Mitt's economic advisor says 'tax the rich'

[DontBeStupid]

Romney nor The Rabbi ever said that at all. That is you injecting something that isn't there.

"Revenue neutral". What do you think that means? That means we will not increase revenue. You can't balance the budget without more revenue.

"Broaden the tax base". What do you think that means? It means people who aren't paying now will start to pay.

Honestly, what do you think he's saying here?

You said "Romeny will raise taxes on the poor and not try to balance the budget"

You can balance a defecit budget by cutting spending and/or raising taxes so your "not trying to balance the budget" part of your statment is you injecting something that isn't there.


And everyone should pay some taxes.

Really? You think you can cut $1.5T from the budget? And without fundamentally destroying our economy?

Please enlighten us as to how.

 

[DiamondDave]

"Revenue neutral". What do you think that means? That means we will not increase revenue. You can't balance the budget without more revenue.

"Broaden the tax base". What do you think that means? It means people who aren't paying now will start to pay.

Honestly, what do you think he's saying here?

You said "Romeny will raise taxes on the poor and not try to balance the budget"

You can balance a defecit budget by cutting spending and/or raising taxes so your "not trying to balance the budget" part of your statment is you injecting something that isn't there.


And everyone should pay some taxes.

Really? You think you can cut $1.5T from the budget? And without fundamentally destroying our economy?

Please enlighten us as to how.

If our economy would be solely reliant on what government spends, you might have a point... it is not like things that the government would cut, that would still be in demand, would not be picked up by private business.. our economy can and would do well with a smaller federal government, IMHO

 

[The Rabbi]

Glenn Hubbard, Romney Economic Adviser: 'Bulk Of The Adjustment' Should Be Borne By The Wealthy



Mr Etch A Sketch has always said just the opposite so I wonder if he has been told what he has "on the table". For that matter, I wonder if Mitt's one percent cronies know good ole Mittens is planning to engage in some "class warfare".

Gotta love the Clown Car Politicians.

You are the laziest and most dishonest fuck on this board. Worse than Chris.
Here is what Hubbard actually said:

HUBBARD: No. What Governor Romney has said is, look, first of all, we need to cut marginal rates. And he would cut them essentially to exactly the same levels in the Bowles-Simpson so-called compromise plan. Part of that revenue is made up with economic growth. Most of that, though, has to come from base broadening, about which he's said two things. One, everything should be on the table. There's nothing eliminated, put everything on the table. And second, that the bulk of the adjustment be borne by upper income households. Remember, that Bowles-Simpson was trying to raise close to 2 percentage points of GDP in revenue. Governor Romney is trying to be revenue neutral. And so his tax plan wouldn't have to raise as much revenue from base broadening as Bowles-Simpson.

So he will broaden the base. That means everyone pays. Get it?

Got it.

Romney will raise taxes on the poor and not try to balance the budget.

No, you didn't get it.
And I don't mean just this thread.

 

[The Rabbi]

You said "Romeny will raise taxes on the poor and not try to balance the budget"

You can balance a defecit budget by cutting spending and/or raising taxes so your "not trying to balance the budget" part of your statment is you injecting something that isn't there.


And everyone should pay some taxes.

Really? You think you can cut $1.5T from the budget? And without fundamentally destroying our economy?

Please enlighten us as to how.

If our economy would be solely reliant on what government spends, you might have a point... it is not like things that the government would cut, that would still be in demand, would not be picked up by private business.. our economy can and would do well with a smaller federal government, IMHO

Even if he fails to do anything but bring the deficit back to what it was under Bush that would still be a massive improvement.

 

[DontBeStupid]

You said "Romeny will raise taxes on the poor and not try to balance the budget"

You can balance a defecit budget by cutting spending and/or raising taxes so your "not trying to balance the budget" part of your statment is you injecting something that isn't there.


And everyone should pay some taxes.

Really? You think you can cut $1.5T from the budget? And without fundamentally destroying our economy?

Please enlighten us as to how.

If our economy would be solely reliant on what government spends, you might have a point... it is not like things that the government would cut, that would still be in demand, would not be picked up by private business.. our economy can and would do well with a smaller federal government, IMHO

So ... you don't know.

You could have just said that.

 

[DiamondDave]

Really? You think you can cut $1.5T from the budget? And without fundamentally destroying our economy?

Please enlighten us as to how.

If our economy would be solely reliant on what government spends, you might have a point... it is not like things that the government would cut, that would still be in demand, would not be picked up by private business.. our economy can and would do well with a smaller federal government, IMHO

So ... you don't know.

