Nice try Bad anonymous, but you're missing the point entirely. The united states hasn't borrowed any money from china to pay for big bird, its borrowed money from china to pay for its monstrous defense spending. The point is that Romney is encouraging people to believe a falsehood, that he can lower everyone's taxes 20% (which will cost 5 trillion regardless of Romney's dishonest denials in the debate to the contrary) without increasing the deficit by making painless cuts to government spending for unneccessary things like the arts, PBS, and welfare. The truth is that proportionately speaking those things cost the U.S. government virtually nothing and if Romney wants to give everyone a 20% tax cut, add 2 trillion in spending to the military there aren't enough savings in eliminating all deductions for the wealthy to remotely begin to pay for that. The only way he can pay for that is to go after the deductions where the major money is brought in, for example, by eliminating the mortgage interest deduction, deductions for charity or state taxes. Only those things have a broad enough base and large enough revenue savings to pay for the 7 trillion cost of his promises but he won't specify which of those he'd eliminate because that would affect a broad swath of the American public and raise taxes on the middle class and poor who he hopes to con into voting for him by encouraging them to believe they can have a 20% tax cut by shooting big bird.
I'll address the Big Bird issue above in Jim's post
but I will respond here to nasty Canadian Priya's lies
"The point is that Romney is encouraging people to believe a falsehood, that he can lower everyone's taxes 20% (which will cost 5 trillion regardless of Romney's dishonest denials in the debate to the contrary) without increasing the deficit by making painless cuts to government spending for unneccessary things like the arts, PBS, and welfare."
this is a lie
he has said he intends to keep the revenue base exactly as it is now and with the same distribution among the brackets
he will do this by reducing deductions to compensate for the lower rates, increasing the incentive to produce
this approach succeeded spectacularly in the eighties
so, he's not reducing taxes at all just the rates
he does intend to eliminate some government spending but that is intended to reduce the deficit
"The truth is that proportionately speaking those things cost the U.S. government virtually nothing"
well, you listed three things: arts, PBS and welfare
the first two cost virtually nothing, as you say, but welfare compromises anywhere from 5 to 12% of the budget, depending on how you define it
"and if Romney wants to give everyone a 20% tax cut, add 2 trillion in spending to the military there aren't enough savings in eliminating all deductions for the wealthy to remotely begin to pay for that. The only way he can pay for that is to go after the deductions where the major money is brought in, for example, by eliminating the mortgage interest deduction, deductions for charity or state taxes. Only those things have a broad enough base and large enough revenue savings to pay for the 7 trillion cost of his promises"
well, first of all, the reduced deductions go to making up for the effect of lower rates, whuch is 4.8 trillion
and the eliminate deductions would come from every bracket in a way to achieve neutrality
so, middle class deductions would be eliminated to the extent the rates decrease for the middle class
and that would be true for brackets
and there are indeed sufficient tax deductions for the wealthy to compensate for their tax rate reduction
"but he won't specify which of those he'd eliminate because that would affect a broad swath of the American public and raise taxes on the middle class and poor who he hopes to con into voting for him by encouraging them to believe they can have a 20% tax cut by shooting big bird"
no, he won't specify which mix of deductions he favored because he didn't want to harden postions but he has indicated which deductions, and limits on deductions, are on the table
again, he has said the mix of deuctions chosen must make the tax rate reduction revenue neutral
this is what he has committed himself to do, and it is certainly doable
call him a liar if you like, but acknowledge that your assertion is idle speculation, without any empirical basis
What I want to know with the Romney plan is this: if he "broadens the base" by "eliminating deductions", what happens to the standard deduction. I want specifics before I vote.
