Wiping out deductions wouldn’t do it

D

deleted15807

Guest
Of course we all knew it wasn't possible but half the electorate wants to believe it. The centerpiece of Romney's plan is a bust.


Wiping out itemized deductions and raising taxes on investment income would generate only enough cash to pay for a minuscule reduction in federal tax rates, according to an official analysis, raising new questions about the workability of Republican-style tax reform.

In a report released Friday, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, the official scorekeeper for tax policy, concluded that such changes would pay for a 4 percent reduction in tax rates next year — far short of the 20 percent reduction sought by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.


Wiping out deductions wouldn’t allow for much lower tax rates
 

balsary

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Posts
1,805
Media
4
Likes
66
Points
193
Location
Indianapolis (Indiana, United States)
Gender
Male
And plain raising taxes won't do jack nor shit either.

How do you figure that? If you're saying that raising taxes alone won't balance the budget or reduce the debt then you're correct. To say it won't do anything is crazy. Care to back it up with something other than another snide remark?

Romney says he'll increase revenue by lowering taxes 20% across the board, then close loopholes to bring everyone back to their current tax rate. Would you care to comment on how that's possible? You know, argue against the topic of the thread rather than just throw out a bullshit one-liner?
 
Last edited:

KTF40

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
1,877
Media
3
Likes
60
Points
133
Location
DC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I don't understand how all these studies can come to any possible conclusion. Romney's entire plan is dependent upon broadening the tax base to generate more revenues. All these studies as far as I can tell completely discount this factor.

For example this part from the article -“This self-described ‘experiment’ says nothing about the pro-growth tax reform proposed by Mitt Romney,” Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in a statement. “It’s simply irrelevant to any analysis of his plan.”

Which is the point. And the problem is nobody, not even Mitt Romney, knows what kind of growth will result from his tax policies if any at all. Personally, I don't think much growth at all will result from these policies because there are too many structural problems with the economy itself that cannot be simply fixed by reforming the tax code.
 

h0neymustard

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Posts
2,668
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
73
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
How do you figure that? If you're saying that raising taxes alone won't balance the budget or reduce the debt then you're correct. To say it won't do anything is crazy. Care to back it up with something other than another snide remark?

Romney says he'll increase revenue by lowering taxes 20% across the board, then close loopholes to bring everyone back to their current tax rate. Would you care to comment on how that's possible? You know, argue against the topic of the thread rather than just throw out a bullshit one-liner?

Please go watch the video I posted by Bill Whittle in some other threads.
 

balsary

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Posts
1,805
Media
4
Likes
66
Points
193
Location
Indianapolis (Indiana, United States)
Gender
Male
I don't understand how all these studies can come to any possible conclusion. Romney's entire plan is dependent upon broadening the tax base to generate more revenues. All these studies as far as I can tell completely discount this factor.

For example this part from the article -“This self-described ‘experiment’ says nothing about the pro-growth tax reform proposed by Mitt Romney,” Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in a statement. “It’s simply irrelevant to any analysis of his plan.”

Which is the point. And the problem is nobody, not even Mitt Romney, knows what kind of growth will result from his tax policies if any at all. Personally, I don't think much growth at all will result from these policies because there are too many structural problems with the economy itself that cannot be simply fixed by reforming the tax code.

I agree that it's difficult to understand how one could come to a clear conclusion of the implications of Romney's tax plan. The problem I see is that Romney doesn't have a tax plan, at least not one that he's shared with us. Other than saying he's going to cut taxes 20% for everyone there really aren't any specifics. How can one come to a conclusion based on that? I'd love to hear the rest of his plan, hell I'm sure he'd like to hear it as well. To me, it sounds like a tactic to try and get votes. If you or anyone else has more specifics. I'd love to hear them.
 

KTF40

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
1,877
Media
3
Likes
60
Points
133
Location
DC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I agree that it's difficult to understand how one could come to a clear conclusion of the implications of Romney's tax plan. The problem I see is that Romney doesn't have a tax plan, at least not one that he's shared with us. Other than saying he's going to cut taxes 20% for everyone there really aren't any specifics. How can one come to a conclusion based on that? I'd love to hear the rest of his plan, hell I'm sure he'd like to hear it as well. To me, it sounds like a tactic to try and get votes. If you or anyone else has more specifics. I'd love to hear them.
No you're right. And it makes him and Ryan look terrible at the debates because they can't provide any specifics.

