Mitt Romney Opposes the Tax Cut Bill

[theHawk]

The only thing this bill does is promise to raise taxes in two years, as opposed to this next year. Romney is right in saying businesses won't go on a hiring frenzy knowing future tax hikes are likely to happen.

Obama knows this tax "cut", which is not a cut at all, isn't going to work because it isn't for real. And he hopes it won't work so in two years he can say "see, tax cuts don't work".

 

[GHook93]

I don't like it, but I think it would be a bad move to allow taxes to increase.

I prefer:
(1) The current taxes rates on everyone making under $1 million staying the same.
(2) Making Federal and State Worker Pension plans illegal
(3) A decrease of capital gains tax to 5%
(4) End the Death Tax

 

[jillian]

The only thing this bill does is promise to raise taxes in two years, as opposed to this next year. Romney is right in saying businesses won't go on a hiring frenzy knowing future tax hikes are likely to happen.

Obama knows this tax "cut", which is not a cut at all, isn't going to work because it isn't for real. And he hopes it won't work so in two years he can say "see, tax cuts don't work".

and the repubs are going for it b/c they can say to their corporatist buddies "see how much money we saved you", now donate to our campaigns.

then they will disingenuously turn around and have citizens united run ads saying "look at the obama deficit".

 

[The Infidel]

The only thing this bill does is promise to raise taxes in two years, as opposed to this next year. Romney is right in saying businesses won't go on a hiring frenzy knowing future tax hikes are likely to happen.

Obama knows this tax "cut", which is not a cut at all, isn't going to work because it isn't for real. And he hopes it won't work so in two years he can say "see, tax cuts don't work".

I agree....


Obama is going to just use this in 2012 to say tax cuts dont work..... problem is, there were no tax cuts and $200 billion in new spending (I say it is more, but whatever)

This is just plain stupid, and the GOP needs to stand up and say NO.

Let the newly elected Congress handle it. The Dems have had 2 years to handle it and they have'nt.

 

[Cuyo]

Quite honestly, I am not certain i support it either. I like the idea of my taxes not going up. But $300 Billion in spending for programs we dont need? Is it worth it?

Especially with this clear deception that people seem to think taxes are getting cut. They arent. We keep the taxes the same and then spend more money? What exactly are we getting in this deal?

David Stockman said it clearly and concisely the other day - we couldn't afford these tax cuts when they passed originally and we can't afford them now.

These arent tax cuts any more. They are maintaining the Status quo.

And its amazing how we cant afford cutting taxes, but we can funnel Trillions of dollars into entitlement programs we already know wont work.

Not an argument worth having. Bottom line revenues decreased; Can we afford it? That's the question. Call it a cut, or lack of an increase. Results identical.

 

[The Infidel]

The only thing this bill does is promise to raise taxes in two years, as opposed to this next year. Romney is right in saying businesses won't go on a hiring frenzy knowing future tax hikes are likely to happen.

Obama knows this tax "cut", which is not a cut at all, isn't going to work because it isn't for real. And he hopes it won't work so in two years he can say "see, tax cuts don't work".

and the repubs are going for it b/c they can say to their corporatist buddies "see how much money we saved you", now donate to our campaigns.

then they will disingenuously turn around and have citizens united run ads saying "look at the obama deficit".

 

[Cuyo]

I don't like it, but I think it would be a bad move to allow taxes to increase.

I prefer:
(1) The current taxes rates on everyone making under $1 million staying the same.
(2) Making Federal and State Worker Pension plans illegal
(3) A decrease of capital gains tax to 5%
(4) End the Death Tax

Is that on principles alone, or do you believe it would result in a favorable outcome for most people?

If you're in the 0.2% of people affected by the estate tax, God bless ya, you're doing better than most of us.

 

[theHawk]

The only thing this bill does is promise to raise taxes in two years, as opposed to this next year. Romney is right in saying businesses won't go on a hiring frenzy knowing future tax hikes are likely to happen.

Obama knows this tax "cut", which is not a cut at all, isn't going to work because it isn't for real. And he hopes it won't work so in two years he can say "see, tax cuts don't work".

and the repubs are going for it b/c they can say to their corporatist buddies "see how much money we saved you", now donate to our campaigns.

then they will disingenuously turn around and have citizens united run ads saying "look at the obama deficit".

