Mitt's tax plan: Cut taxes for the rich, raise them on everyone else

[Rhodie]

I'd like to point out that this threads title is highly misleading. He doesn't intend to raise taxes on everyone other than the rich, just slash entitlements.

[mondale84]

I'd like to point out that this threads title is highly misleading. He doesn't intend to raise taxes on everyone other than the rich, just slash entitlements.

This is false. He wants to gut the safety net because he doesn't care about average people (or couldn't be bothered to care), he wants to eliminate the deductions that help working people (like the mortgage deduction), and he wants to end the estate tax (which disproportionately benefits the wealthy). How is the thread title misleading again?

[stegosaurus]

I'd like to point out that this threads title is highly misleading. He doesn't intend to raise taxes on everyone other than the rich, just slash entitlements.

This is false. He wants to gut the safety net because he doesn't care about average people (or couldn't be bothered to care), he wants to eliminate the deductions that help working people (like the mortgage deduction), and he wants to end the estate tax (which disproportionately benefits the wealthy). How is the thread title misleading again?

Because eliminating deductions and credits isn't the same thing as "raising taxes", even if a higher burden for some is the cumulative effect.

[mondale84]

I'd like to point out that this threads title is highly misleading. He doesn't intend to raise taxes on everyone other than the rich, just slash entitlements.

This is false. He wants to gut the safety net because he doesn't care about average people (or couldn't be bothered to care), he wants to eliminate the deductions that help working people (like the mortgage deduction), and he wants to end the estate tax (which disproportionately benefits the wealthy). How is the thread title misleading again?

Because eliminating deductions and credits isn't the same thing as "raising taxes", even if a higher burden for some is the cumulative effect.

Well your side always claims that letting tax cuts expire means you are raising taxes so clearly anything that raises revenues is "raising taxes"

[Torie]

Now we are sinking into an entropic semantical cat fight here.

[Gravis Marketing]

I'd like to point out that this threads title is highly misleading. He doesn't intend to raise taxes on everyone other than the rich, just slash entitlements.

This is false. He wants to gut the safety net because he doesn't care about average people (or couldn't be bothered to care), he wants to eliminate the deductions that help working people (like the mortgage deduction), and he wants to end the estate tax (which disproportionately benefits the wealthy). How is the thread title misleading again?

Because eliminating deductions and credits isn't the same thing as "raising taxes", even if a higher burden for some is the cumulative effect.

That is a ridiculous distinction. If he got his way, people at the very top would pay less, some a lot less, while people in the middle pay more. 'nuf said.

[Torie]

I'd like to point out that this threads title is highly misleading. He doesn't intend to raise taxes on everyone other than the rich, just slash entitlements.

This is false. He wants to gut the safety net because he doesn't care about average people (or couldn't be bothered to care), he wants to eliminate the deductions that help working people (like the mortgage deduction), and he wants to end the estate tax (which disproportionately benefits the wealthy). How is the thread title misleading again?

Because eliminating deductions and credits isn't the same thing as "raising taxes", even if a higher burden for some is the cumulative effect.

That is a ridiculous distinction. If he got his way, people at the very top would pay less, some a lot less, while people in the middle pay more. 'nuf said.

Maybe. I am not conceding that yet, in part because Mittens denies it. We will get to the truth in due course. Stay tuned.

[stegosaurus]

I'd like to point out that this threads title is highly misleading. He doesn't intend to raise taxes on everyone other than the rich, just slash entitlements.

This is false. He wants to gut the safety net because he doesn't care about average people (or couldn't be bothered to care), he wants to eliminate the deductions that help working people (like the mortgage deduction), and he wants to end the estate tax (which disproportionately benefits the wealthy). How is the thread title misleading again?

Because eliminating deductions and credits isn't the same thing as "raising taxes", even if a higher burden for some is the cumulative effect.

Well your side always claims that letting tax cuts expire means you are raising taxes so clearly anything that raises revenues is "raising taxes"

That is at least partially true, seeing as how letting a tax cut expire will directly raise tax rates (which the elimination of a credit only affects those that make use of said credit). Either way, I am not fond of the ideological purity that my party strives for on the tax issue. I try to remind other Republicans that tax cuts are spending which, when not paid for, drives up the deficit. Cutting taxes ought to be used responsibly, and not simply every time Republicans have the political capital to do so.

