|
|
On October 05 2012 05:32 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 04:35 Defacer wrote:
xDaunt, I'm curious ... while I'm sure that you're pleasantly surprised that Romney is back in the race, he did it by moving to the center, and in some cases, seemingly adopting in same policies and or principles of the Obama administration.
I know that you weren't a big Romney fan to begin with. But I'm wondering if Romney's flip makes you feel better or worse about him as a potential president.
I almost find it funny, the only parts of the plan Romney is willing to talk about are the parts that are either identical or similar to Obama's. He's like "Well I'm hiding my plan, but taking notes from yours!" :D What did dauntx score end up as btw, anyone finalize the tally?
He finalized the tally himself: 8-4 Romney. It was 7-0 until it got to Obamaca, Education, something, and something.
|
The New York Times is claiming Romney is a liar because he backed away from tax cuts for the rich. Liberals citing it like crazy on blogs and forums. NYT, there is a difference between revenue neutral reducing rates and closing loopholes while maintaining the share paid by the rich (Romney's real principles) and a "huge tax cut for the rich" which was your straw man against him.
...the paper you so easily condemn argues that Romney's "revenue neutral" tax cut proposals simply aren't detailed enough. Ultimately, Romney's saying "5 trillion tax cuts, plus some deduction cutting that I'll figure out later." To paraphrase Obama, Romney's not hiding specific deductions because his proposal are too good. The deductions that Romney would have to cut to make the tax aren't big enough to offset his tax cuts on the wealthy. The WSJ itself has shown that making the plan revenue neutral requires eliminating popular deductions on everyone making over $100,000, meaning that to offset the costs of cutting taxes on the super-rich, you'd need fairly large tax increases on the top 20% of this country.
To put it simply, "Romney's real principles" seem to be impossibilities.
|
I find it funny that the rest of the develop word(europe manly) is dreading the fact Romney even has a slim chance to be elected. I remember back when mccain was running and they did an poll of the other nations he lost in like 99% of them. Hopefully obama is able to shake off the debate dust, he has not had to do one in a while so this should be his wake up call. He is in a strong position to be reelected but it would be silly to give romney even a slight opening. If he can have a strong showing at the next one, it all he needs to put the nail in coffin and lock this race up.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I would rather Romney have his chances boosted. Strategically speaking it would benefit the Democrats across the country if campaign funding was focused even less on House/Senate races. Keep it up, Romney!
|
On October 05 2012 05:38 imareaver3 wrote:Show nested quote +The New York Times is claiming Romney is a liar because he backed away from tax cuts for the rich. Liberals citing it like crazy on blogs and forums. NYT, there is a difference between revenue neutral reducing rates and closing loopholes while maintaining the share paid by the rich (Romney's real principles) and a "huge tax cut for the rich" which was your straw man against him. ...the paper you so easily condemn argues that Romney's "revenue neutral" tax cut proposals simply aren't detailed enough. Ultimately, Romney's saying "5 trillion tax cuts, plus some deduction cutting that I'll figure out later." To paraphrase Obama, Romney's not hiding specific deductions because his proposal are too good. The deductions that Romney would have to cut to make the tax aren't big enough to offset his tax cuts on the wealthy. The WSJ itself has shown that making the plan revenue neutral requires eliminating popular deductions on everyone making over $100,000, meaning that to offset the costs of cutting taxes on the super-rich, you'd need fairly large tax increases on the top 20% of this country. To put it simply, "Romney's real principles" seem to be impossibilities.
That is not the paper I was talking about. Ok, so lets start here, if Romney's plans aren't detailed enough then clearly he couldn't back away from a huge tax cut for the rich, right? They've been making assumptions about what Congress will do (presidents don't write law) and doing it in a way that makes Romney look like a rich people tax cutter evil Republican let grandmother eat cat food.
If Romney's 20% rate reduction proposal is impossible given his other stated principles then he will need to modify his proposal. That is no basis for claiming he is backing away from huge rich people tax cuts.
|
On October 05 2012 05:07 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 04:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 03:55 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 03:27 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 03:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 03:17 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 02:16 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 01:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Paid for by reducing deductions / exemptions. But then he's still reducing the tax rates on the rich. Even if what he really meant was that on net, the rich will not pay less taxes because of closed loopholes, that still makes no sense, it's not possible to close enough loopholes to make his plan revenue neutral. Further, interpreted this way, the statement would mean that Romney promises to closed enough loopholes specifically on the rich to be greater than the tax cuts he would give to the rich. This just adds another constraint into an already impossible math problem. Under this interpretation, it's just rejigging where tax money comes from. How does rearranging the tax system in a way that the final tax revenue is exactly the same boost the economy? Where's the evidence. Of course, we're both just making shit up about Romney's plan here, because he hasn't specified a plan. The idea of lowering marginal rates and closing loopholes has long been advocated by various tax experts. Its what Simpson-Bowles advocated too. The idea is that it will boost the economy through efficiency. Savings and investment will be made where it is efficient - not where the government directs it. Taxes will be less complex so less money will be wasted trying to game the system. Different plans but both have the same general idea of lowering rates while broadening the base: Fiscal CommissionBipartisan Policy Center That doesn't address the first part of my post about the fact that Romney will reduce marginal tax rates on the rich and that his plan doesn't add up.Also, it's laughable that rejigging the tax system would have anything more than the most minimal effect in boosting the economy. To suggest that increased efficiency in the tax code will boost the economy is to say that what's holding the economy is that people are really confused about how to fill in the tax return, that businesses would hire more workers if only they didn't have to spend so much money paying their tax accountants, and that not enough people are been taxed currently. Your point about reducing marginal rates is irrelevant. If you reduce taxes on the rich by $1 and raise taxes by $1 you have not given them a tax cut. I don't know why this is hard math for you. Prove that it doesn't add up please. I'd love to see your math  I also love how you dismiss its effect because you only know how to look at the economy in the short-run aggregate. Where's that $1 going to come from? How is Romney going to make up that loss revenue from his tax cut? What loopholes is he going to close? It's a hopeless question. You will never answer it, because Romney has no answer. Why should I have to prove anything. It's Romney's plan, so the burden of proof is on him (or you, since you support it). Luckily, the TPC has already done the math for him and said that it's mathematically impossible. Nope, just put more on the table than the TPC has assumed or reduce the reduction in the marginal rates. EZPZ The TPC already puts everything viable on the table, except those which Romney ruled out. If you cut less than 20%, then that just goes to show that Romney's plan is mathematically impossible, and that he hasn't thought this through. Of course, there's no doubt that he hasn't thought this through since he keeps talking about loophole closing the the abstract but refuses to give a single loophole he would close. You say that I'm dismissing the long run effect of the Romney tax plan, and that I've only looked at the short run. But the depressed economy is a short run problem. It makes no sense that the way to get out of a recession is to simplify the tax code. What if we've simplified everything to a flat 15% tax on everything and everyone, and have another recession. What then is the solution? How can we simplify further? And what about the long run? Where's the evidence that this is good in the long run, and where's the evidence that what's good in the long run is good in fixing the short run? In the short run, there is no debt problem, but in the long run there is. So how is it a good idea to give a tax cut which almost certainly cannot be paid for in the long run? In the long run, there needs to be a tax increase. No, we've been over this. The TPC took off the table what they assumed Romney ruled out. Romney has since stated that he's very willing to eliminate deductions for higher earners. And there's plenty room to lower rates while closing loopholes. That's what Simpson-Bowles wanted to do - reduce the highest tax rates to 29% or less - right in line with what Romney wants. Romney's tax plan can be read on his website. Unless Romney makes changes to it, the TPC's analysis was perfectly valid - one of its two promises has to be broken for the other one to hold.
OK, if that's the way it works out then give his play a few tweaks. 20% is too much? Knock it down to 19%. Can't get a particular deduction removed? Knock it down a bit more.
I'm pretty sure 20% was chosen for its nice roundness - not because it is exactly the best number to use.
|
On October 05 2012 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 05:07 kwizach wrote:On October 05 2012 04:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 03:55 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 03:27 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 03:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 03:17 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 02:16 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
But then he's still reducing the tax rates on the rich.
Even if what he really meant was that on net, the rich will not pay less taxes because of closed loopholes, that still makes no sense, it's not possible to close enough loopholes to make his plan revenue neutral. Further, interpreted this way, the statement would mean that Romney promises to closed enough loopholes specifically on the rich to be greater than the tax cuts he would give to the rich. This just adds another constraint into an already impossible math problem.
Under this interpretation, it's just rejigging where tax money comes from. How does rearranging the tax system in a way that the final tax revenue is exactly the same boost the economy? Where's the evidence.
Of course, we're both just making shit up about Romney's plan here, because he hasn't specified a plan. The idea of lowering marginal rates and closing loopholes has long been advocated by various tax experts. Its what Simpson-Bowles advocated too. The idea is that it will boost the economy through efficiency. Savings and investment will be made where it is efficient - not where the government directs it. Taxes will be less complex so less money will be wasted trying to game the system. Different plans but both have the same general idea of lowering rates while broadening the base: Fiscal CommissionBipartisan Policy Center That doesn't address the first part of my post about the fact that Romney will reduce marginal tax rates on the rich and that his plan doesn't add up.Also, it's laughable that rejigging the tax system would have anything more than the most minimal effect in boosting the economy. To suggest that increased efficiency in the tax code will boost the economy is to say that what's holding the economy is that people are really confused about how to fill in the tax return, that businesses would hire more workers if only they didn't have to spend so much money paying their tax accountants, and that not enough people are been taxed currently. Your point about reducing marginal rates is irrelevant. If you reduce taxes on the rich by $1 and raise taxes by $1 you have not given them a tax cut. I don't know why this is hard math for you. Prove that it doesn't add up please. I'd love to see your math I also love how you dismiss its effect because you only know how to look at the economy in the short-run aggregate. Where's that $1 going to come from? How is Romney going to make up that loss revenue from his tax cut? What loopholes is he going to close? It's a hopeless question. You will never answer it, because Romney has no answer. Why should I have to prove anything. It's Romney's plan, so the burden of proof is on him (or you, since you support it). Luckily, the TPC has already done the math for him and said that it's mathematically impossible. Nope, just put more on the table than the TPC has assumed or reduce the reduction in the marginal rates. EZPZ The TPC already puts everything viable on the table, except those which Romney ruled out. If you cut less than 20%, then that just goes to show that Romney's plan is mathematically impossible, and that he hasn't thought this through. Of course, there's no doubt that he hasn't thought this through since he keeps talking about loophole closing the the abstract but refuses to give a single loophole he would close. You say that I'm dismissing the long run effect of the Romney tax plan, and that I've only looked at the short run. But the depressed economy is a short run problem. It makes no sense that the way to get out of a recession is to simplify the tax code. What if we've simplified everything to a flat 15% tax on everything and everyone, and have another recession. What then is the solution? How can we simplify further? And what about the long run? Where's the evidence that this is good in the long run, and where's the evidence that what's good in the long run is good in fixing the short run? In the short run, there is no debt problem, but in the long run there is. So how is it a good idea to give a tax cut which almost certainly cannot be paid for in the long run? In the long run, there needs to be a tax increase. No, we've been over this. The TPC took off the table what they assumed Romney ruled out. Romney has since stated that he's very willing to eliminate deductions for higher earners. And there's plenty room to lower rates while closing loopholes. That's what Simpson-Bowles wanted to do - reduce the highest tax rates to 29% or less - right in line with what Romney wants. Romney's tax plan can be read on his website. Unless Romney makes changes to it, the TPC's analysis was perfectly valid - one of its two promises has to be broken for the other one to hold. OK, if that's the way it works out then give his play a few tweaks. 20% is too much? Knock it down to 19%. Can't get a particular deduction removed? Knock it down a bit more. I'm pretty sure 20% was chosen for its nice roundness - not because it is exactly the best number to use.
The guy has no concrete plans. At all. I've been saying this all along.
Should you need actual policy to become the president? Does it matter?
I'm actually not sure. Let's just say it's a lot easier to criticize SC2 for all it's faults and imbalances than actually design a better game.
|
On October 05 2012 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 05:07 kwizach wrote:On October 05 2012 04:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 03:55 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 03:27 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 03:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 03:17 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 02:16 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
But then he's still reducing the tax rates on the rich.
Even if what he really meant was that on net, the rich will not pay less taxes because of closed loopholes, that still makes no sense, it's not possible to close enough loopholes to make his plan revenue neutral. Further, interpreted this way, the statement would mean that Romney promises to closed enough loopholes specifically on the rich to be greater than the tax cuts he would give to the rich. This just adds another constraint into an already impossible math problem.
Under this interpretation, it's just rejigging where tax money comes from. How does rearranging the tax system in a way that the final tax revenue is exactly the same boost the economy? Where's the evidence.
Of course, we're both just making shit up about Romney's plan here, because he hasn't specified a plan. The idea of lowering marginal rates and closing loopholes has long been advocated by various tax experts. Its what Simpson-Bowles advocated too. The idea is that it will boost the economy through efficiency. Savings and investment will be made where it is efficient - not where the government directs it. Taxes will be less complex so less money will be wasted trying to game the system. Different plans but both have the same general idea of lowering rates while broadening the base: Fiscal CommissionBipartisan Policy Center That doesn't address the first part of my post about the fact that Romney will reduce marginal tax rates on the rich and that his plan doesn't add up.Also, it's laughable that rejigging the tax system would have anything more than the most minimal effect in boosting the economy. To suggest that increased efficiency in the tax code will boost the economy is to say that what's holding the economy is that people are really confused about how to fill in the tax return, that businesses would hire more workers if only they didn't have to spend so much money paying their tax accountants, and that not enough people are been taxed currently. Your point about reducing marginal rates is irrelevant. If you reduce taxes on the rich by $1 and raise taxes by $1 you have not given them a tax cut. I don't know why this is hard math for you. Prove that it doesn't add up please. I'd love to see your math I also love how you dismiss its effect because you only know how to look at the economy in the short-run aggregate. Where's that $1 going to come from? How is Romney going to make up that loss revenue from his tax cut? What loopholes is he going to close? It's a hopeless question. You will never answer it, because Romney has no answer. Why should I have to prove anything. It's Romney's plan, so the burden of proof is on him (or you, since you support it). Luckily, the TPC has already done the math for him and said that it's mathematically impossible. Nope, just put more on the table than the TPC has assumed or reduce the reduction in the marginal rates. EZPZ The TPC already puts everything viable on the table, except those which Romney ruled out. If you cut less than 20%, then that just goes to show that Romney's plan is mathematically impossible, and that he hasn't thought this through. Of course, there's no doubt that he hasn't thought this through since he keeps talking about loophole closing the the abstract but refuses to give a single loophole he would close. You say that I'm dismissing the long run effect of the Romney tax plan, and that I've only looked at the short run. But the depressed economy is a short run problem. It makes no sense that the way to get out of a recession is to simplify the tax code. What if we've simplified everything to a flat 15% tax on everything and everyone, and have another recession. What then is the solution? How can we simplify further? And what about the long run? Where's the evidence that this is good in the long run, and where's the evidence that what's good in the long run is good in fixing the short run? In the short run, there is no debt problem, but in the long run there is. So how is it a good idea to give a tax cut which almost certainly cannot be paid for in the long run? In the long run, there needs to be a tax increase. No, we've been over this. The TPC took off the table what they assumed Romney ruled out. Romney has since stated that he's very willing to eliminate deductions for higher earners. And there's plenty room to lower rates while closing loopholes. That's what Simpson-Bowles wanted to do - reduce the highest tax rates to 29% or less - right in line with what Romney wants. Romney's tax plan can be read on his website. Unless Romney makes changes to it, the TPC's analysis was perfectly valid - one of its two promises has to be broken for the other one to hold. OK, if that's the way it works out then give his play a few tweaks. 20% is too much? Knock it down to 19%. Can't get a particular deduction removed? Knock it down a bit more. I'm pretty sure 20% was chosen for its nice roundness - not because it is exactly the best number to use.