You could have just said that.

Nor do you.. you are just assuming that our economy is entirely reliant on government spending...

 

[DontBeStupid]

If our economy would be solely reliant on what government spends, you might have a point... it is not like things that the government would cut, that would still be in demand, would not be picked up by private business.. our economy can and would do well with a smaller federal government, IMHO

So ... you don't know.

You could have just said that.

Nor do you.. you are just assuming that our economy is entirely reliant on government spending...

Nope. Never said that. Nice try though.

What I know is that Govt spending is part of our GDP, whether you like it or not. You want to cut 10% of our GDP. And you seem to think you can do it without any negative affects.

So, I'd like to hear how you do it.

 

[g5000]

Romney's tax plan is to eliminate large swaths of tax deductions, credits, and subsidies while lowering the tax rates and increasing revenue.

Individual Taxes

America’s individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.

•Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
•Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
•Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
•Eliminate the Death Tax
•Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
Corporate Taxes

The U.S. economy’s 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in the industrial world, reducing the ability of our nation’s businesses to compete in the global economy and to invest and create jobs at home. By limiting investment and growth, the high rate of corporate tax also hurts U.S. wages.

•Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent
•Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit
•Switch to a territorial tax system
•Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Tax

 

[DiamondDave]

So ... you don't know.

You could have just said that.

Nor do you.. you are just assuming that our economy is entirely reliant on government spending...

Nope. Never said that. Nice try though.

What I know is that Govt spending is part of our GDP, whether you like it or not. You want to cut 10% of our GDP. And you seem to think you can do it without any negative affects.

So, I'd like to hear how you do it.

A non-producing part of our GDP...

As I stated... I fully believe things that would still be in demand that are provided by the government, would bring about business.. with businesses clamoring to fill that demand...

that is except for the useless entitlement stuff

Much like the stimulus brought about 'improvements' that were temporary and unsustainable, any downturn would also be temporary

 

[Toro]

How much should taxes go up for the rich?

How much revenue will it bring in?

For starters, all Bush Era Tax Rates need to go away. This will raise ALL taxes (ie. broaden the base) back up to Clinton levels. At their worst, Clinton levels brought in 17.5% of GDP in tax revenue. That would give us, today, $2.7T in revenue, $400B off our deficit. Once we were back to 5% unemployment, we could get 19% of GDP, which would be $2.945T, and out deficit is almost cut in half. Just by allowing Bush Rates to go away.

Next, capital gains taxes are taxed as income. Always. Period. This has been estimated to bring in $100B a year in revenue.

Then, businesses, since they're people, need to pay their fair share. Effective rates for companies are around 1% of GDP. This is 1/6 what it was in the 50s. Raise rates back to the level of the 1950s. This would give us some $700B more a year in revenue and the deficit is gone.


It goes to programs that help the largest number of citizens.


History has not shown that. Also, we're talking about levels from the Clinton Era and from the 1950s. Is there anyone who thinks those times were not good?

What is the annual deficit after these taxes are collected and the money is spent?

Asked and answered. This plan would balance the budget and would be shared by a large number of people.

While I see that you gave it a good and honest shot I think you lack the ability to see what the Bush era tax cuts did. The cuts created a boom, the spending caused a recession/depression.

If you get rid of the Bush era tax cuts you will not get projected amounts of revenue. Under Clinton times were different, we had 2 bubbles and spending was still pretty low compared to today. Clinton tax rates also came with growing deficits and recessions, they raided SS to make it look as if there was a projected surplus as we all should know by now.

Today we also have mass inflation on energy and food. Housing is still too high and that is mainly due to the poor economy and lack of jobs and loss of good paying jobs.

I’ll just stop here and leave it at you can’t compare the times under Clinton to today. Higher taxes right now would be devastating and you don’t actually want the Bush era tax cuts to go away, you want part of them to go away while you keep taxes lower for most people… meaning you’re numbers of revenue are inaccurate.

So whats the point =D

Tax cuts did not create a boom nor did spending cause a recession. That's ridiculous.

We should eventually go back to the Clinton era tax regime but doing so now is a bad idea. A better idea would be to implement tax reform, lowering tax rates and eliminating tax expenditures such as mortgage deduction. But to say that the Clinton era tax regime is structurally bad for the economy merely demonstrates ignorance.