Unfortunately, my "side" of the GOP consists of myself and a very long list of dead and discarded politicians. I am irrelevant, especially in Texas.

[stegosaurus]

I'd like to point out that this threads title is highly misleading. He doesn't intend to raise taxes on everyone other than the rich, just slash entitlements.

This is false. He wants to gut the safety net because he doesn't care about average people (or couldn't be bothered to care), he wants to eliminate the deductions that help working people (like the mortgage deduction), and he wants to end the estate tax (which disproportionately benefits the wealthy). How is the thread title misleading again?

Because eliminating deductions and credits isn't the same thing as "raising taxes", even if a higher burden for some is the cumulative effect.

That is a ridiculous distinction. If he got his way, people at the very top would pay less, some a lot less, while people in the middle pay more. 'nuf said.

I don't see how. Let's say I make $30,000 a year, rent my residence, and make no use of any credits or exemptions aside from the standard personal exemption for my tax bracket. What does Romney's plan do to raise my taxes, exactly?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Not true.  There is no tax increase on anyone other than the "rich" in his plan.  Where did that study come from anyway?  Romney's plan calls for making the Bush-era rates permanent and moving toward a flat tax.

If you bothered to read the OP you would see that the plan comes from the independent Tax Policy Center, "a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute."

Romney's plan calls for a repeal of the Estate Tax (God knows why) which disproportionately benefits wealthy people and investment cuts that also disproportionately affect people like him. So stop claiming ignorance and faux outrage and start reading the links that are posted rather than merely spewing your Fox talking points across threads you know and understand nothing about.

Most wealthy Americans know how to avoid the Estate Tax through estate planning, so it is primarily the middle class that gets hit with it.  And besides, it hurts businesses and the economy.  It's not about what's "fair" based on somebody's definition, it's about doing what's good for America.  And putting undue burdens on our economy because somebody thinks that we need to promote somebody else's definition of "fairness" is not good for America. 

[Gravis Marketing]

I don't see how. Let's say I make $30,000 a year, rent my residence, and make no use of any credits or exemptions aside from the standard personal exemption for my tax bracket. What does Romney's plan do to raise my taxes, exactly?

$30k/year renter doesn't put you "in the middle."

[stegosaurus]

I don't see how. Let's say I make $30,000 a year, rent my residence, and make no use of any credits or exemptions aside from the standard personal exemption for my tax bracket. What does Romney's plan do to raise my taxes, exactly?

$30k/year renter doesn't put you "in the middle."

It certainly puts me in the "everybody else" category, as compared to the rich.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Why do people hate tax cuts for the rich

Because we are already running a budget deficit over a trillion dollars.

But if you cut spending and taxes, then the budget will be balanced, providing you cut more in spending.

We are running a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit. That means we collect $1.4 trillion less in taxes than we spend. You want to cut taxes (revenue). So, where do you get the >$1.4 trillion to balance your budget? Hint: You wont get there without hacking Social Security, Defense, and Medicare/aid - which no politician is willing to do (heard anything about the Ryan budget lately?)

Stegosaurus, don't bother trying to reason with him. He's a bigger troll than Politico and plays dumb to deny common sense.

Quite amusing being called a troll by somebody with Mondale in their username. You do realize Mondale is second only to McGovern in the quest for title of "biggest loser of them all," right?

Actually it would be Goldwater or Landon, but nice try...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslide_victories#Presidential

Also, just because people voted for Reagan (who began the process of bankrupting this country and selling it piece-by-piece to the corporate class) doesn't mean his ideas had any merit. Or that he had any ideas for that matter...

And don't forget Mondale.  He only got DC and Minnesota, and even then, Minnesota was close.

[Torie]

Not true.  There is no tax increase on anyone other than the "rich" in his plan.  Where did that study come from anyway?  Romney's plan calls for making the Bush-era rates permanent and moving toward a flat tax.

If you bothered to read the OP you would see that the plan comes from the independent Tax Policy Center, "a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute."

