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

[Ljube]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/study-romney-tax-plan-would-result-in-cuts-for-rich-higher-burden-for-others/2012/08/01/gJQAbeCCOX_story.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To avoid increasing deficits you don’t have to generate an equivalent amount of revenue. You can also cut an equivalent amount of spending. And that’s what Romney is going to do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/study-romney-tax-plan-would-result-in-cuts-for-rich-higher-burden-for-others/2012/08/01/gJQAbeCCOX_story.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you're not a millionaire and you're voting for this guy, you're an idiot.

It's a biased study that doesn’t even consider cutting spending.

[Oakvale]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/study-romney-tax-plan-would-result-in-cuts-for-rich-higher-burden-for-others/2012/08/01/gJQAbeCCOX_story.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To avoid increasing deficits you don’t have to generate an equivalent amount of revenue. You can also cut an equivalent amount of spending. And that’s what Romney is going to do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/study-romney-tax-plan-would-result-in-cuts-for-rich-higher-burden-for-others/2012/08/01/gJQAbeCCOX_story.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you're not a millionaire and you're voting for this guy, you're an idiot.

It's a biased study that doesn’t even consider cutting spending.

Really?

Has Romney ever actually given any indication as to what he'd supposedly cut? (other than "Obamacare" and repealing Obama's Freedom Tax or whatever).

AFAIK Romney has said he'll increase defense spending (including more battleships for some bizarre reason) and to maintain benefits for seniors, as outlined in this article on Bloomberg.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How on earth is this study "biased", incidentally? I don't understand. It's basic mathematics.

I think we can conclude that Romney isn't serious about reducing expenditure - for all his many faults, including having the sheer contempt for the public to propose this thing as if it's a reasonable suggestion, he's not an idiot, and he's already admitted that spending cuts in the middle of a massive recession, especially on anywhere near the level that'd be required for this moronic idea to break even, would plunge the country into another recession.

[Ljube]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The assumption is wrong. Romney will pay for all of his tax cuts through spending cuts. The deficit reduction will come from increased revenue that will come with revival of the economy.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

See sig.

[Oakvale]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The assumption is wrong. Romney will pay for all of his tax cuts through spending cuts. The deficit reduction will come from increased revenue that will come with revival of the economy.

Yes, yes, yes, rhetoric and "our economy is fuelled by freedom!" platitudes aside, where's the evidence for that claim? What you just posted isn't anything approaching an argument, it's just noises and syllables.

[Likely Voter]

Basically Romney is hoping that he can rely on people's general ignorance in how the tax code and budget works. He offers specifics on the goodies (tax cuts and more military spending) and gets vague on the pain (budget cuts and deduction cuts). Then waves the magic "resulting growth" wand over it all.

In a world where people think the budget can be balanced without cutting any programs that they like (because cutting PBS and int'l aid should be enough to wipe out the deficit right?), Romney figures he can get away with it.

[All Along The Watchtower]

It's abundantly clear that Romney has no intentions of paying down the national debt.

[© tweed]

A flat tax would be the fair way to go, I say.

No, flat incomes would be the 'fair' way to go.

[Wisconsin+17]

Great. Harrison Bergeron morons. Flat incomes is the sh**ttiest idea ever. If I wanted to live like the poorest folks, why am I working my ass off?

[mondale84]

It's abundantly clear that Romney has no intentions of paying down the national debt.

Yeah, this isn't news, but some people just don't choose to accept it.

[Politico]

Class warfare is ugly.

Ideally, everybody would pay the same percentage of their income regardless of how much or how little they earn (with the exception of a negative income tax for the poor, of course). No more deductions, loopholes, etc. A flat percentage of your income goes to Uncle Sam to fund what we've elected our representatives to ensure is provided to the public in the form of public goods.

If everybody saw their taxes go up or down by the same percentage of their income, I think we would see a convergence towards the tax rate and amount of government services that the vast majority of people actually want. In the process, we would minimize government abuse/waste while constraining the growth of government spending.

[Beet]

A graduated tax rate can be justified on the basis of diminishing marginal returns, an economic concept that applies to all forms of income and consumption. To take an extreme example, you could have an extremely poor family that earns just enough to eat, clothe, and pay rent at the poorest possible subsidized housing rate. Any more than a 10% tax means that the family can't afford rent, has to miss a meal, or perhaps can't celebrate Christmas. This is a heavy blow, and it means a lot to these people.