I've heard Ronald Reagan did the same thing when running for Presidency (provide a general "framework" but no specifics) and perhaps that's why they are doing what they are doing. But the world is a lot different now than under Reagan and that kind of strategy doesn't work very well imo.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
I agree that it's difficult to understand how one could come to a clear conclusion of the implications of Romney's tax plan. The problem I see is that Romney doesn't have a tax plan, at least not one that he's shared with us. Other than saying he's going to cut taxes 20% for everyone there really aren't any specifics. How can one come to a conclusion based on that? I'd love to hear the rest of his plan, hell I'm sure he'd like to hear it as well. To me, it sounds like a tactic to try and get votes. If you or anyone else has more specifics. I'd love to hear them.

Exactly. Just tell the voters you're going to cut their taxes. It's the SAME tactic that they use election after election after election....
 

balsary

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Posts
1,805
Media
4
Likes
66
Points
193
Location
Indianapolis (Indiana, United States)
Gender
Male
Please go watch the video I posted by Bill Whittle in some other threads.

You've posted several videos in several threads, I'm not going to hunt it down. Post it again if you like, I'll have a look.

Do we ever get to hear your opinion? More importantly, do we ever get to hear the basis for your opinion? If not, I'm not all that interested in watching video after video. I've been a smart-ass with you in the past, and that's not something I'm necessarily proud of, but it gets tiring trying to figure out what your trying to say. Mostly what I take from it is "I hate Obama" and someone with as much hatred as you seem to have must surely have a reason. I apologize for my past behavior, and I'll make a promise to you that it won't happen any more. I really hate to put anyone on ignore, but it's becoming the only option with you. No matter how much we disagree, I like to hear anyone's opinion, as long as they are speaking from an honest view. You only post in the politics forum here, which is fine with me, but why? My guess is that you're unhappy with the state of our country, you have an opinion on what's wrong with it or what can be done about it, and you want that opinion to be heard. If that's the case, all I'm asking for is your opinion. You dont owe it to me or anyone else. If you're here to simply stir up shit thats fine too I guess, but please let me know so I can use that ignore option.
 

balsary

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Posts
1,805
Media
4
Likes
66
Points
193
Location
Indianapolis (Indiana, United States)
Gender
Male
No you're right. And it makes him and Ryan look terrible at the debates because they can't provide any specifics.

I've heard Ronald Reagan did the same thing when running for Presidency (provide a general "framework" but no specifics) and perhaps that's why they are doing what they are doing. But the world is a lot different now than under Reagan and that kind of strategy doesn't work very well imo.

Yeah it makes them look terrible. Some other things Ronald Reagan did was to raise taxes several times, and increase the debt by 188%. Apparently it was ok to do then. Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy about our debt, nor do I think Obama is doing everything right. It's just odd to me when Reagan is considered a god amongst most Republicans.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Yeah time to put back on ignore. Just a troll.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Yeah it makes them look terrible. Some other things Ronald Reagan did was to raise taxes several times, and increase the debt by 188%. Apparently it was ok to do then. Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy about our debt, nor do I think Obama is doing everything right. It's just odd to me when Reagan is considered a god amongst most Republicans.

Reagan would get booed and hissed if he were to find himself at the 2012 RNC. He compromised and he was practical which is something that is simply not allowed by today's hard Right Wing Republican Party. Of course back then you didn't have Grover Norquist, the little man with the big agenda, signing up Republicans to his no tax increase ever pledge no matter the circumstance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

KTF40

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
1,877
Media
3
Likes
60
Points
133
Location
DC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Yeah it makes them look terrible. Some other things Ronald Reagan did was to raise taxes several times, and increase the debt by 188%. Apparently it was ok to do then. Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy about our debt, nor do I think Obama is doing everything right. It's just odd to me when Reagan is considered a god amongst most Republicans.

FWIW, the economy was a heck of a lot better under Reagan than Obama and showing actual legit signs of improvement unlike our current status.

And with regards to the debt comment, when you compare the current deficit to gdp ratio to that of Reagan's tenure, it's over twice as high. Not to mention that is on top of a $16 trillion debt which obviously wasn't as high under Reagan. Reagan's debt problems, while they did exist, aren't close or really even comparable to what we are dealing with today. Hence why you see any person concerned with the fiscal solvency of this country (Rep or Dem) voicing their disagreement over the current fiscal policies. And perhaps greater concern than under a Reagan administration for example.

Agree with you on the tax part though.
 

balsary

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Posts
1,805
Media
4
Likes
66
Points
193
Location
Indianapolis (Indiana, United States)
Gender
Male
FWIW, the economy was a heck of a lot better under Reagan than Obama and showing actual legit signs of improvement unlike our current status.