Romney's plan calls for a repeal of the Estate Tax (God knows why) which disproportionately benefits wealthy people and investment cuts that also disproportionately affect people like him. So stop claiming ignorance and faux outrage and start reading the links that are posted rather than merely spewing your Fox talking points across threads you know and understand nothing about.

Most wealthy Americans know how to avoid the Estate Tax through estate planning, so it is primarily the middle class that gets hit with it.  And besides, it hurts businesses and the economy.  It's not about what's "fair" based on somebody's definition, it's about doing what's good for America.  And putting undue burdens on our economy because somebody thinks that we need to promote somebody else's definition of "fairness" is not good for America. 

How many middle class folks have a net worth of two million or more (the exemption number if the estate tax law is not amended, starting next year, assuming you use the standard trust device to effectively double the exemption if married, which come to think of it, might mean it bites on gay middle class folks a bit)?  This particular Pub has a certain fondness for the estate tax.

[Beet]

The Taylor article you linked is actually in the link that I pasted first-- it's the one study out of nine that didn't find a substantial effect from the stimulus. The other eight studies all found more effect.

My point was that government spending is crowding out private investment. Case in point, we're almost three years into the recovery yet private investment is nowhere near the level it was before the recession:

The chart seems to show steady recovery- growth since 2009 has been as fast or faster than any other time on your chart. Also keep in mind that domestic 'investment' includes residential & commercial real estate construction. Since there was a massive glut of real estate after the bubble, not as much 'investment' was needed or desired.

Once you narrow it slightly to private nonresidential fixed investment (still including commercial real estate), we are almost completely recovered:



But our real disagreement is a fundamental difference- I think the low interest rates show it's clear private investment isn't being crowded out. The market is practically begging the government to take it's money. In other words, the verdict of the markets themselves are that the government is best suited to invest more than it currently is.

Government and private sectors aren't competitive-- they're complementary. The competitive narrative assumes that there is no slack in the economy and that any resources are either being utilized under the direction of government or private business. But the problem in our economy today is precisely that there is slack. The existence of unemployment, for instance, represents slack. The fact that industrial utilization is below its long term average tells us the same.

In any case, but especially under these conditions, government and the private sector are complementary-- private activity boosts government revenues, and government activity boosts private revenues. Neither could exist without the other, and both help each other. They're two sides of the same coin.

The fundamental variable here is final demand-- the higher final demand, the more the private sector will invest, for they will see that there will be a return on their investment. The government can play a role in supporting final demand.

[Politico]

The Taylor article you linked is actually in the link that I pasted first-- it's the one study out of nine that didn't find a substantial effect from the stimulus. The other eight studies all found more effect.

I never looked at the link. Who said it had a positive effect? Future Nobel Laureates (like John Taylor)? I thought not...

The chart seems to show steady recovery- growth since 2009 has been as fast or faster than any other time on your chart.

It does not matter. We are not back to pre-recession levels, which means private investment has not recovered. When it comes to any economic variable, every single one of them, we are not at the levels predicted by Keynesian theory in 2009.

Also keep in mind that domestic 'investment' includes residential & commercial real estate construction. Since there was a massive glut of real estate after the bubble, not as much 'investment' was needed or desired.

This simply reinforces the weakness in investment. Investment spending has clearly shifted from residential real estate into other forms, but it has not picked up the slack in an overall sense hence the overall investment levels being lower than before the recession. A key reason is the crowding out effect. The government is issuing more bonds than ever before, and confidence is dismal so people are seeking safety in hoarding cash and government bonds rather than making real investments in the productive sectors of the economy.

Once you narrow it slightly to private nonresidential fixed investment (still including commercial real estate), we are almost completely recovered:

This chart simply reinforces the above.

But our real disagreement is a fundamental difference- I think the low interest rates show it's clear private investment isn't being crowded out. The market is practically begging the government to take it's money. In other words, the verdict of the markets themselves are that the government is best suited to invest more than it currently is.

Absolutely not. Domestic government bonds are "risk-free" in the sense that if the domestic government defaults, we have a hell of a lot more to worry about than getting returns. People are seeking shelter and they see it in the form of government bonds. It does not mean they think the government is best suited to invest rather than the private sector.