 

[DiamondDave]

For starters, all Bush Era Tax Rates need to go away. This will raise ALL taxes (ie. broaden the base) back up to Clinton levels. At their worst, Clinton levels brought in 17.5% of GDP in tax revenue. That would give us, today, $2.7T in revenue, $400B off our deficit. Once we were back to 5% unemployment, we could get 19% of GDP, which would be $2.945T, and out deficit is almost cut in half. Just by allowing Bush Rates to go away.

Next, capital gains taxes are taxed as income. Always. Period. This has been estimated to bring in $100B a year in revenue.

Then, businesses, since they're people, need to pay their fair share. Effective rates for companies are around 1% of GDP. This is 1/6 what it was in the 50s. Raise rates back to the level of the 1950s. This would give us some $700B more a year in revenue and the deficit is gone.


It goes to programs that help the largest number of citizens.


History has not shown that. Also, we're talking about levels from the Clinton Era and from the 1950s. Is there anyone who thinks those times were not good?


Asked and answered. This plan would balance the budget and would be shared by a large number of people.

While I see that you gave it a good and honest shot I think you lack the ability to see what the Bush era tax cuts did. The cuts created a boom, the spending caused a recession/depression.

If you get rid of the Bush era tax cuts you will not get projected amounts of revenue. Under Clinton times were different, we had 2 bubbles and spending was still pretty low compared to today. Clinton tax rates also came with growing deficits and recessions, they raided SS to make it look as if there was a projected surplus as we all should know by now.

Today we also have mass inflation on energy and food. Housing is still too high and that is mainly due to the poor economy and lack of jobs and loss of good paying jobs.

I’ll just stop here and leave it at you can’t compare the times under Clinton to today. Higher taxes right now would be devastating and you don’t actually want the Bush era tax cuts to go away, you want part of them to go away while you keep taxes lower for most people… meaning you’re numbers of revenue are inaccurate.

So whats the point =D

Tax cuts did not create a boom nor did spending cause a recession. That's ridiculous.

We should eventually go back to the Clinton era tax regime but doing so now is a bad idea. A better idea would be to implement tax reform, lowering tax rates and eliminating tax expenditures such as mortgage deduction. But to say that the Clinton era tax regime is structurally bad for the economy merely demonstrates ignorance.

Hmmm.. what I have been saying for what seems like eons here...

Well.. that in combination with huge cuts to government spending

 

[The Rabbi]

For starters, all Bush Era Tax Rates need to go away. This will raise ALL taxes (ie. broaden the base) back up to Clinton levels. At their worst, Clinton levels brought in 17.5% of GDP in tax revenue. That would give us, today, $2.7T in revenue, $400B off our deficit. Once we were back to 5% unemployment, we could get 19% of GDP, which would be $2.945T, and out deficit is almost cut in half. Just by allowing Bush Rates to go away.

Next, capital gains taxes are taxed as income. Always. Period. This has been estimated to bring in $100B a year in revenue.

Then, businesses, since they're people, need to pay their fair share. Effective rates for companies are around 1% of GDP. This is 1/6 what it was in the 50s. Raise rates back to the level of the 1950s. This would give us some $700B more a year in revenue and the deficit is gone.


It goes to programs that help the largest number of citizens.


History has not shown that. Also, we're talking about levels from the Clinton Era and from the 1950s. Is there anyone who thinks those times were not good?


Asked and answered. This plan would balance the budget and would be shared by a large number of people.

While I see that you gave it a good and honest shot I think you lack the ability to see what the Bush era tax cuts did. The cuts created a boom, the spending caused a recession/depression.

If you get rid of the Bush era tax cuts you will not get projected amounts of revenue. Under Clinton times were different, we had 2 bubbles and spending was still pretty low compared to today. Clinton tax rates also came with growing deficits and recessions, they raided SS to make it look as if there was a projected surplus as we all should know by now.

Today we also have mass inflation on energy and food. Housing is still too high and that is mainly due to the poor economy and lack of jobs and loss of good paying jobs.

I’ll just stop here and leave it at you can’t compare the times under Clinton to today. Higher taxes right now would be devastating and you don’t actually want the Bush era tax cuts to go away, you want part of them to go away while you keep taxes lower for most people… meaning you’re numbers of revenue are inaccurate.

So whats the point =D

Tax cuts did not create a boom nor did spending cause a recession. That's ridiculous.

We should eventually go back to the Clinton era tax regime but doing so now is a bad idea. A better idea would be to implement tax reform, lowering tax rates and eliminating tax expenditures such as mortgage deduction. But to say that the Clinton era tax regime is structurally bad for the economy merely demonstrates ignorance.