And with regards to the debt comment, when you compare the current deficit to gdp ratio to that of Reagan's tenure, it's over twice as high. Not to mention that is on top of a $16 trillion debt which obviously wasn't as high under Reagan. Reagan's debt problems, while they did exist, aren't close or really even comparable to what we are dealing with today. Hence why you see any person concerned with the fiscal solvency of this country (Rep or Dem) voicing their disagreement over the current fiscal policies. And perhaps greater concern than under a Reagan administration for example.

Agree with you on the tax part though.

I'm not trying to argue that we're in less trouble now that we were under Reagan, obviously it's worse. But the recession under Reagan doesn't compare to the global disaster that we currently face either. The point I was trying to make is that I find it odd how Republicans cling to Reagan as their god, (which in all fairness, he was the last decent Republican President) when he really didn't stay true to his commitment to lower taxes, nor was he fiscally conservative. Also, it's impossible for someone to argue that Obama wasn't handed a huge mess. I'm not saying it was all Bush's fault, but a lot of it is. Nor am I trying to claim that Obama isn't at fault either. Obama is far from perfect. Far, far, far from perfect, but I believe he's trying. He's made some bad decisions, as every President has, but I see most of his efforts as genuine attempts at improving the nation (btw I think Reagan was genuine in his love and concern for our nation as well). I don't see Romney's plan as the same, but again, no one really knows what his plan is. The decision between the two is so clear to me, if baffles me how one could support Romney. I asked my dad about this recently, and his response was: "I'm a Republican by default. My religion won't allow me to vote for someone that supports abortion." I'm not saying that's every Republican's view, but it's disturbing to me how much he will twist shit to support his position. This seems to be the case of most Republicans as well. I understand how one could support the values the Republican party espouses, but again, I'm amazed how anyone can support Romney.

Sorry to get so far off topic.
 

KTF40

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
1,877
Media
3
Likes
60
Points
133
Location
DC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm not trying to argue that we're in less trouble now that we were under Reagan, obviously it's worse. But the recession under Reagan doesn't compare to the global disaster that we currently face either. The point I was trying to make is that I find it odd how Republicans cling to Reagan as their god, (which in all fairness, he was the last decent Republican President) when he really didn't stay true to his commitment to lower taxes, nor was he fiscally conservative. Also, it's impossible for someone to argue that Obama wasn't handed a huge mess. I'm not saying it was all Bush's fault, but a lot of it is. Nor am I trying to claim that Obama isn't at fault either. Obama is far from perfect. Far, far, far from perfect, but I believe he's trying. He's made some bad decisions, as every President has, but I see most of his efforts as genuine attempts at improving the nation (btw I think Reagan was genuine in his love and concern for our nation as well). I don't see Romney's plan as the same, but again, no one really knows what his plan is. The decision between the two is so clear to me, if baffles me how one could support Romney. I asked my dad about this recently, and his response was: "I'm a Republican by default. My religion won't allow me to vote for someone that supports abortion." I'm not saying that's every Republican's view, but it's disturbing to me how much he will twist shit to support his position. This seems to be the case of most Republicans as well. I understand how one could support the values the Republican party espouses, but again, I'm amazed how anyone can support Romney.

Sorry to get so far off topic.

Well to continue to justify the admiration for Reagan, his policies were as close to being fiscally conservative as one could get in the natural state of our divided govt and had a lot of economic success. Even his tax increases were meant as a compromise with Democrats (not that he believed raising taxes was a good idea) and his rising debt had much to do with Democrats refusing to follow through with their promised budget cuts (although I'm sure many on here would argue with me on that). So when you say he wasn't fiscally conservative, that's quite debateable. If he ran the congress, he would have achieved his desired spending cuts without ever having to raise taxes. But, that's not the way the govt works. He compromised because he thought that was in the country's best interest and it came back to bite him in the ass because he left office with a huge a debt problem.

