RINO Romney = Obama on Tax Cuts

[JimBowie1958]

Romney’s tax troubles … with conservatives « The Enterprise Blog

Mitt Romney has an income tax problem. No, not the Tim Geithner, Charlie Rangel kind.

Many economic conservatives, including influentials such as CNBC’s Larry Kudlow and The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore, find Romney’s tax reform plan – points one through seven of 59, to be specific – stale and unimaginative, especially when compared to those of his rivals. Newt Gingrich is pushing a 15 percent flat tax, while Jon Huntsman wants a 23 percent top marginal rate with a code wiped clean of inefficient deductions and credits. And don’t forget Herman Cain’s mothballed 9-9-9 proposal.

And Romney? He would keep the Bush tax cuts, eliminate investment taxes – but only for those making under $200,000 – kill the death tax, and cut the corporate tax rate to 25 percent. Solid but kinda “meh.” The Tax Foundation just graded the tax plans of the various Republican candidates, giving Romney an uninspiring “C-.” It said Romney’s plan “really takes no steps toward fundamental reform … [and] would do practically nothing to incent investment.”

The U.S. economy needs comprehensive, pro-growth tax reform. Taxes are also the ur-issue of the Reagan Republican Party. (As the late Robert Novak put it, “God put the Republican Party on earth to cut taxes.”) What Romney has offered, so far at least, falls short.

And it’s not just the details, it’s the delivery. During his Fox News interview Sunday, Romney again spoke about providing “tax relief” to the struggling middle-class. The wealthy, he added, “are doing just fine.” This pinch of populism is bad enough anytime, but especially with President Barack Obama is preaching a far more toxic version on the campaign trail.

Romney and taxes « Fully Myelinated

Nice piece from Chait taking a look at Romney’s position on taxes. It’s stuff like this that makes many liberals think he knows better and is just pandering to the conservative base (and I think they are right about this)

Romney proposes only to eliminate capital gains taxes on income under $200,000 a year. That would cover just a tiny portion of capital gains, making it essentially a symbolic measure. A few months ago, The Wall Street Journaleditorial page railed against Romney’s plan. The problem, the editorial noted, was not just that Romney wasn’t offering any new tax breaks for the rich. It was that the retreat “suggests that he’s afraid of Mr. Obama’s class warfare rhetoric” – that, in general, he will shrink from the task of advocating for policies that increase income inequality.

Any conservatives liable to worry about this would be positively alarmed after hearing Romney defend his position on Saturday night. During one portion of the debate, Romney mentioned that he, unlike Newt Gingrich, would restrict his capital gains tax cut to those under the $200,000 annual threshold. Gingrich replied, accurately, that households under that ceiling have barely any capital gains. Romney replied:

And — and in my view, the place that we could spend our precious tax dollars for a tax cut is on the middle class, that’s been most hurt by the Obama economy. That’s where I wanna eliminate taxes on interest dividends and capital gains.

“Spend our precious tax dollars” — that is a phrase to strike terror in right-wing hearts. For twenty years, the basis for Republican budgeting has been to refuse to acknowledge any tradeoff between cutting taxes for the rich and other governmental priorities. The Democratic position is to insist that tax cuts for the rich be measured against other possible choices — lower taxes for the rich mean higher taxes for the middle class, or lower social spending, or higher deficits. Here, Romney is actually employing the Democratic formulation.

This is just one more case of where Romnuts 'conservatism' is more illusion, spin and advertising than reality.

If the GOP nominates Romnuts, we need a new party, no doubt. What is the difference on tax policy? What is the difference on social issues that Romney hasnt flip-flopped on? What is the difference on health-care, so called 'Obamney' health care?

All Romnuts amounts to is a desperate slavish GOP attempt to win no matter what issue they have to bury, and the reality is that with Rmnuts they are undercutting their own eforts.

 

[occupied]

What's the matter? Not regressive enough?

 

[JimBowie1958]

What's the matter? Not regressive enough?

No, the proiblem is that US citizens are over-taxed. I dont care what other countries do, the government does not have the right to take just any amount of money from us that they choose.

Taxes need to be simplified and lowered permanently, no cuts that have to be voted back into place each year.

Corporate taxes should be reformed so that the only tax deductions that any corporation gets is based on costs to meet US regulations and have a deduction based on how many American citizens they emply (and not allow the deduction for noncitizens here on temporary work permits).

Our economy would take off like a rocket if the US government would give US busniesses an incentive to spread their profits with the rest of us and then get out of the way of the AMerican people as we fix things for ourselves.

There is nothing reggressive about that.