On the other hand, take the likes of Bill Gates. Gates has a huge charity because he knows he has more money than he could ever possibly spend. Even if he tried to spend, the biggest house in the world, an army of servants, the biggest yacht, the biggest plane, the most sumptuous food and entertainment, parties every single day, he could not possibly spend even a small fraction of his fortune. So he gives it away. 10% for him is nothing.

Now, if taxes need to be raised, would it not be worth it to raise Bill Gates' tax from 10% to 15%, and leave the barely-scraping-by family's tax at 10%? Than to raise both Bill Gates' and the barely-scraping-by families' tax reach to 14%? The latter proposal (the flat tax) would actually generate far less revenue, despite the fact that average tax rates under it are higher than under the progressive tax. The progressive tax can absolutely be justified on sound economic and moral grounds that have nothing to do with class warfare.

[Politico]

Basically Romney is hoping that he can rely on people's general ignorance in how the tax code and budget works. He offers specifics on the goodies (tax cuts and more military spending) and gets vague on the pain (budget cuts and deduction cuts). Then waves the magic "resulting growth" wand over it all.

In a world where people think the budget can be balanced without cutting any programs that they like (because cutting PBS and int'l aid should be enough to wipe out the deficit right?), Romney figures he can get away with it.

Yes, right now. Things will change once Romney gets in.

Obviously the nation needs a fiscal enema much like we needed a monetary enema in the late 70s/early 80s. It is the only path to real recovery. The alternative is a downward decline for four more years.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Class warfare is ugly.

Yes it is, Mitt Romney should be ashamed of himself. 

[Politico]

A graduated tax rate can be justified on the basis of diminishing marginal returns, an economic concept that applies to all forms of income and consumption. To take an extreme example, you could have an extremely poor family that earns just enough to eat, clothe, and pay rent at the poorest possible subsidized housing rate. Any more than a 10% tax means that the family can't afford rent, has to miss a meal, or perhaps can't celebrate Christmas. This is a heavy blow, and it means a lot to these people.

On the other hand, take the likes of Bill Gates. Gates has a huge charity because he knows he has more money than he could ever possibly spend. Even if he tried to spend, the biggest house in the world, an army of servants, the biggest yacht, the biggest plane, the most sumptuous food and entertainment, parties every single day, he could not possibly spend even a small fraction of his fortune. So he gives it away. 10% for him is nothing.

Now, if taxes need to be raised, would it not be worth it to raise Bill Gates' tax from 10% to 15%, and leave the barely-scraping-by family's tax at 10%? Than to raise both Bill Gates' and the barely-scraping-by families' tax reach to 14%? The latter proposal (the flat tax) would actually generate far less revenue, despite the fact that average tax rates under it are higher than under the progressive tax. The progressive tax can absolutely be justified on sound economic and moral grounds that have nothing to do with class warfare.

Obviously there needs to be an exception for the poor. The flat tax rate would need to only apply to those who are at some level above a reasonable threshold. If the rate is at a level that is deemed too high by a strong majority, people will elect representatives who will lower the rate accordingly. The most important benefit of this scheme will be the elimination of the psychological delusion that government intervention has only benefits and no costs. This delusion is bankrupting many parts of the world, and we need to prevent the contagion from spreading to America. Nothing is more important.

[Lief 🗽]

Class warfare is ugly.

I'm glad you oppose Mitt Romney's tax plan.

[Beet]

No one is saying government intervention "only has benefits" and no costs. Everything has a cost.

[Politico]

No one is saying government intervention "only has benefits" and no costs. Everything has a cost.

I know you have a firm appreciation of costs/benefits, but a strong plurality, if not majority, of our fellow citizens really do see government intervention as having only benefits without costs (This should not come as a surprise when one considers that over half of the population does not pay any federal income taxes whatsoever). IMHO, it is a costly delusion that can only be remedied with a real flat tax. Rolling out a flat tax would induce a recession, but it would pay off not long thereafter (a sort of fiscal version of Volcker's shock therapy, if you will). The alternative is far worse than my short-term pain for long-term gain.

[Lief 🗽]

(This should not come as a surprise when one considers that nearly half of the population does not pay any taxes whatsoever)

No, that is a malicious lie.

[Politico]

(This should not come as a surprise when one considers that nearly over half of the population does not pay any taxes whatsoever)

No, that is a malicious lie.

Over half of the population does not even work, so how is it a malicious lie?

[Beet]

First of all, even those who do not work pay tax. Even little children pay tax on their toys, or their parents do. Every single person in this country who has reached voting age has at some point seen, firsthand, the cost of government. Are you seriously disagreeing with the idea that death and taxes are the only certain things in life?