I think the only deduction elimination that has been ruled out is the charitable deduction
of course, while Romney has said he will keep the revenue neutral within the classes, there will be individual losers and winners
those who currently have more deductions than the average person in their barcket will probably pay more than now and those who have fewer deductions than average will pay less
that would hold true regardless of your income level
my guess is if you are using the standard deduction, you'll wind up paying less whether they eliminate it or not
btw, this is all probably going to happen
on Wednesday night, the nation learned that the emperor has no clothes
Obama doesn't have the skills to reverse that perception
he's been protected an extraordinarily protective media prior to this
the deficiencies are too glaring when Obama must meet his opponent without help
have you noticed the attacks on Jim Lehrer?
it's intended to send a message to the moderator of the next debate that they better make Obama look good, or their reputation will be trashed
but there is little they can do
Obama flew to L.A. yesterday to try to assure all the celebrities that have been bankrolling his campaign
Bad anonymous said "he has said he intends to keep the revenue base exactly as it is now and with the same distribution among the brackets he will do this by reducing deductions to compensate for the lower rates, increasing the incentive to produce this approach succeeded spectacularly in the eighties".
An oft-repeated Republican lie, this approach failed miserably in the 1980's:
Reagan nearly tripled the budget deficit, despite taking back much of his original tax cut by raising taxes seven of the eight years he was in office. Unemployment soared to 10.8% after the Reagan tax cuts and there was a runaway growth of federal spending. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,”
Bad anonymous said "so, he's not reducing taxes at all just the rates he does intend to eliminate some government spending but that is intended to reduce the deficit".
Romney has promised to reduce taxes for the American public, if he lowers the rate but eliminates enough deductions to maintain the same revenue then he's lying when he tells Americans he's going to lower their taxes.
Bad anonymous said "welfare compromises anywhere from 5 to 12% of the budget, depending on how you define it".
and once again, even if he were to totally eliminate that spending it wouldn't begin to make up for the 7 trillion in military spending and tax cuts he promises to implement. Once again, Romeny has failed to specify any major cuts to government spending that could pay for his $7 Trillion expenditure. He's hiding his plans from the public when he ethically owes it to the public to tell them his plans before he becomes president, not after.
Bad anonymous said "well, first of all, the reduced deductions go to making up for the effect of lower rates, whuch is 4.8 trillion and the eliminate deductions would come from every bracket in a way to achieve neutrality so, middle class deductions would be eliminated to the extent the rates decrease for the middle class and that would be true for brackets and there are indeed sufficient tax deductions for the wealthy to compensate for their tax rate reduction ".
No, there are most certainly not enough tax deductions for the wealthy to compensate for their tax rate reduction.
From the Romney campaign's own tax plan, Mr. Romney's plan would
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)
In order to meet those commitments Romney would have to eliminate every other deduction in the personal tax code And that results in an average $2000 tax increase for middle class families with children and an overall tax increase on 95% of American taxpayers:
Bad anonymous said "he won't specify which mix of deductions he favored because he didn't want to harden postions but he has indicated which deductions, and limits on deductions, are on the table again, he has said the mix of deuctions chosen must make the tax rate reduction revenue neutral this is what he has committed himself to do, and it is certainly doable.".
If he wants to be president he owes it to the American public to tell them which of their tax deductions will be eliminated before they vote for him. To hide his plans until after he is elected is extremely dishonest and unethical. The American public deserves to know what a Romney presidency would mean before they vote for him, not after. He has not specified which deductions are on the table, he's flipp-flopped back and forth so many times no one has any solid idea of what he'd do if elected and that's the entire point of his campaign. By refusing to detail which deductions he'd eliminate and which tax cuts he's promissed he'd actually go through with no one can determine if its doable or not, so stop the BS about it being "doable", with Romeny there's no way to determine that because his promises have contradicted each other throughout the campaign and to the best that anyone's been able to figure it out it doesn't remotely come close to being "doable" to make major tax cuts and have them be revenue neutral.
