Mitt Romney's stance on taxation

[OohPooPahDoo]

Mitt Romney's stance on taxation:

I will lower taxes 20% across the board, and then pay for the tax cut by raising taxes.




Way to go Mittens.

 

[Truthseeker420]

The only deduction he mentioned on the chopping block was the mortgage and the individual both of which would hit the middle class hard...just more voodoo economics.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The only deduction he mentioned on the chopping block was the mortgage and the individual both of which would hit the middle class hard...just more voodoo economics.

To be fair the mortgage interest deduction does benefit those paying the highest rates the most.


The point is that Mitt is hoping people won't catch on that elimination of deductions and credits = increased tax liability = more taxes. So he's going to pay for his tax cuts by raising taxes - literally.

 

[Katzndogz]

Mitt Romney's stance on taxation:

I will lower taxes 20% across the board, and then pay for the tax cut by raising taxes.




Way to go Mittens.

He never said that.

Why do you think obama didn't bring this up during the debate? Because he didn't want to hear Romney once again say "I never said that".

 

[Truthseeker420]

Mitt Romney's stance on taxation:

I will lower taxes 20% across the board, and then pay for the tax cut by raising taxes.




Way to go Mittens.

He never said that.

Why do you think obama didn't bring this up during the debate? Because he didn't want to hear Romney once again say "I never said that".

closing loopholes is raising taxes.

 

[VaYank5150]

$5 Trillion Tax Cut

The president said Romney was proposing a $5 trillion tax cut and Romney said he wasn’t. The president is off base here — Romney says his rate cuts and tax eliminations would be offset and the deficit wouldn’t increase.

Obama: Governor Romney’s central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut — on top of the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

Romney: First of all, I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.

To be clear, Romney has proposed cutting personal federal income tax rates across the board by 20 percent, in addition to extending the tax cuts enacted early in the Bush administration. He also proposes to eliminate the estate tax permanently, repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax, and eliminate taxes on interest, capital gains and dividends for taxpayers making under $200,000 a year in adjusted gross income.

By themselves, those cuts would, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, lower federal tax liability by “about $480 billion in calendar year 2015” compared with current tax policy, with Bush cuts left in place. The Obama campaign has extrapolated that figure out over 10 years, coming up with a $5 trillion figure over a decade.

However, Romney always has said he planned to offset that massive cut with equally massive reductions in tax preferences to broaden the tax base, thus losing no revenue and not increasing the deficit. So to that extent, the president is incorrect: Romney is not proposing a $5 trillion reduction in taxes.

The Impossible Plan

However, Romney continued to struggle to explain how he could possibly offset such a large loss of revenue without shifting the burden away from upper-income taxpayers, who benefit disproportionately from across-the-board rate cuts and especially from elimination of the estate tax (which falls only on estates exceeding $5.1 million left by any who die this year). The Tax Policy Center concluded earlier this year that it wasn’t mathematically possible for a plan such as Romney’s to cut rates as he promised without either favoring the wealthy or increasing the federal deficit.

Except for saying that his plan would bring in the same amount of money “when you account for growth,” Romney offered no new explanation for how he might accomplish all he’s promised. He just repeated those promises in some of the strongest terms yet.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Mitt Romney's stance on taxation:

I will lower taxes 20% across the board, and then pay for the tax cut by raising taxes.




Way to go Mittens.

He never said that.

Why do you think obama didn't bring this up during the debate? Because he didn't want to hear Romney once again say "I never said that".

He said he would pay for them by eliminating deductions and credits. Doing so increases the tax burdens of those they are eliminated on. That's a tax hike.

 

[VaYank5150]

Mitt Romney's stance on taxation:

I will lower taxes 20% across the board, and then pay for the tax cut by raising taxes.




Way to go Mittens.

He never said that.

Why do you think obama didn't bring this up during the debate? Because he didn't want to hear Romney once again say "I never said that".

He said he would pay for them by eliminating deductions and credits. Doing so increases the tax burdens of those they are eliminated on. That's a tax hike.

Apparently, this is only a tax hike if a Democrat does it...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

He never said that.

