Romney: No need to detail how I’ll pay for massive tax cuts. Just trust me.

[anvi]

I'm not sure how erudite it is to be so dogmatic about such a controversial matter.

Putting my cards on the table to start with, I'm not necessarily averse to the idea of lowering marginal rates to promote growth so long as we cut out and phase out lots of deductions and loopholes.  I do think it makes sense to adjust the rates in such a way as to get businesses focusing on sensible investment and innovation rather than on navigating their way through the ridiculous tax code and hiring armies of accountants and lobbyists to help them get more goodies.  Taking this approach has helped other countries at various times.  I'd also agree that deficits that piled up during the '80's and in the last decade were not the results of changes to marginal rates, but rather of spending that outpaced revenues which required borrowing.  But my willingness to do that is accompanied by many reservations, because, as far as I've been able to tell from the limited reading I've done on this issue, the case isn't a plain and simple one.

The increased revenues from taxes, while they did grow in "real" (inflation-adjusted) rates during the '80's, rose at a slower pace than they did for several previous decades when the marginal rates were higher.  Furthermore, a lot of the increase in total receipts during the Reagan years came from a 25% increase in the FICA tax.  So to say that the increased tax revenues under Reagan came solely from the economic growth that was spurred by merely lowering the marginal rates is just false.  The Kennedy tax cuts did contribute to a sharp rise in tax receipts during the '60's, to be sure.  But it can also be argued, I think, that one of the reasons the Kennedy tax cuts were so effective to that end is because the top marginal rate when he took office, 91%, was on the very gloomy side of the Laffer Curve, so the effects were not that surprising.  We're now debating rates somewhere between, what, 22% and 39% with the complications of deductions thrown in?  Those figures lie on a different side of the curve. 

Now, we could look at how recent marginal rate changes contributed to economic growth if we want.  During the Reagan and Bush '41 presidencies, the GDP did achieve a 10 year growth rate of 35%, but during the following ten years, when marginal rates were increased slightly, and cap gains was lowered, the ten-year growth rate was over 37%.  We had growth that tanked at the tail end of the Bush '43 presidency which, of course, had nothing to do with the marginal rates.  So correlating GDP growth to marginal rate changes also seems to be a tenuous affair, since so many things extraneous to tax policy can effect economic growth positively or negatively as well.

There are also a number of good economists who believe that, in order for a marginal rate cut to recoup the revenues lost, pre-tax labor earnings have to rise by a larger percentage than the tax rate is cut.  So, the unemployment rate, what people are earning and what incentives they happen to follow in any given period are going to play into this mix to a significant extent.  Finally, sometimes tax increases that are specifically designed to address deficit problems can have positive economic effects in the long run by decreasing the amount of overhang, so long of course as such increases are accompanied by necessary spending cuts.

To return to the point I started out with, I am not necessarily averse to significant marginal rate adjustments that are coupled with definite phased-in deduction and loophole elimination. I'm willing to hear all that the "dynamic scoring" crowd has to contribute to the discussion.   But, from everything I've read, which is never nearly enough, obviously, this is not the cut-and-dry case you are making it out to be. 

Certainly not enough of one to just call members of this forum who you don't even know "stupid" out of hand.

[Mechaman]

Corporations and large buisnesses do need tax cuts, Warren Buffet and individuals billionaires don't need tax cuts, he even said this.  And EF Hollings said that every single war was paid for by an increase taxes WWI Income Tax was passed, Civil War Lincoln increased taxes. These two wars weren't even paid for.

I got a better idea, how about we stop getting into wars?

[Ebowed]

I got a better idea, how about we stop getting into wars?

That's a great idea, how would you like to pay for the wars already entered into?

[Wisconsin+17]

Great! Getting into a war with Libya was just plain awesome!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which isn't exactly a good thing. If it were 100 percent, that would be bad, no?

Overall revenue pretty much stays the same, the difference is in the overall size of the economy and the well-being of the people.

Collect less, you make less as a proportion of the economy, but you make the same amount in actual dollars.

The collapse in tax revenues has to do with the fact that it's been 10 years since anyone under 45 has experienced a rise in employment rates since 2000.

That's right, 2000 was the last year that the employment rate for those under 45 actually increased. Now that boomer spending is dropping off, there's nobody to replace them.

So the two solutions are:

1, cut spending to reflect the smaller tax base.
2, increase taxation to attempt to preserve the size of the government.

2 will cripple the people of America. It, of course, is Obama's plan, but then he doesn't care because he's not going to be around for the effects.

[Purch]

It actually is pretty insignificant considering the narrative that surrounds this election. This election can basically be summed up as both candidates proposing broad ideas with no specifics on how those ideas would lead to growth; basically candidates saying a lot whiles at the same time really saying nothing.

Example

Tax the rich
Tax cuts
Cut Spending
Invest
More aggressive foreign policy
Immigration reform


On a side note Tax cuts/Tax increases don't automatically equal growth it depends on how they're implemented.

[WhyteRain]

I got a better idea, how about we stop getting into wars?

That's a great idea, how would you like to pay for the wars already entered into?

Can we end our 70 year occupation of Europe?  Another war that was never paid for.  (The last war that was paid for was the War of 1812.  It's beyond ridiculous to talk about the recent wars "not being paid for" without noting that fact.)

Majority of Americans want troops out of Europe

The ongoing opposition to America’s war in Afghanistan continues to grow, and now the results of a new poll suggest that US citizens are getting fed up with even nonviolent operations overseas.
 
According to findings published this week by Rasmussen Reports, more than half of the United States is in favor of pulling American troops from Western Europe, where the country’s forces are not engaged in any formal wars.

Of those polled by researchers with Rasmussen, 51 percent say that they are in favor of emptying all US bases across the pond. Only 29 percent are opposed to ending those operations, and 20 percent say that they are undecided on the matter.

The results of the study come from a recent telephone survey answered by 1,000 US voters who say they plan on casting a ballot in the upcoming 2012 presidential election. There is only a 3 percent margin of sampling error in the study, suggesting that — even accounting for a statistical gaffe — the majority of Americas want to see the country abolishing unpopular military operations.

http://rt.com/usa/news/majority-troops-europe-us-926/

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Whyte Rayne, you do realize that Romney wants to increase our war defense spending?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The person who says "Trust me!" almost never merits trust.

In Romney's defense (geez, I can't believe I'm doing this), show me a candidate who never said or indicated that. And show me a candidate that is getting into a huge details at this level.