8 Comments:
you know, this is funny, and America will laugh along
but, at the same time, they completely agree with Romney
there is no reason to borrow money from China so the government can fund television shows
PBS, Sesame Street, Downton Abbey, Materpiece Theater, Jim Lehrer, and, even, Antique Roadshow will survive without it
Nice try Bad anonymous, but you're missing the point entirely. The united states hasn't borrowed any money from china to pay for big bird, its borrowed money from china to pay for its monstrous defense spending. The point is that Romney is encouraging people to believe a falsehood, that he can lower everyone's taxes 20% (which will cost 5 trillion regardless of Romney's dishonest denials in the debate to the contrary) without increasing the deficit by making painless cuts to government spending for unneccessary things like the arts, PBS, and welfare. The truth is that proportionately speaking those things cost the U.S. government virtually nothing and if Romney wants to give everyone a 20% tax cut, add 2 trillion in spending to the military there aren't enough savings in eliminating all deductions for the wealthy to remotely begin to pay for that. The only way he can pay for that is to go after the deductions where the major money is brought in, for example, by eliminating the mortgage interest deduction, deductions for charity or state taxes. Only those things have a broad enough base and large enough revenue savings to pay for the 7 trillion cost of his promises but he won't specify which of those he'd eliminate because that would affect a broad swath of the American public and raise taxes on the middle class and poor who he hopes to con into voting for him by encouraging them to believe they can have a 20% tax cut by shooting big bird.
I'll address the Big Bird issue above in Jim's post
but I will respond here to nasty Canadian Priya's lies
"The point is that Romney is encouraging people to believe a falsehood, that he can lower everyone's taxes 20% (which will cost 5 trillion regardless of Romney's dishonest denials in the debate to the contrary) without increasing the deficit by making painless cuts to government spending for unneccessary things like the arts, PBS, and welfare."
this is a lie
he has said he intends to keep the revenue base exactly as it is now and with the same distribution among the brackets
he will do this by reducing deductions to compensate for the lower rates, increasing the incentive to produce
this approach succeeded spectacularly in the eighties
so, he's not reducing taxes at all just the rates
he does intend to eliminate some government spending but that is intended to reduce the deficit
"The truth is that proportionately speaking those things cost the U.S. government virtually nothing"
well, you listed three things: arts, PBS and welfare
the first two cost virtually nothing, as you say, but welfare compromises anywhere from 5 to 12% of the budget, depending on how you define it
"and if Romney wants to give everyone a 20% tax cut, add 2 trillion in spending to the military there aren't enough savings in eliminating all deductions for the wealthy to remotely begin to pay for that. The only way he can pay for that is to go after the deductions where the major money is brought in, for example, by eliminating the mortgage interest deduction, deductions for charity or state taxes. Only those things have a broad enough base and large enough revenue savings to pay for the 7 trillion cost of his promises"
well, first of all, the reduced deductions go to making up for the effect of lower rates, whuch is 4.8 trillion
and the eliminate deductions would come from every bracket in a way to achieve neutrality
so, middle class deductions would be eliminated to the extent the rates decrease for the middle class
and that would be true for brackets
and there are indeed sufficient tax deductions for the wealthy to compensate for their tax rate reduction
"but he won't specify which of those he'd eliminate because that would affect a broad swath of the American public and raise taxes on the middle class and poor who he hopes to con into voting for him by encouraging them to believe they can have a 20% tax cut by shooting big bird"
no, he won't specify which mix of deductions he favored because he didn't want to harden postions but he has indicated which deductions, and limits on deductions, are on the table
again, he has said the mix of deuctions chosen must make the tax rate reduction revenue neutral
this is what he has committed himself to do, and it is certainly doable
call him a liar if you like, but acknowledge that your assertion is idle speculation, without any empirical basis
What I want to know with the Romney plan is this: if he "broadens the base" by "eliminating deductions", what happens to the standard deduction. I want specifics before I vote.