Why do you think obama didn't bring this up during the debate? Because he didn't want to hear Romney once again say "I never said that".

He said he would pay for them by eliminating deductions and credits. Doing so increases the tax burdens of those they are eliminated on. That's a tax hike.

Apparently, this is only a tax hike if a Democrat does it...

Yeah no fuckin shit.

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

$5 Trillion Tax Cut

The president said Romney was proposing a $5 trillion tax cut and Romney said he wasn’t. The president is off base here — Romney says his rate cuts and tax eliminations would be offset and the deficit wouldn’t increase.

Obama: Governor Romney’s central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut — on top of the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

Romney: First of all, I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.

To be clear, Romney has proposed cutting personal federal income tax rates across the board by 20 percent, in addition to extending the tax cuts enacted early in the Bush administration. He also proposes to eliminate the estate tax permanently, repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax, and eliminate taxes on interest, capital gains and dividends for taxpayers making under $200,000 a year in adjusted gross income.

By themselves, those cuts would, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, lower federal tax liability by “about $480 billion in calendar year 2015” compared with current tax policy, with Bush cuts left in place. The Obama campaign has extrapolated that figure out over 10 years, coming up with a $5 trillion figure over a decade.

However, Romney always has said he planned to offset that massive cut with equally massive reductions in tax preferences to broaden the tax base, thus losing no revenue and not increasing the deficit. So to that extent, the president is incorrect: Romney is not proposing a $5 trillion reduction in taxes.

The Impossible Plan

However, Romney continued to struggle to explain how he could possibly offset such a large loss of revenue without shifting the burden away from upper-income taxpayers, who benefit disproportionately from across-the-board rate cuts and especially from elimination of the estate tax (which falls only on estates exceeding $5.1 million left by any who die this year). The Tax Policy Center concluded earlier this year that it wasn’t mathematically possible for a plan such as Romney’s to cut rates as he promised without either favoring the wealthy or increasing the federal deficit.

Except for saying that his plan would bring in the same amount of money “when you account for growth,” Romney offered no new explanation for how he might accomplish all he’s promised. He just repeated those promises in some of the strongest terms yet.

However, Romney continued to struggle to explain how he could possibly offset such a large loss of revenue without shifting the burden away from upper-income taxpayers, who benefit disproportionately from across-the-board rate cuts and especially from elimination of the estate tax (which falls only on estates exceeding $5.1 million left by any who die this year). The Tax Policy Center concluded earlier this year that it wasn’t mathematically possible for a plan such as Romney’s to cut rates as he promised without either favoring the wealthy or increasing the federal deficit.

Except for saying that his plan would bring in the same amount of money “when you account for growth,” Romney offered no new explanation for how he might accomplish all he’s promised. He just repeated those promises in some of the strongest terms yet.

Exactly. If Obama had been more detailed and perhaps cited the Tax Policy Center, I think he would have fared better. But he was so damn vague when it came to rebutting Romney, saying things like "sources say this/that" but never saying what those sources are or when they were created.

 

[Erand7899]

Mitt Romney's stance on taxation:

I will lower taxes 20% across the board, and then pay for the tax cut by raising taxes.




Way to go Mittens.

Actually, that is your ignorant take of what Romney has proposed. He says he will lower tax rates by 20%. He did not say he will lower taxes by that amount.

He also says that the tax rate cuts for the upper income will be offset by eliminating the loopholes, deductiona and credits that the upper income taxpayers get.

None of this is cut in stone. I would fully imagine that if Romeny cannot get congress to make all of the necessary cuts in adjustments to income for the upper income taxpayers, he will reduce his proposed tax rate cuts to the levels that keeps higher income tax revenues the same as they currently are. Good fiscal managers modify their stances to deal with reality.

 

[VaYank5150]

Mitt Romney's stance on taxation:

I will lower taxes 20% across the board, and then pay for the tax cut by raising taxes.




Way to go Mittens.

Actually, that is your ignorant take of what Romney has proposed. He says he will lower tax rates by 20%. He did not say he will lower taxes by that amount.

