able to save millions on deductions and loopholes, would that not prevent billionaires from circumventing paying their "fair share?" If they can't get all those breaks, deductions and loopholes to lower their effective rate then it's the liberal's beloved tax hike on the rich in comparison with the rest of the populace, is it not?

Romney has not said this was his plan. In fact, he has not said anything about what tax expenditures he would eliminate.

Romney is proposing eliminating loopholes for the rich... and the liberals are whining about it. If Obama proposed the exact same thing and didn't give specifics, be honest, would you be upset about it?

Romney has not limited his expenditure reductions to the rich. He has said that he will make sure his expenditure reductions do not cause the rich to pay less. Big difference.

Why hasn't he been more specific about which deductions, loopholes, and credits he's going to ax? Do we not have a right to know or is that a secret?

Candidates don't win elections by giving the specifics. The less specifics you can keep from people, the better, because the less there is to nitpick and possibly lose you votes because of it. We had a candidate in 2008 who did little more than say "Hope", "Change" and ride the anti-Bush wave and he got elected. Did you have a problem with lack of specifics back then? I'm guessing you didn't.

This is the only explanation I have heard to date for Romney's lack of specifics which has some plausibility to it.

However, I will bet thousands that in 2016 we will still have a budget deficit. If Romney wins, I would double that bet. There is no way to balance the budget just on the backs of the rich.



.

 

[Vast LWC]

All deductions and loopholes benefit the rich more than they do the poor.

False.

Any Child-related tax credit, for instance, benefits the poor and middle class much more than the rich, percentage-wise.

Most tax credits already have upper-limits, which make them near useless percentage-wise to someone who makes a million dollars a year.

Let's take the child day care deduction, for instance, which has a cap at about $3000.00.

To a person making $30,000 a year, that's 10% of their income.

To a person making $300,000 a year, that's 1% of their income.

So, if Mitt cuts out the deductions that benefit the middle-class and lower class the most, and then applies a 5% rate cut, it will be the rich that benefit the most, and there will be no extra revenue.

That is why we're so curious as to which deductions Mitt is referring to.

And that is why Mitt refuses to answer.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Before asking that question, you first have to remember how the US government works. The President cannot lower tax rates or end deductions without first negotiating with Congress about his proposals, so at this point all Romney can tell us is the outline of what he will propose to Congress and the details will emerge from negotiations between the WH and Congress.

Tax deductions for the most part are government incentives intended to direct spending or investment in certain directions instead of allowing free markets to guide consumers and investors. Vigorous free markets induce price competition and direct capital to its most productive (highest valued) use, so lowering tax rates will put more money into the hands of consumers and investors and ending the government's attempts to micromanage the economy through deductions will allow free market competition to stimulate the economy.

So, in other words, he will ask Congress to lower the rate, and then hope and pray that Congress will actually close deductions and loopholes.

If it's a Republican Congress, they'll lower the rate, and then not close the loopholes, increasing the debt even more.

If it's a Democratic Congress, they won't do either, leaving the situation where it is.

So, Mitt's plan is a failure, either way.

This kind of cynicism about the American system of government is understandable after nearly four years of having a diva in the WH instead of leader, but as governor of Mass., Romney persuaded an overwhelmingly liberal Democratic legislature to pass austerity measures that made deep cuts in programs the Democrats had recently promised their constituents they would never cut and there is every reason to believe he will be equally successful in dealing with Congress no matter which party controls it. Obama, on the other hand, has no record of notable achievements in any job he has ever held, so after listening to him whine and blame others for his failures for nearly four years it's no mystery where your "Oh no we can't" attitude comes from.

 

[toomuchtime_]

All deductions and loopholes benefit the rich more than they do the poor.

False.

Any Child-related tax credit, for instance, benefits the poor and middle class much more than the rich, percentage-wise.

Most tax credits already have upper-limits, which make them near useless percentage-wise to someone who makes a million dollars a year.

Let's take the child day care deduction, for instance, which has a cap at about $3000.00.

To a person making $30,000 a year, that's 10% of their income.

To a person making $300,000 a year, that's 1% of their income.

That is why we're so curious as to which deductions Mitt is referring to.

And that is why Mitt refuses to answer.

Romney was clear that no deductions that benefit the middle class will be touched.

 

[NYcarbineer]

All deductions and loopholes benefit the rich more than they do the poor.

False.

Any Child-related tax credit, for instance, benefits the poor and middle class much more than the rich, percentage-wise.

Most tax credits already have upper-limits, which make them near useless percentage-wise to someone who makes a million dollars a year.

Let's take the child day care deduction, for instance, which has a cap at about $3000.00.

To a person making $30,000 a year, that's 10% of their income.

To a person making $300,000 a year, that's 1% of their income.

That is why we're so curious as to which deductions Mitt is referring to.

And that is why Mitt refuses to answer.