Not really interested in defending Romney cause I think the guy will be pretty awful, but I'll say to me it's quite easy to understand why one would pick him over Obama. Obama's had 4 years and he's had pretty dismal results. And what's worse, there is no reason to believe the next 4 years will be any better. He is completely unable to work with the opposition and has no new ideas past what we have seen in his first term. So to me, the question is can the other guy be that much worse?
 

balsary

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Posts
1,805
Media
4
Likes
66
Points
193
Location
Indianapolis (Indiana, United States)
Gender
Male
Well to continue to justify the admiration for Reagan, his policies were as close to being fiscally conservative as one could get in the natural state of our divided govt and had a lot of economic success. Even his tax increases were meant as a compromise with Democrats (not that he believed raising taxes was a good idea) and his rising debt had much to do with Democrats refusing to follow through with their promised budget cuts (although I'm sure many on here would argue with me on that). So when you say he wasn't fiscally conservative, that's quite debateable. If he ran the congress, he would have achieved his desired spending cuts without ever having to raise taxes. But, that's not the way the govt works. He compromised because he thought that was in the country's best interest and it came back to bite him in the ass because he left office with a huge a debt problem.

Not really interested in defending Romney cause I think the guy will be pretty awful, but I'll say to me it's quite easy to understand why one would pick him over Obama. Obama's had 4 years and he's had pretty dismal results. And what's worse, there is no reason to believe the next 4 years will be any better. He is completely unable to work with the opposition and has no new ideas past what we have seen in his first term. So to me, the question is can the other guy be that much worse?

My answer to that question is a resounding yes. Clearly someone could do worse. Whether or not Romney would do worse I can't say because again, we don't know where he stands on anything really. Of course that doesn't mean he'd do worse, but there isn't one shred of evidence that he'd do better. The fact the specifics surrounding his campaign are so vague leads me to believe that he would do worse, but who can say? I respect that you have your opinion though, and I appreciate that you've shown enough respect to explain the basis of it. We simply disagree, I can live with that. I for one hope we never find out how much worse Romney might be.
 

rogerg

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Posts
613
Media
0
Likes
370
Points
148
How do you figure that? If you're saying that raising taxes alone won't balance the budget or reduce the debt then you're correct. To say it won't do anything is crazy. Care to back it up with something other than another snide remark?

Romney says he'll increase revenue by lowering taxes 20% across the board, then close loopholes to bring everyone back to their current tax rate. Would you care to comment on how that's possible? You know, argue against the topic of the thread rather than just throw out a bullshit one-liner?

Ive been following this pretty tight and I think I understand it. Here Goes my best shot. Romney wants to do 3 things. One, lower everyones tax rate by 20%. That means if you are paying a 25% rate now, it will be lowered to 20% (25 - 20% is 20). Two, Close deductions and loop holes For upper income earners. Three, Grow the tax base. By cutting taxes across the board, this will increase economic growth. Contrary to Joe Biden the other night, this has been done before and its proven to work. The lower the taxes, the more money people have to spend. This increases demand which will in turn create production and JOBS.

Romney then caveats this three point plan with 3 points. One, the tax plan must remain deficit nuetral. If it adds to the deficit, then he will adjust the tax rate deductions. Two, the plan WILL NOT increase the tax burden on the middle class. And three, His plan will not reduce the overall tax burden paid by the wealthy. This is because closing certain decuctions and loopholes will be targeted toward the rich.

The point most folks keep missing on this is the third part of his plan. Its is true that just closing loop holes and deductions will not pay for the tax cut without growth. However, when you factor in 3% GDP growth, this will create jobs and new tax payers. This is where the difference is closed.

Lowering taxes is a good thing for economic growth and raising revenue for the government. Revenue to the federal Government increased dramaticaly after the Reagan tax cuts in the 80's, the clinton tax cuts in the 90's and the Bush tax cuts in the 2000's. In fact, 2007 was the highest grossing year ever for Revenues.

Raising taxes only temporarily increase revenues. However, higher tax rates have a dragging effect on private sector economic growth long term and shrink the tax base.

I still dont know what Obamas plan is. Tthe wealthy and redistribute it through another stimulus plan? really?

When has that ever worked??
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Lowering taxes is a good thing for economic growth and raising revenue for the government.

Yeah that's pretty much Grade A U.S.D.A Bullshit. Ever heard of George W. Bush and his massive tax cuts that a.) failed to raise revenue and b.) created a huge sea of red ink

Bush-Era Tax Cuts For The Rich Do Little To Boost Economy, Job Market: Studies

Calculating the cost of the Bush tax cuts (just for the wealthy)

And in real time since the Republicans would rather die that stop them:


Cost of Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest Americans Since 2001

Job growth over a decade: George W. Bush vs. President Obama


There's a reason Republicans have kept old GWB down hidden behind a cactus in Texas because his polices (modern day Republican policies) are a complete failure. Showing his face is a constant reminder of that fact.
 
Last edited by a moderator: