Visit my Blog.
"Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP
Whatever it is, the story ain't workin' anymore. They tried it in 08 with the "HE'S GONNA TAX YOU OUT OF YOUR HOME! YOU WON'T HAVE CLOTHES TO WEAR!" and then middle/lower class taxes didn't move much (mine actually went down) and now its like the boy who cried wolf.
Need to rewrite the rhetoric on the right.
I don't think voters see lost tax revenue as the reason for debt although it can amount to that.
I'm not upper level and i pay a lot. I believe he promised a 20% reduction across the board on income (while not telling me what deductions he would get rid of). 20% would make a difference to me but was never articulated in a way that flat said my taxes would go down and how we would deal with the spending side of the ledger as a result.
I think your right in assuming that a lot of people didn't think about the issue other then the 250,000 plus crowd. Personally i think that is a problem and one that is the probably result of 2 bad plans
Last edited by ewing; 11-13-2012 at 07:17 PM.
Originally Posted by MrPoon
Member of the Owlluminati!
Here is a thumbnail of the Romney plan, part of which you apparently support:
Here is another analysis of why the "broaden the base, remove loopholes" approach does not work. The study upon which that analysis is based can be found here.If you take the numbers from the Tax Policy Center and the Treasury (for the elimination of the estate tax), the 10 year costs break down like this:
Lower tax rates by 20 percent = $2.5 trillion
Eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax = $700 billion
Repeal of high-income payroll tax = $300 billion
Repeal the estate tax = $150 billion
Tax cut for corporations = $1.1 trillion
The interest costs get you to $5t.
There are as many reasons for tax deductions as there are deductions. However, to grossly generalize, they are there for a purpose. For one major example, the mortgage tax deduction exists to encourage home ownership.
Removing it would cause a hit to homeowners and to the housing market. It's nice and easy to talk about "removing almost all deductions" but when you look at the numbers, as the Tax Policy Center did, above, they don't amount to the revenue that a rate decrease would cost. Removing deductions would also have negative effects on some economic sectors. For a video version of this same argument, try here.
In short, I agree that we should look at deductions. We should almost certainly get rid of the scam that is our capital gains tax rate exception, and we should examine particularly those deductions that encourage income manipulation like Cayman Islands and Luxembourg accounts. What we should not do is throw the baby out with the bath water.
Last edited by Labgrownmangoat; 11-14-2012 at 11:23 AM. Reason: *added a vital "not" to the last sentence.
"The idea that the market will solve such things as environmental concerns, as our racial divides, as our class distinctions, our problems with educating and incorporating one generation of workers into the economy after the other when that economy is changing; the idea that the market is going to heed all of the human concerns and still maximise profit is juvenile. . . Are we all in this together or are we all not?" - David Simon, creator of The Wire
I love that my mustard/ketchup analogy completely derailed this thread.
Derailing Threads Since 2008