The deficits are already at an all time high, not because of current tax rates, because of spending. It already is the Pelosi deficit.

 

[The Infidel]

I don't like it, but I think it would be a bad move to allow taxes to increase.

I prefer:
(1) The current taxes rates on everyone making under $1 million staying the same.
(2) Making Federal and State Worker Pension plans illegal
(3) A decrease of capital gains tax to 5%
(4) End the Death Tax

Is that on principles alone, or do you believe it would result in a favorable outcome for most people?

If you're in the 0.2% of people affected by the estate tax, God bless ya, you're doing better than most of us.

What right does the gov't have to tax us twice?

Why not just take it all????

 

[Avatar4321]

These arent tax cuts any more. They are maintaining the Status quo.

seriously?

And its amazing how we cant afford cutting taxes, but we can funnel Trillions of dollars into entitlement programs we already know wont work.

what's amazing is that people who are working class are fighting so hard for rich people not to pay taxes and want to cut anything that helps people.

How is working for all people to be treated equally bad?

And since when do any entitlement programs? Particularly this health care monstrousity help people?

You cant take someones liberty and deprive their soul for its need to work and bless them.

 

[Common Sense]

I don't like it, but I think it would be a bad move to allow taxes to increase.

I prefer:
(1) The current taxes rates on everyone making under $1 million staying the same.
(2) Making Federal and State Worker Pension plans illegal
(3) A decrease of capital gains tax to 5%
(4) End the Death Tax

1 and 2 are great ideas.

3 - isnt viable simply because its typically only the wealthy who have large amount of investment income, this would allow them to pump more money into investment vehicle and take smaller salaries in order to decrease their tax liability. id actually be in favor of seeing a 2 tiered system for capital gains. with the first $100k of profits per year as tax free, and then everything above be taxed at your current tax rate.

4 - the estate tax needs to be there in some way, shape or form. but i think there needs to be 2 levels. one for businesses and one for individuals. this way families can pass on businesses without huge tax liabilities, which can have higher level. then one for individual estates, this is so people dont try to avoid tax liabilities by passing on their estates tax free. i dont have a level set for either, but i see their purpose.

 

[Avatar4321]

David Stockman said it clearly and concisely the other day - we couldn't afford these tax cuts when they passed originally and we can't afford them now.

These arent tax cuts any more. They are maintaining the Status quo.

And its amazing how we cant afford cutting taxes, but we can funnel Trillions of dollars into entitlement programs we already know wont work.

Not an argument worth having. Bottom line revenues decreased; Can we afford it? That's the question. Call it a cut, or lack of an increase. Results identical.

Revenues dont decrease by keeping the tax rate the same. They stay the same.

Why werent you worrying about whether the stimulus or the health care bill were affordable? Both of them have empowered government and made our economy worse. But you have no problem with those.

Lowering taxes empowers individuals and you have a problem with that. And we aren't even lowering taxes!

It's mind boggling.

We to empower people. Not government.

 

[Common Sense]

The only thing this bill does is promise to raise taxes in two years, as opposed to this next year. Romney is right in saying businesses won't go on a hiring frenzy knowing future tax hikes are likely to happen.

Obama knows this tax "cut", which is not a cut at all, isn't going to work because it isn't for real. And he hopes it won't work so in two years he can say "see, tax cuts don't work".

I agree....


Obama is going to just use this in 2012 to say tax cuts dont work..... problem is, there were no tax cuts and $200 billion in new spending (I say it is more, but whatever)

This is just plain stupid, and the GOP needs to stand up and say NO.

Let the newly elected Congress handle it. The Dems have had 2 years to handle it and they have'nt.

the GOP are the ones pushing for the tax cuts (or maintaining the tax level, whatever you want to call it)

 

[Cuyo]

I don't like it, but I think it would be a bad move to allow taxes to increase.

I prefer:
(1) The current taxes rates on everyone making under $1 million staying the same.
(2) Making Federal and State Worker Pension plans illegal
(3) A decrease of capital gains tax to 5%
(4) End the Death Tax

Is that on principles alone, or do you believe it would result in a favorable outcome for most people?

If you're in the 0.2% of people affected by the estate tax, God bless ya, you're doing better than most of us.

What right does the gov't have to tax us twice?

Why not just take it all????