Volcker's shock therapy wasn't nearly as much of a success as it was portrayed. Every recovery from 1982 until 2009 was based on an explosion of debt, and that's exactly what we're paying for today. Post-Volcker, debt replaced inflation; and debt is even more insidious, because while the harmful effects of inflation are seen right away, debt can build up seeming innocuously for years until there is finally a crisis. And contrary to popular belief, since 2009 the economy has actually been cutting debt, as a share of GDP, for the first time since the Great Depression.

Not to mention, Volcker was a shameless, unprofessional partisan hack who tried to help Jimmy Carter win re-election but utterly failed at being a partisan hack.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

(This should not come as a surprise when one considers that nearly over half of the population does not pay any taxes whatsoever)

No, that is a malicious lie.

Over half of the population does not even work, so how is it a malicious lie?

I assume over half the population makes purchases subject to sales taxes, for instance.

[Politico]

First of all, even those who do not work pay tax. Even little children pay tax on their toys, or their parents do. Every single person in this country who has reached voting age has at some point seen, firsthand, the cost of government.

Obviously I was talking about federal income taxes and federal spending. Furthermore, if we give tax dollars to somebody in exchange for their existence and they spend part of those tax dollars on taxes, is that person really paying taxes? If somebody receives bundles of benefits funded by "other" people's taxes and pays occasionally a few dollars/cents on their consumption goods, do they really gain an appreciation of the costs of government spending?

There is a mentality that is emerging that says government basically has benefits with little to no costs (or at least little to no costs to those individuals who want more and more spending). This bankrupt idea is going to bankrupt America if we do not eliminate the mentality one way or another. I firmly believe this, and I firmly believe the only solution is a real flat tax, at least when it comes to the federal level (I support allowing states to tax/spend whichever way they choose, but there should be no bail-outs for the fiscally irresponsible governments).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Volcker's objective was to slay excessive inflation, and his plan worked. A flat tax will slay excessive public debt and return America on a path towards real growth with freedom and individual responsibility leading the way.

[Beet]

One, I was talking about federal income taxes. Two, if we give tax dollars to somebody in exchange for their existence and they spend part of those tax dollars on taxes, is that person really paying taxes?

In exchange for their existence? One would think people have their mothers to that for that, not the government.

Very, very few people have never done a day of formal work in their lives (well, maybe Ann Romney). Even most people on welfare, or temporary assistance, who currently do zero work (which is a tiny minority of people), have at some point worked and paid federal social security, and unemployment insurance taxes, which are substantial.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why has Obama overseen the slowest spending growth in decades?



Why is this the first recovery from recession in which fewer people are working for the government than before?



I'd argue the opposite of your case- more people are becoming aware that the growth rate of health care costs is becoming unsustainable, and that it needs to be addressed to ensure the stability of the federal budget. With Republicans in control of the House, which decides on the budget, they can't complain that spending is out of their control. Obama can't do anything fiscal-wise as long as Boehner is Speaker, and that is not likely to change after November.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A plan that lowers revenues would increase public debt, as it did under Reagan and Bush. This is the same failed rhetoric from the Bush administration. Romney is going to need to do better than that to convince people who can remember back more than a few years.

I'm going to do something else now, but I appreciate the discussion.

[Politico]

Then why has Obama overseen the slowest spending growth in decades?

We've been running deficits in excess of $1 trillion every year under Obama, so of course the rate of growth is lower than previous administrations. We saw a massive spike in the wake of the financial crisis, and nothing has been done about this spike over the past four years. We need to get the deficit back under control soon before it is too late.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are talking about the federal government, not federal, state and local governments. The reason why the public sector is decreasing is because states and local governments need to balance their budget, and the vast majority of state/local governments are closing their gaps via spending cuts that exceed any increases in taxes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A flat tax will cover the costs of Medicare/Medicaid if the flat tax is at a necessary level. If people deem they are unwilling to pay those costs, the programs will need to be cut to a degree, or spending elsewhere in the budget will need to be cut. The bottom-line is that nothing is free, and everything eventually needs to be paid for one way or another. The only fair way to figure out exactly what the majority of the public wants is with the adoption of a flat tax rate that is set by representatives who were elected by the people to carry out their bidding. A flat tax will act as a sort of mechanism that ensures public debt gets under control and never goes out of control ever again. On the whole, people will get the level of government spending that they are willing to pay for; there will be no more delusions of free lunches and no more free riding.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The adoption of the flat tax will need massive spending cuts coupled with shifting spending decisions onto the states wherever and whenever possible.

This is a pill that is difficult to swallow, but sometimes that kind of medicine is what cures you. When the alternative is dying, there really is no alternative.