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

[mondale84]

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.

[Politico]

Nor will I respond to your post point by point.

I will make a few minor points- first of all, what you linked to was not a study, not really even a "mainstream report", as you put it- it was an opinion piece. Although the WSJ is certainly reputable and Taylor is reputable, the piece itself consisted only of a series of stylistic representations of historical events with no quantitative founding whatsoever.

This is a political forum, not an economics forum, so I posted a mainstream report ("opinion piece," if you insist) which ties in nicely with Taylor's paper on the stimulus (which shows the failure of stimulus spending from both Republicans and Democrats):

http://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/JEL_Taylor_Final%20Pages.pdf

The heavily misleading style of the article can be found in the fact that no mention is made that monetary policy was the primary driver of economic shifts 1980-83,

Volcker's shock therapy slayed the inflation beast, preventing runaway inflation from destroying this nation, but Reagan's fiscal policy had a lot to do with the subsequent recovery as argued in the piece.

or that GDP and jobs growth was very strong throughout 1975-79.

It was a mirage as evidenced by the ensuing stagflation.

Secondly regarding the borrowing costs of US businesses- what are they?

Yes, we're in a liquidity trap. Borrowing rates are down for all, but that does not mean that  borrowing by large firms is taking place at a level that enables an adequate level of private investment. 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:

Rather than respond to the rest of your points I will simply note that the central thrust of your argument, that 'Obama is hurting business' argument just won't fly.

Many large businesses are hoarding cash and not hiring because of uncertainty about future costs (both explicit and implicit) and the ability to borrow in the future.

Furthermore, small firms represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms and employ half of all private sector employees (http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqIndexAll.cfm?areaid=24). Many of these firms are having immense difficulty borrowing right now. While it is true that they do not explicitly compete with the government for loanable funds, they implicitly do so when you consider the opportunity cost facing commercial banks whenever they are faced with providing loans to a small firm (not to mention the high degree of risk aversion among banks right now as a result of this toxic environment; the president has failed to inspire confidence in the nation the way he did on the campaign trail in 2008).

Lastly, a recent poll by Gallup of small business owners found that two of the biggest problems they face today are regulatory burdens and lack of credit availability:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150287/Gov-Regulations-Top-Small-Business-Owners-Problem-List.aspx

The economy is not a monolith. It has various parts and components. It baffles me that you- and Romney, are focusing on the one are of 'the economy' where things are going the most smoothly.

It baffles me that you continue to act as if this debate is taking place in 2009. This is 2012. Clearly the Keynesian promises did not pan out as predicted by theory. The underlying reason is because government is inherently inefficient outside of its realm of specialty as espoused by Adam Smith (i.e., law/order, defense, and BASIC infrastructure). It is time to change course towards a more market-based approach. We cannot afford to have an entire lost generation. The Obama Economy is sowing the seeds of an entire lost generation that cannot find employment, and older generations fear for the future of their offspring. We must return towards real growth and prosperity, not continue on the path towards Eurosclerosis. We must return to American greatness, not embrace European-style decline.

[Politico]

Beet, to pick at one of your points at random, unfortunately rank is a pyramid, so there are far more "overpaid" folks at the low end, than underpaid folks at the high end. And if the higher end folks are underpaid, why don't they quit, and get a job commensurate with the market for their skill set?

Because, in many cases, they are not underpaid or they would do as you suggest. People who suggest they are not overpaid generally ignore their implicit pay (i.e., their pensions). Mind you, there are some people who are underpaid and stay out of a sense of duty. This is especially true in matters of national defense and law/order, areas of the economy that clearly require government intervention.

Granted, state and local government employees is where the real abuse is, more than the Feds with the GS system, which does keep things from spinning totally out of control.  Plus federal employees in my experience do tend to be of higher quality in my experience than the state and local government all too often slugs - particularly at the higher end, where some of them are excellent.

I agree with this.

[Rhodie]

Why do people hate tax cuts for the rich

[Politico]

Why do people hate tax cuts for the rich

Because they want to free ride off public services/transfers provided by taxes funded by rich people. They think rich people owe them something rather than thinking that all of us should have to contribute the same percentage of our income towards public endeavors.

[Rhodie]

Why do people hate tax cuts for the rich

Because they want to free ride off public services/transfers provided by taxes funded by rich people.

Ah, common sense at last.

[stegosaurus]

Why do people hate tax cuts for the rich

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

[Rhodie]

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.

[Politico]

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.

(Common sense)^2

[stegosaurus]

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?)

[mondale84]

Why do people hate tax cuts for the rich

Because rich people don't need tax cuts, you troll.

[mondale84]

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.

[Politico]

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?)

Wait until January 20, 2013. We can get there while ensuring obligations towards Social Security and Medicare are met. Tax reform is essential in achieving this result, of course.

