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

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Bullshit.

 

[eflatminor]

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...

Dr Laffer disagrees with you. So does Stephen Moore, Senior Economist for the WSF. So do I. So does Romney.

Only time will tell who is correct.

 

[Vast LWC]

Bullshit.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Vast LWC]

Dr Laffer disagrees with you. So does Stephen Moore, Senior Economist for the WSF. So do I. So does Romney.

Only time will tell who is correct.

That's because Dr Laffer is, and always has been, a tool of the Republican Party.

And I don't care whether he currently agrees or not: Unless he's decided to change his formula while I wasn't looking, those are the cold, hard facts.

And that's according to his math, which I don't even necessarily agree with.

 

[eflatminor]

Dr Laffer disagrees with you. So does Stephen Moore, Senior Economist for the WSF. So do I. So does Romney.

Only time will tell who is correct.

That's because Dr Laffer is, and always has been, a tool of the Republican Party.

And I don't care whether he currently agrees or not: Unless he's decided to change his formula while I wasn't looking, those are the cold, hard facts.

And that's according to his math, which I don't even necessarily agree with.

Cold, hard facts, eh? Whatever you say. I'm sure your background in economics dwarfs the likes of Dr Laffer and Stephen Moore. Where did you get your PhD again? Which major financial publication do you head?

Check back in 12 months and we'll see who's right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Can you show anywhere he ever said he would cut taxes on the rich?

 

[Vast LWC]

Cold, hard facts, eh? Whatever you say. I'm sure your background in economics dwarfs the likes of Dr Laffer and Stephen Moore. Where did you get your PhD again? Which major financial publication do you head?

Check back in 12 months and we'll see who's right.

I'm sure that the CBO had no clue what they were talking about in 2005, with a Republican Congress mind you, when they made this analysis:

In 2005, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a paper called "Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates". This paper considered the impact of a stylized reduction of 10% in the then existing marginal rate of federal income tax in the US (for example, if those facing a 25% marginal federal income tax rate had it lowered to 22.5%). Unlike earlier research, the CBO paper estimates the budgetary impact of possible macroeconomic effects of tax policies, that is, it attempts to account for how reductions in individual income tax rates might affect the overall future growth of the economy, and therefore influence future government tax revenues; and ultimately, impact deficits or surpluses. In the paper's most generous estimated growth scenario, only 28% of the projected lost revenue from the lower tax rate would be recouped over a 10-year period after a 10% across-the-board reduction in all individual income tax rates. In other words, deficits would increase by nearly the same amount as the tax cut in the first five years, with limited feedback revenue thereafter. Through increased budget deficits, the tax cuts primarily benefiting the wealthy will be paid for — plus interest — by taxes borne relatively evenly by all taxpayers. The paper points out that these projected shortfalls in revenue would have to be made up by federal borrowing: the paper estimates that the federal government would pay an extra $200 billion in interest over the decade covered by the paper's analysis

And that was assuming that the economy would continue on the same upward path created by the housing bubble.

And that is also with only a 10% cut in the rate, rather than the 20% that Mr Romney describes.

I imagine that you'll somehow now imply that the CBO, with a Republican White House and Congress, was "partisan"....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.



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



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.



.

I love the Orwellian term tax expenditures. I bet you refuse to shop in stores where they have 50% off sales because they cost to much.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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?

Just the opposite was true. Both Reagan and Bush were savaged by the Democrats and Clinton was impeached by the Republicans, but these men were leaders who were able to get their important agenda items passed despite fierce opposition from the other party partly by negotiating with their critics after rallying popular support for their agendas, and Romney was able to do the same in Mass., but Obama is a diva, not a leader so that despite his considerable personal popularity all he can do is whine about how mean the Republicans have been to him.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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

Can you source that, please?

.

He stated that during the debate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Did you see the part where I said deductions and loopholes? Can you see anywhere that I mentioned credits?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

How do you save for spending increases?

Ever notice how some questions are so stupid they make the person who ask them lose 25% of their IQ every time they ask them?