Do you think tax rates don't matter?
When cap gains taxes were lowered the Treasury took in more money than they did under the higher rate. Even Obama acknowledged as much.

 

[Toro]

While I see that you gave it a good and honest shot I think you lack the ability to see what the Bush era tax cuts did. The cuts created a boom, the spending caused a recession/depression.

If you get rid of the Bush era tax cuts you will not get projected amounts of revenue. Under Clinton times were different, we had 2 bubbles and spending was still pretty low compared to today. Clinton tax rates also came with growing deficits and recessions, they raided SS to make it look as if there was a projected surplus as we all should know by now.

Today we also have mass inflation on energy and food. Housing is still too high and that is mainly due to the poor economy and lack of jobs and loss of good paying jobs.

I’ll just stop here and leave it at you can’t compare the times under Clinton to today. Higher taxes right now would be devastating and you don’t actually want the Bush era tax cuts to go away, you want part of them to go away while you keep taxes lower for most people… meaning you’re numbers of revenue are inaccurate.

So whats the point =D

Tax cuts did not create a boom nor did spending cause a recession. That's ridiculous.

We should eventually go back to the Clinton era tax regime but doing so now is a bad idea. A better idea would be to implement tax reform, lowering tax rates and eliminating tax expenditures such as mortgage deduction. But to say that the Clinton era tax regime is structurally bad for the economy merely demonstrates ignorance.

Do you think tax rates don't matter?
When cap gains taxes were lowered the Treasury took in more money than they did under the higher rate. Even Obama acknowledged as much.

Depends on the tax rate. Cutting corporate tax rates often increases revenues, cutting natural resource royalties usually increases revenues, cutting capital gains taxes may increase revenues, but cutting income and sales taxes blow holes wide open in budgets.

 

[Staidhup]

For starters, all Bush Era Tax Rates need to go away. This will raise ALL taxes (ie. broaden the base) back up to Clinton levels. At their worst, Clinton levels brought in 17.5% of GDP in tax revenue. That would give us, today, $2.7T in revenue, $400B off our deficit. Once we were back to 5% unemployment, we could get 19% of GDP, which would be $2.945T, and out deficit is almost cut in half. Just by allowing Bush Rates to go away.

Next, capital gains taxes are taxed as income. Always. Period. This has been estimated to bring in $100B a year in revenue.

Then, businesses, since they're people, need to pay their fair share. Effective rates for companies are around 1% of GDP. This is 1/6 what it was in the 50s. Raise rates back to the level of the 1950s. This would give us some $700B more a year in revenue and the deficit is gone.


It goes to programs that help the largest number of citizens.


History has not shown that. Also, we're talking about levels from the Clinton Era and from the 1950s. Is there anyone who thinks those times were not good?


Asked and answered. This plan would balance the budget and would be shared by a large number of people.

While I see that you gave it a good and honest shot I think you lack the ability to see what the Bush era tax cuts did. The cuts created a boom, the spending caused a recession/depression.

If you get rid of the Bush era tax cuts you will not get projected amounts of revenue. Under Clinton times were different, we had 2 bubbles and spending was still pretty low compared to today. Clinton tax rates also came with growing deficits and recessions, they raided SS to make it look as if there was a projected surplus as we all should know by now.

Today we also have mass inflation on energy and food. Housing is still too high and that is mainly due to the poor economy and lack of jobs and loss of good paying jobs.

I’ll just stop here and leave it at you can’t compare the times under Clinton to today. Higher taxes right now would be devastating and you don’t actually want the Bush era tax cuts to go away, you want part of them to go away while you keep taxes lower for most people… meaning you’re numbers of revenue are inaccurate.

So whats the point =D

Tax cuts did not create a boom nor did spending cause a recession. That's ridiculous.

We should eventually go back to the Clinton era tax regime but doing so now is a bad idea. A better idea would be to implement tax reform, lowering tax rates and eliminating tax expenditures such as mortgage deduction. But to say that the Clinton era tax regime is structurally bad for the economy merely demonstrates ignorance.

The Clinton era tax rate system only worked because we were immersed deep in a bubble economy fueled by smoke and mirrors, and the only bubble we have today is the dollar, debt, and sovereign debt. Holding current tax rates as they are, allowing post tax income to be repatriated without further taxation, and reducing corporate tax rates to European levels will give us a fighting chance down the road.

 

[Toro]

While I see that you gave it a good and honest shot I think you lack the ability to see what the Bush era tax cuts did. The cuts created a boom, the spending caused a recession/depression.