it's on the table
I think the only deduction elimination that has been ruled out is the charitable deduction
of course, while Romney has said he will keep the revenue neutral within the classes, there will be individual losers and winners
those who currently have more deductions than the average person in their barcket will probably pay more than now and those who have fewer deductions than average will pay less
that would hold true regardless of your income level
my guess is if you are using the standard deduction, you'll wind up paying less whether they eliminate it or not
btw, this is all probably going to happen
on Wednesday night, the nation learned that the emperor has no clothes
Obama doesn't have the skills to reverse that perception
he's been protected an extraordinarily protective media prior to this
the deficiencies are too glaring when Obama must meet his opponent without help
have you noticed the attacks on Jim Lehrer?
it's intended to send a message to the moderator of the next debate that they better make Obama look good, or their reputation will be trashed
but there is little they can do
Obama flew to L.A. yesterday to try to assure all the celebrities that have been bankrolling his campaign
it didn't go well
Bad anonymous said "he has said he intends to keep the revenue base exactly as it is now and with the same distribution among the brackets he will do this by reducing deductions to compensate for the lower rates, increasing the incentive to produce this approach succeeded spectacularly in the eighties".
An oft-repeated Republican lie, this approach failed miserably in the 1980's:
Reagan nearly tripled the budget deficit, despite taking back much of his original tax cut by raising taxes seven of the eight years he was in office. Unemployment soared to 10.8% after the Reagan tax cuts and there was a runaway growth of federal spending. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,”
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/
Bad anonymous said "so, he's not reducing taxes at all just the rates he does intend to eliminate some government spending but that is intended to reduce the deficit".
Romney has promised to reduce taxes for the American public, if he lowers the rate but eliminates enough deductions to maintain the same revenue then he's lying when he tells Americans he's going to lower their taxes.
Bad anonymous said "welfare compromises anywhere from 5 to 12% of the budget, depending on how you define it".
Actually, its 5%
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/how-much-do-we-spend-nonworking-poor
and once again, even if he were to totally eliminate that spending it wouldn't begin to make up for the 7 trillion in military spending and tax cuts he promises to implement. Once again, Romeny has failed to specify any major cuts to government spending that could pay for his $7 Trillion expenditure. He's hiding his plans from the public when he ethically owes it to the public to tell them his plans before he becomes president, not after.
Bad anonymous said "well, first of all, the reduced deductions go to making up for the effect of lower rates, whuch is 4.8 trillion and the eliminate deductions would come from every bracket in a way to achieve neutrality so, middle class deductions would be eliminated to the extent the rates decrease for the middle class and that would be true for brackets and there are indeed sufficient tax deductions for the wealthy to compensate for their tax rate reduction ".
No, there are most certainly not enough tax deductions for the wealthy to compensate for their tax rate reduction.
From the Romney campaign's own tax plan, Mr. Romney's plan would
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)
In order to meet those commitments Romney would have to eliminate every other deduction in the personal tax code And that results in an average $2000 tax increase for middle class families with children and an overall tax increase on 95% of American taxpayers:
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2012/09/the-romney-tax-revenue-neutrality-will.html
Bad anonymous said "he won't specify which mix of deductions he favored because he didn't want to harden postions but he has indicated which deductions, and limits on deductions, are on the table again, he has said the mix of deuctions chosen must make the tax rate reduction revenue neutral this is what he has committed himself to do, and it is certainly doable.".
If he wants to be president he owes it to the American public to tell them which of their tax deductions will be eliminated before they vote for him. To hide his plans until after he is elected is extremely dishonest and unethical. The American public deserves to know what a Romney presidency would mean before they vote for him, not after. He has not specified which deductions are on the table, he's flipp-flopped back and forth so many times no one has any solid idea of what he'd do if elected and that's the entire point of his campaign. By refusing to detail which deductions he'd eliminate and which tax cuts he's promissed he'd actually go through with no one can determine if its doable or not, so stop the BS about it being "doable", with Romeny there's no way to determine that because his promises have contradicted each other throughout the campaign and to the best that anyone's been able to figure it out it doesn't remotely come close to being "doable" to make major tax cuts and have them be revenue neutral.
you already put all this on another thread, you moron
stop spamming the blog, you idiot
Post a Comment
<< Home