 

[Vast LWC]

Just the opposite was true. Both Reagan and Bush were savaged by the Democrats and Clinton was impeached by the Republicans, but these men were leaders who were able to get their important agenda items passed despite fierce opposition from the other party partly by negotiating with their critics after rallying popular support for their agendas, and Romney was able to do the same in Mass., but Obama is a diva, not a leader so that despite his considerable personal popularity all he can do is whine about how mean the Republicans have been to him.

Please. What a bunch of utter garbage.

Bush vetoed, or promised to veto, every single piece of legislation that the Democratic Congress put on his desk.

And the current Republican Congressional brood came into office with, by their own admission, a mission to make sure that Obama would not be able to get anything done to "further his agenda".

From day one, that is what they promised they would do.

And stopping anything from getting done is exactly what they did.

Let me ask you this:

If Romney does exactly what he promised, which is gut all the legislation the Democrats have gotten passed in the last 4 years, in what dreamworld do you believe that "reaching across the aisle" will occur?

Do you think that the Democrats will be happy about Romney walking in and giving them the finger "on day one"?

Hmmm?

 

[Vast LWC]

Did you see the part where I said deductions and loopholes? Can you see anywhere that I mentioned credits?

What do you think a tax credit is, exactly?

 

[naturegirl]

Did Obama say he was going to lower the corporate tax rates to 25%?? Why yes, I believe he did, during the debate. He agreed with Romney. It's about 8 minutes into the debate if you want to see it.

 

[Vast LWC]

Did Obama say he was going to lower the corporate tax rates to 25%?? Why yes, I believe he did, during the debate. He agreed with Romney. It's about 8 minutes into the debate if you want to see it.

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

Plus, I personally would assume that cutting the Corporate tax rate would be done to take away the justification for lower capital gains rates.

If it was me, I'd lower corporate taxes to 15%, and then change the Cap Gains rate to be equal to income tax rates.

That would be an excellent "simplification".

 

[toomuchtime_]

Just the opposite was true. Both Reagan and Bush were savaged by the Democrats and Clinton was impeached by the Republicans, but these men were leaders who were able to get their important agenda items passed despite fierce opposition from the other party partly by negotiating with their critics after rallying popular support for their agendas, and Romney was able to do the same in Mass., but Obama is a diva, not a leader so that despite his considerable personal popularity all he can do is whine about how mean the Republicans have been to him.

Please. What a bunch of utter garbage.

Bush vetoed, or promised to veto, every single piece of legislation that the Democratic Congress put on his desk.

And the current Republican brood came into office with, by their own admission, a mission to make sure that Obama would not be able to get anything done to "further his agenda".

From day one, that is what they promised they would do.

And stopping anything from getting done is exactly what they did.

Let me ask you this:

If he does what he promised, which is gut all the legislation the Democrats have gotten passed in the last 4 years, in what dreamworld do you believe that reaching across the aisle will occur?

Do you think that the Democrats will be happy about Romney walking in and giving them the finger "on day one"?

Hmmm?

Your post is not responsive. I said that Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Romney were strong leaders who were able to get their major agenda items passed by rallying popular support for these items that forced hostile legislatures to compromise, but because Obama is a diva and not a leader, despite his personal popularity, he was not able to do this and we hear this endless whining about how mean the Republicans have been to him. Obama is like a reality TV star, popular despite the fact he has no talent. He is the Kim Kardashian of American politics.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Did you see the part where I said deductions and loopholes? Can you see anywhere that I mentioned credits?

What do you think a tax credit is, exactly?

It isn't a deduction or a loophole, is it?

 

[Sallow]

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?

Ah..so..the smoke and mirrors aren't working on ya..

 

[naturegirl]

Did Obama say he was going to lower the corporate tax rates to 25%?? Why yes, I believe he did, during the debate. He agreed with Romney. It's about 8 minutes into the debate if you want to see it.

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

Plus, I personally would assume that cutting the Corporate tax rate would be done to take away the justification for lower capital gains rates.

If it was me, I'd lower corporate taxes to 15%, and then change the Cap Gains rate to be equal to income tax rates.

That would be an excellent "simplification".

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%.