If you get rid of the Bush era tax cuts you will not get projected amounts of revenue. Under Clinton times were different, we had 2 bubbles and spending was still pretty low compared to today. Clinton tax rates also came with growing deficits and recessions, they raided SS to make it look as if there was a projected surplus as we all should know by now.

Today we also have mass inflation on energy and food. Housing is still too high and that is mainly due to the poor economy and lack of jobs and loss of good paying jobs.

I’ll just stop here and leave it at you can’t compare the times under Clinton to today. Higher taxes right now would be devastating and you don’t actually want the Bush era tax cuts to go away, you want part of them to go away while you keep taxes lower for most people… meaning you’re numbers of revenue are inaccurate.

So whats the point =D

Tax cuts did not create a boom nor did spending cause a recession. That's ridiculous.

We should eventually go back to the Clinton era tax regime but doing so now is a bad idea. A better idea would be to implement tax reform, lowering tax rates and eliminating tax expenditures such as mortgage deduction. But to say that the Clinton era tax regime is structurally bad for the economy merely demonstrates ignorance.

The Clinton era tax rate system only worked because we were immersed deep in a bubble economy fueled by smoke and mirrors, and the only bubble we have today is the dollar, debt, and sovereign debt. Holding current tax rates as they are, allowing post tax income to be repatriated without further taxation, and reducing corporate tax rates to European levels will give us a fighting chance down the road.

There is zero empirical evidence to support your case.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

"Revenue neutral". What do you think that means? That means we will not increase revenue. You can't balance the budget without more revenue.

"Broaden the tax base". What do you think that means? It means people who aren't paying now will start to pay.

Honestly, what do you think he's saying here?

You said "Romeny will raise taxes on the poor and not try to balance the budget"

You can balance a defecit budget by cutting spending and/or raising taxes so your "not trying to balance the budget" part of your statment is you injecting something that isn't there.


And everyone should pay some taxes.

Really? You think you can cut $1.5T from the budget? And without fundamentally destroying our economy?

Please enlighten us as to how.

nice try at deflection away from the fact that you lied about Romney and balancing the budget.

DontBeStupid, sure no problem I won't be stupid and fall for your deflection


Read what I said "Cutting spending and/or raising taxes" and stop being stupid

 

[The Rabbi]

Tax cuts did not create a boom nor did spending cause a recession. That's ridiculous.

We should eventually go back to the Clinton era tax regime but doing so now is a bad idea. A better idea would be to implement tax reform, lowering tax rates and eliminating tax expenditures such as mortgage deduction. But to say that the Clinton era tax regime is structurally bad for the economy merely demonstrates ignorance.

The Clinton era tax rate system only worked because we were immersed deep in a bubble economy fueled by smoke and mirrors, and the only bubble we have today is the dollar, debt, and sovereign debt. Holding current tax rates as they are, allowing post tax income to be repatriated without further taxation, and reducing corporate tax rates to European levels will give us a fighting chance down the road.

There is zero empirical evidence to support your case.

Other than the country fell into a recession as Clinton left office and recovered after the Bush tax cuts kicked in.

 

[Toro]

The Clinton era tax rate system only worked because we were immersed deep in a bubble economy fueled by smoke and mirrors, and the only bubble we have today is the dollar, debt, and sovereign debt. Holding current tax rates as they are, allowing post tax income to be repatriated without further taxation, and reducing corporate tax rates to European levels will give us a fighting chance down the road.

There is zero empirical evidence to support your case.

Other than the country fell into a recession as Clinton left office and recovered after the Bush tax cuts kicked in.

Econometrics exists to dispel such logical fallacies.

 

[zeke]

Other than the country fell into a recession as Clinton left office and recovered after the Bush tax cuts kicked in.
Econometrics exists to dispel such logical fallacies.

It is getting harder and harder to argue with a fantasy reality. And from what I can tell, every Rethug lives on "Fantasy Island". Weird.

How come that one dude couldn't figure out where to cut the 1.8 trillion or whatever it was and couldn't say what a trillion plus in cuts would do to the overall economy.

I really wanted to read that answer. ROTFLMAO.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is zero empirical evidence to support your case.

Other than the country fell into a recession as Clinton left office and recovered after the Bush tax cuts kicked in.

Econometrics exists to dispel such logical fallacies.

i.e. you can't. You've already admitted tax rates matter. While I agree there are many factors in all of this, tax rates certainly figure in.
Bush's tax rates were perfectly sufficient to deliver rising revenue to the economy. Had the GOP Congress not decided to play Democrats and ramp spending up enormously the deficit would be very manageable.