Romney was clear that no deductions that benefit the middle class will be touched.

Then how does he pay for the middle class tax cut?

 

[g5000]

There are two tax expenditures which absolutely, positively must go.

First, the mortgage interest rate deduction. It is the most regressive tax break on the books. And the deduction is factored into the price of a house. Eliminate the deduction and house prices would come down.

Those who already own a house could be grandfathered for the deduction.

Second, the tax exemption of employer-provided health insurance. Employer-provided health insurance is tax-free income.

Employer-provided health insurance is also one of the leading causes of the rising cost of healthcare. It needs to go away.

Let people be paid the same salary as their employer-provided healthcare costs their employer, and be taxed accordingly, and then shop for health insurance that is tailored to their personal needs. If you like, you can give them a tax credit to help them toward the cost of health insurance. But the credit should be a flat amount given to everyone.



Eliminating these two tax expenditures would be an incredibly hard sell to the American people, but if we are going to be serious about tax reform, they need to be done.

And raise the retirement age. That will save Medicare and Social Security trillions upon trillions of dollars.



.

 

[g5000]

Romney was clear that no deductions that benefit the middle class will be touched.

Can you source that, please?

.

 

[Vast LWC]

That's the law.

Yes, it is.

There is no way you can know this but even if you're right, you're missing the point of lowering tax rates. There is every reason to believe, if you know economic history, that revenue will INCREASE following a tax rate reduction as the economy expands and more people pay taxes. The rich in particular tend to pay more tax revenue following a tax rate reduction. Bottom line, lowering tax rates, even with all the loopholes, will result likely result in more revenue.

Whether we add to or reduce the debt is ENTIRELY a matter of spending. That's also on Congress to fix or not.

There is a massive flaw inherent to this argument.

Based on the very same conservative theory that gave us this idea, the Laffer Curve, there is a point where lowering taxes stops raising revenue.

That is why it is called the Laffer "Curve" rather than the Laffer "Slope".

The apex of the Laffer Curve was reached during the Clinton administration, and has providing diminishing returns ever since, to the point where now we've reached the low point on the curve, and can no longer get a reward from lowering taxes any further.

Therefore, lowering taxes any further will LOWER total revenue, not raise it.

And that is according to right-wing theory, which I am not willing to admit is correct, but which Mitt is most assuredly referring to in his assertion that lowering taxes will raise more revenue.

True.

Not likely. See above. If you want to educate yourself on this, I recommend this book:

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

A book written by the very same Arthur Laffer that developed the curve I was referring to.

Unfortunately, Arthur refuses to admit that, by his own math, lowering taxes will not raise revenue.

 

[Vast LWC]

This kind of cynicism about the American system of government is understandable after nearly four years of having a diva in the WH instead of leader, but as governor of Mass., Romney persuaded an overwhelmingly liberal Democratic legislature to pass austerity measures that made deep cuts in programs the Democrats had recently promised their constituents they would never cut and there is every reason to believe he will be equally successful in dealing with Congress no matter which party controls it. Obama, on the other hand, has no record of notable achievements in any job he has ever held, so after listening to him whine and blame others for his failures for nearly four years it's no mystery where your "Oh no we can't" attitude comes from.

So, you feel that the situation between G W Bush and Democratic Congresses was hunky-dorey, and that a lot was done during those periods?

And you feel that the situation between Clinton and the Republican Congress of 1999 and 2000 was a great bi-partisan relationship, especially after Lewinsky?

After all, this partisan infighting is all about Obama, right?

 

[toomuchtime_]

False.

Any Child-related tax credit, for instance, benefits the poor and middle class much more than the rich, percentage-wise.

Most tax credits already have upper-limits, which make them near useless percentage-wise to someone who makes a million dollars a year.

Let's take the child day care deduction, for instance, which has a cap at about $3000.00.

To a person making $30,000 a year, that's 10% of their income.

To a person making $300,000 a year, that's 1% of their income.

That is why we're so curious as to which deductions Mitt is referring to.

And that is why Mitt refuses to answer.

Romney was clear that no deductions that benefit the middle class will be touched.

Then how does he pay for the middle class tax cut?

In three ways. He will close some deductions for the wealthy, cut government spending and most importantly promote business investment. That's exactly what he did in Mass., and even before Romney has a chance to put any of his plans into action, the business community will feel reassured that he will promote an business friendly environment and that in itself will increase investment and create new jobs.

There is no great mystery here. For years Obama has been warning America about the evils of capitalism, stating that we need his protection from banks, insurance companies, energy companies, etc. and the dangers of free markets, arguing that Americans need the government to tell them what to buy and where to invest by providing subsidies to ideologically sound projects. While Obama disparages the American system, Romney respects the institutions and dynamics that built the great American economy, and when he is elected, the business community will respond with new investments that will create new jobs and generate new tax revenues.