We have a toxic environment where confidence among businesses and consumers is in the doldrums. The president's policies and rhetoric have not inspired confidence the way that the president did on the campaign trail in 2008.

Government and private sectors aren't competitive-- they're complementary. The competitive narrative assumes that there is no slack in the economy and that any resources are either being utilized under the direction of government or private business. But the problem in our economy today is precisely that there is slack. The existence of unemployment, for instance, represents slack. The fact that industrial utilization is below its long term average tells us the same.

Most of the stimulus went towards transfers (the grants to states mostly became in-state transfers), not hiring people, as documented in Taylor's paper. Furthermore, the government is crowding out private investment (maybe not to an ENORMOUS degree, but definitely a significant degree), preventing greater hiring in the private sector.

In any case, but especially under these conditions, government and the private sector are [not] complementary-- private activity boosts [is forcibly taxed to supply] government revenues, and government activity boosts [transfers act as a drag on] private revenues [activity]. Neither [Government] could [not] exist without the other [private activity], and both help each other. They're two sides of the same coin.

Fixed.

The fundamental variable here is final demand-- the higher final demand, the more the private sector will invest, for they will see that there will be a return on their investment. The government can play a role in supporting final demand.

The government can play a role just as it can play too much of a role, doing more harm than good in the process. Ever play on a basketball team with a "ball hog" who wasn't as good as he thought he was, let alone as good as the other four men on the team? The government should not be "that guy."

[Beet]

Erskine Bowles: Romney’s tax plan wouldn’t cut the deficit

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-romneys-tax-plan-wont-cut-the-deficit/2012/08/09/37fb2d20-e19c-11e1-a25e-15067bb31849_story.html

"The most important lesson Al and I learned on the commission is that to fix the debt, everything must be on the table. Americans everywhere have told us that as long as the sacrifice is shared, they are ready to do their part. The surest way to doom deficit reduction is to play favorites by taking things off the table.

So although I give Romney credit for pledging to reform the tax code to reduce loopholes, his current proposal will not take us to the promised land. Our commission’s tax plan broadens the base, simplifies the code, reduces tax expenditures and generates $1 trillion for deficit reduction while making the tax code more progressive. The Romney plan, by sticking to revenue-neutrality and leaving in place tax breaks, would raise taxes on the middle class and do nothing to shrink the deficit.

Obama hasn’t gone as far in cutting spending, particularly in health care, as is necessary to stabilize the debt at a reasonable level and keep it on a downward path as a percentage of the gross domestic product. But in contrast to Romney, the president — like the “Gang of Six” and other like-minded members of both parties — has embraced the central principle of Simpson-Bowles: that America will turn the corner on its debt only if Republicans and Democrats come together to support a balanced deficit-reduction plan. For the numbers to work, both parties need to put aside partisanship."

Ouch.

[Politico]

Come on, Beet. You can do better than quoting that goofball.

[Comrade Shmoo]

Come on, Beet. You can do better than quoting that goofball.

A: Erskine Bowles is not a 'goofball' simply because he says things you disagree with.

B: He has.

[Politico]

Come on, Beet. You can do better than quoting that goofball.

A: Erskine Bowles is not a 'goofball' simply because he says things you disagree with.

Looks like something an 80 year old lady would wear.

[MilesC56]

Come on, Beet. You can do better than quoting that goofball.

A: Erskine Bowles is not a 'goofball' simply because he says things you disagree with.

Looks like something an 80 year old lady would wear.

Umm...objective criticism tends to be more effective than your personal fashion tastes when building your arguments. 'Just sayin.

I, myself, like them. I have a pair like that except they're not clear (they're more like Al Franken's).

[Lief]

Glasses like that are actually very "in" right now.

[Politico]

That style is not the problem. The problem is that they're clear, like the kind of glasses you'd find an eighty year old woman wearing. And this goofball has been wearing the same style/color for decades.

[Rhodie]

This thread seems to be rapidly running out of steam.

[Marokai]

I simply felt like popping into this thread just to say Beet kicked some serious ass here and the fact that Politico is literally now just making retarded comments about someone's glasses, I think we can, officially, write him off as a not-serious person.