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

[stegosaurus]

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

The rate would have to be ~22% for the flat tax to be revenue neutral. Consider that while considering that our current tax rates do not provide enough revenue to meet our obligations. The flat tax would be a catalyst for economic fallout, and an effective tax increase on virtually everyone; especially if the reform were to scrap most deductions, as the Heritage Foundation has suggested.

[stegosaurus]

Why do people hate tax cuts for the rich

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

[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?)

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.