[Politico]

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? Heck, I'd put McGovern above Mondale if only because McGovern is a war hero.

[mondale84]

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?)

Wait until January 20, 2013. We can get there while ensuring obligations towards Social Security and Medicare are met. Tax reform is essential in achieving this result, of course.

Yes, because Mitt Romney being in the White House will make new revenues magically appear...

[stegosaurus]

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?)

Wait until January 20, 2013. We can get there while ensuring obligations towards Social Security and Medicare are met. Tax reform is essential in achieving this result, of course.

How? I sincerely hope that we aren't banking on "the economy will grow and simply crap savings" theory.

[mondale84]

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...

[Politico]

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?)

Wait until January 20, 2013. We can get there while ensuring obligations towards Social Security and Medicare are met. Tax reform is essential in achieving this result, of course.

Yes, because Mitt Romney being in the White House will make new revenues magically appear...

Tax reform will create job growth, causing new revenues to appear over time. Of course, the biggest part of the solution will be transferring spending off the federal books and onto the states. Allowing the states to decide what is worth paying for and what is not will pay huge dividends for economic freedom.

[Politico]

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...

Al Landon last mattered, what, when Hitler was alive? He ceded the title to McGovern back when he died, whenever the heck that was.

Goldwater's 52 EVs are a bit more impressive than Mondale's performance. The only reason Mondale even won Minnesota is because Reagan allowed him to. Had Reagan been mean-spirited, he would have spent more time and money in Minnesota.

[mondale84]

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...

Al Landon last mattered, what, when Hitler was alive? He ceded the title to McGovern back when he died, whenever the heck that was.

Goldwater's 52 EVs are a bit more impressive than Mondale's performance. The only reason Mondale even won Minnesota is because Reagan allowed him to. Had Reagan been mean-spirited, he would have spent more time and money in Minnesota.

Yeah except Goldwater won ~38% of the popular vote, Mondale ~41%.

Anyway, Walter Mondale is not the point of this thread, nor is my username. The point of this thread is how disastrous Mitt Romney would be for middle class families and how he would gut their tax cuts and deductions so that he and his friends can continue to prey off the system. You can address the OP or you can leave. Every moment you spend attacking me reinforces your forum stereotype as a troll and hack who resorts to personal attacks because he has no ideas to stand on.

[Politico]

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...

Al Landon last mattered, what, when Hitler was alive? He ceded the title to McGovern back when he died, whenever the heck that was.

Goldwater's 52 EVs are a bit more impressive than Mondale's performance. The only reason Mondale even won Minnesota is because Reagan allowed him to. Had Reagan been mean-spirited, he would have spent more time and money in Minnesota.

Yeah except Goldwater won ~38% of the popular vote, Mondale ~41%.

Go tell Al Gore that the popular vote matters.

The point of this thread is how disastrous Mitt Romney would be for middle class families

As opposed to four more years of struggle for middle class families under Obama? The last four years have not been hunky dory for America's middle class families, folks.

and how he would gut their tax cuts and deductions so that he and his friends can continue to prey off the system.

Romney's tax reform plan would be a net cut for all but the wealthiest. The elimination of deductions will disproportionately affect wealthier Americans.

You can address the OP or you can leave. Every moment you spend attacking me reinforces your forum stereotype as a troll and hack who resorts to personal attacks because he has no ideas to stand on.

You are the one who accused me of being a troll. I did not provoke you. I simply responded in kind without resorting to name calling (And I have merely pointed out that Mondale, NOT YOU, was a loser...I actually tend to like your posts, if you must know). In case you did not notice, I have put a lot of time and effort into contributing to the conversations in this thread.

[Rhodie]

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.

Come on Mondy, I'm not a troll, I'm just very, very right-wing.

[Politico]

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.

Come on Mondy, I'm not a troll, I'm just very, very right-wing.

Don't worry, pal. Some folks on here erroneously believe this is Diet Democratic Underground hence the accusations of "trolling" whenever somebody offers a right-wing point of view.

[Governor Maxwell]

Tax reform will create job growth, causing new revenues to appear over time. Of course, the biggest part of the solution will be transferring spending off the federal books and onto the states. Allowing the states to decide what is worth paying for and what is not will pay huge dividends for economic freedom.

That's quite silly you think Romney would do any tax reform...

[Politico]

Tax reform will create job growth, causing new revenues to appear over time. Of course, the biggest part of the solution will be transferring spending off the federal books and onto the states. Allowing the states to decide what is worth paying for and what is not will pay huge dividends for economic freedom.

That's quite silly you think Romney would do any tax reform...

It will be the signature achievement of the Romney Administration, and a positive spillover effect will be the creation of millions of jobs in the process (obviously some accountants fear this change, but they're the only ones who will lose something with everybody else gaining immensely):

http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/Diamond-RomneyTaxReformPlan-080312.pdf