Tax expert: Romney deduction cap doesn't compute
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 19, 2024, 03:15:28 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Tax expert: Romney deduction cap doesn't compute
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Tax expert: Romney deduction cap doesn't compute  (Read 1146 times)
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 06, 2012, 03:25:54 PM »

Do you want America to burn to the ground?

That's precisely the sort of question one cannot answer honestly here.  Though to be fair it is probably not very safe to answer it honestly anywhere.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 06, 2012, 03:26:07 PM »
« Edited: October 06, 2012, 03:29:43 PM by Politico »

We are talking about decreasing the deficit in this thread.  For that, you need long-term, phased in spending cuts and revenue hikes.  Tax increases and spending cuts will have to be phased in over a ten year period in order for the economy to be able to absorb them, nobody is suggesting that they be phased in right away.  

How the deficit reduction process interacts with labor market growth is not a straightforward matter.  The economy is actually doing fairly well right now, and the reason the labor market is lagging is because businesses have found ways to meet productivity levels that correspond to current demand with smaller domestic labor forces.  Given current levels of demand, they are not going to start hiring swaths of people just because of a marginal rate cut that places their tax liability somewhere around the current effective rate.  They'll start hiring more when there is increased demand and thus need for increased productivity.  That's why deficit-reducing measures have to be phased in over time, so that process can happen.  But the deficit reduction measures have to be phased in, unless you want ever-increasing dangers of further credit downgrades and spiking interest rates in the future, which will do far more harm to the economy that slight upward adjustments in net tax revenues for everyone.
  

Fair enough, but I am in favor of not increasing taxes on anybody. I would prefer to find ways to decrease the deficit via spending cuts, increased efficiency, and real growth.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,156
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 06, 2012, 06:30:02 PM »

Politico, when you read English sentences, do you understand them?  Or, more likely, do you just selectively pay attention to whatever you want that will allow you to drop as many of your memes into your posts as possible?  I said both painful spending cuts and raising revenues net.  If we're going to successfully tackle the deficit and maintain a functional system of government, we have to do both.  Insofar as either candidate suggests we only have to do one of them, they are not telling us the truth.        

There's your mistake right there.  Unfortunately, there are too many people in the GOP who don't want a functional system of government.
Logged
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,400
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 06, 2012, 09:47:32 PM »

True that, Ernest.  My expectations often aren't strongly enough attached to reality.  Oh, well.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.215 seconds with 13 queries.