It's not unusual for the "Same money" to be taxed virtually every time it changes hands. Isn't your paycheck taxed? Don't you then also pay sales tax when shopping? Doesn't the store then get taxed on their own profits?

So really it's not the dead man being taxed, it's his heirs on their new income -- That is, the money they've just inherited (acquired).

 

[Common Sense]

These arent tax cuts any more. They are maintaining the Status quo.

And its amazing how we cant afford cutting taxes, but we can funnel Trillions of dollars into entitlement programs we already know wont work.

Not an argument worth having. Bottom line revenues decreased; Can we afford it? That's the question. Call it a cut, or lack of an increase. Results identical.

Revenues dont decrease by keeping the tax rate the same. They stay the same.

Why werent you worrying about whether the stimulus or the health care bill were affordable? Both of them have empowered government and made our economy worse. But you have no problem with those.

Lowering taxes empowers individuals and you have a problem with that. And we aren't even lowering taxes!

It's mind boggling.

We to empower people. Not government.

we still have some of the lowest tax levels historically.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history-20100923.pdf

simply cutting taxes does not always empower people to spend. (look at the clinton era)

in 1986 the top tax bracket was 50%. thats high taxes and that was during Reagan

 

[Cuyo]

These arent tax cuts any more. They are maintaining the Status quo.

And its amazing how we cant afford cutting taxes, but we can funnel Trillions of dollars into entitlement programs we already know wont work.

Not an argument worth having. Bottom line revenues decreased; Can we afford it? That's the question. Call it a cut, or lack of an increase. Results identical.

Revenues dont decrease by keeping the tax rate the same. They stay the same.

Why werent you worrying about whether the stimulus or the health care bill were affordable? Both of them have empowered government and made our economy worse. But you have no problem with those.

Lowering taxes empowers individuals and you have a problem with that. And we aren't even lowering taxes!

It's mind boggling.

We to empower people. Not government.

Stimulus was necessary. I don't think you'll find a single reputable economist who disagrees. HCR is deficit-neutral.

Yes, I have a problem with it when it means running up the tab on the ol' federal credit card. We pay interest on that thing, ya know. It'll cost us less now than what will ultimately be required if we continue down this path.

 

[elvis]

Not an argument worth having. Bottom line revenues decreased; Can we afford it? That's the question. Call it a cut, or lack of an increase. Results identical.

Revenues dont decrease by keeping the tax rate the same. They stay the same.

Why werent you worrying about whether the stimulus or the health care bill were affordable? Both of them have empowered government and made our economy worse. But you have no problem with those.

Lowering taxes empowers individuals and you have a problem with that. And we aren't even lowering taxes!

It's mind boggling.

We to empower people. Not government.

we still have some of the lowest tax levels historically.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history-20100923.pdf

simply cutting taxes does not always empower people to spend. (look at the clinton era)

in 1986 the top tax bracket was 50%. thats high taxes

but dems rip on herbert hoover for raising taxes during economic turmoil. Now obama wants to essentially do the same thing.

 

[Avatar4321]

Stimulus was necessary. I don't think you'll find a single reputable economist who disagrees. HCR is deficit-neutral.

Yes, I have a problem with it when it means running up the tab on the ol' federal credit card. We pay interest on that thing, ya know. It'll cost us less now than what will ultimately be required if we continue down this path.

Nonsense and you know it.

We need to cut taxes and cut spending immediately. Or we are going to be very screwed very soon

 

[jillian]

see if i'm not right about all of that.




oh yeah...and kiss my butt.

 

[Cuyo]

Stimulus was necessary. I don't think you'll find a single reputable economist who disagrees. HCR is deficit-neutral.

Yes, I have a problem with it when it means running up the tab on the ol' federal credit card. We pay interest on that thing, ya know. It'll cost us less now than what will ultimately be required if we continue down this path.

Nonsense and you know it.

We need to cut taxes and cut spending immediately. Or we are going to be very screwed very soon

Nonsense? Which part? I've re-read and I don't see anything that's factually incorrect. The last sentence is a matter of opinion, but I think most would agree with it.

What spending do you want to cut? Specifically. This is the part where the conversation comes to a screeching halt. The budget this year is $3.55 trillion. $1.4 trillion is discretionary, and more than half of that is military. Non-military discretionary spending is roundabout $600 billion. The deficit is $1.2 trillion.

Ready..... Go.