He also says that the tax rate cuts for the upper income will be offset by eliminating the loopholes, deductiona and credits that the upper income taxpayers get.

None of this is cut in stone. I would fully imagine that if Romeny cannot get congress to make all of the necessary cuts in adjustments to income for the upper income taxpayers, he will reduce his proposed tax rate cuts to the levels that keeps higher income tax revenues the same as they currently are. Good fiscal managers modify their stances to deal with reality.

But.....when Obama does the same, he is called a liar, or not keeping his promises? Isn't that like a double standard, or perhaps even a little hypocritical?

 

[Erand7899]

Mitt Romney's stance on taxation:

I will lower taxes 20% across the board, and then pay for the tax cut by raising taxes.




Way to go Mittens.

Actually, that is your ignorant take of what Romney has proposed. He says he will lower tax rates by 20%. He did not say he will lower taxes by that amount.

He also says that the tax rate cuts for the upper income will be offset by eliminating the loopholes, deductiona and credits that the upper income taxpayers get.

None of this is cut in stone. I would fully imagine that if Romeny cannot get congress to make all of the necessary cuts in adjustments to income for the upper income taxpayers, he will reduce his proposed tax rate cuts to the levels that keeps higher income tax revenues the same as they currently are. Good fiscal managers modify their stances to deal with reality.

But.....when Obama does the same, he is called a liar, or not keeping his promises? Isn't that like a double standard, or perhaps even a little hypocritical?

Obama doesn't do the same, and frankly, I don't think he knows how to compromise successfully to get a good deal for all. He spent his first two years arrogantly pissing off every Republican in congress, and the next two years bemoaning how those awful Republicans would not work with him on his policies.

BTW, working to get the best deal possible, even if that deal does not reach your stated goal is not lying, or being hypocritical. Especially, when reaching your stated goals requires getting concurrence from a congress with widely diverging political goals of their own. There are two or more sides to every negotiation.

I might truely believe that I am worth a $100,000 salary, but if I can not negotiate successfully to get more than $90,000, I either take what I can get, or go somewhere else.

 

[VaYank5150]

Actually, that is your ignorant take of what Romney has proposed. He says he will lower tax rates by 20%. He did not say he will lower taxes by that amount.

He also says that the tax rate cuts for the upper income will be offset by eliminating the loopholes, deductiona and credits that the upper income taxpayers get.

None of this is cut in stone. I would fully imagine that if Romeny cannot get congress to make all of the necessary cuts in adjustments to income for the upper income taxpayers, he will reduce his proposed tax rate cuts to the levels that keeps higher income tax revenues the same as they currently are. Good fiscal managers modify their stances to deal with reality.

But.....when Obama does the same, he is called a liar, or not keeping his promises? Isn't that like a double standard, or perhaps even a little hypocritical?

Obama doesn't do the same, and frankly, I don't think he knows how to compromise successfully to get a good deal for all. He spent his first two years arrogantly pissing off every Republican in congress, and the next two years bemoaning how those awful Republicans would not work with him on his policies.

BTW, working to get the best deal possible, even if that deal does not reach your stated goal is not lying, or being hypocritical. Especially, when reaching your stated goals requires getting concurrence from a congress with widely diverging political goals of their own. There are two or more sides to every negotiation.

I might truely believe that I am worth a $100,000 salary, but if I can not negotiate successfully to get more than $90,000, I either take what I can get, or go somewhere else.

And you sincerely believe the lack of bipartisan support is all Obama's fault, and has absolutely nothing to do with the GOP's top priority?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc]Mitch McConnell: Top Priority, Make Obama a One Term President - YouTube[/ame]

 

[martybegan]

Mitt Romney's stance on taxation:

I will lower taxes 20% across the board, and then pay for the tax cut by raising taxes.




Way to go Mittens.

He never said that.

Why do you think obama didn't bring this up during the debate? Because he didn't want to hear Romney once again say "I never said that".

He said he would pay for them by eliminating deductions and credits. Doing so increases the tax burdens of those they are eliminated on. That's a tax hike.

Not if it allows you to reduce the gross rate.

Hopefully Romney will go for tax simplification, so people see what they are actually paying.