Yeah, I thought this was pretty clear during his debate last night.
|
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/04/barack-obama/obama-says-romneys-plan-5-trillion-tax-cut/
"The center estimated that altogether, the lost revenues would total $480 billion by 2015. The Obama campaign adds up the cost over a decade and winds up with $4.8 trillion, which it then rounds up to $5 trillion.
The conclusion is accurate but misleading. Yes, the cuts would total that amount, but as Obama himself noted as he continued speaking, Romney hopes to offset the lost revenues by closing loopholes and deductions. The reductions in tax breaks are as much a part of Romney’s plan as the tax cuts."
The thing that irritates me most, is that they continue to tout the "5 trillion" line, but neglect to say that it is over 10 years. 480 billion a year in loopholes and other methods is definitely a lot more tolerable than trying to close "5 trillion" in loopholes.
|
Romney's entire tax scheme is dependent on the economy growing and the government bringing in more tax receipts through higher business earnings and personal incomes. It's dishonest for Obama and the Democrats to ignore that and talk about how he's cutting taxes so less money will come in, but Romney acts like it's guaranteed that this growth and consequent higher receipts will happen, when it is not.
The thing that irritates me most, is that they continue to tout the "5 trillion" line, but neglect to say that it is over 10 years. 480 billion a year in loopholes and other methods is definitely a lot more tolerable than trying to close "5 trillion" in loopholes.
I hate the "over ten years" rubric politicians use anyway. It's just a way for them to make the impression that they're bringing in more revenue than they really are and cutting spending more than they really are. Oh we'll cut the deficit 4 trillion (Obama) over 10 years, but we'll still be running yearly trillion-dollar deficits each of those ten years. But we're cutting the deficit!
This will bring in 3 trillion in new revenue over ten years! (Romney, and he didn't say three trillion, he hasn't given a number really, but I had to put some kind of number up to make my point.) Three trillion sounds better than 300 billion a year, and 4 trillion sounds better than 400 billion a year. And they both sure as hell sound a lot better than "we'll still be running huge deficits."
|
On October 05 2012 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 05:07 kwizach wrote:On October 05 2012 04:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 03:55 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 03:27 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 03:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 03:17 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 02:16 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
But then he's still reducing the tax rates on the rich.
Even if what he really meant was that on net, the rich will not pay less taxes because of closed loopholes, that still makes no sense, it's not possible to close enough loopholes to make his plan revenue neutral. Further, interpreted this way, the statement would mean that Romney promises to closed enough loopholes specifically on the rich to be greater than the tax cuts he would give to the rich. This just adds another constraint into an already impossible math problem.
Under this interpretation, it's just rejigging where tax money comes from. How does rearranging the tax system in a way that the final tax revenue is exactly the same boost the economy? Where's the evidence.
Of course, we're both just making shit up about Romney's plan here, because he hasn't specified a plan. The idea of lowering marginal rates and closing loopholes has long been advocated by various tax experts. Its what Simpson-Bowles advocated too. The idea is that it will boost the economy through efficiency. Savings and investment will be made where it is efficient - not where the government directs it. Taxes will be less complex so less money will be wasted trying to game the system. Different plans but both have the same general idea of lowering rates while broadening the base: Fiscal CommissionBipartisan Policy Center That doesn't address the first part of my post about the fact that Romney will reduce marginal tax rates on the rich and that his plan doesn't add up.Also, it's laughable that rejigging the tax system would have anything more than the most minimal effect in boosting the economy. To suggest that increased efficiency in the tax code will boost the economy is to say that what's holding the economy is that people are really confused about how to fill in the tax return, that businesses would hire more workers if only they didn't have to spend so much money paying their tax accountants, and that not enough people are been taxed currently. Your point about reducing marginal rates is irrelevant. If you reduce taxes on the rich by $1 and raise taxes by $1 you have not given them a tax cut. I don't know why this is hard math for you. Prove that it doesn't add up please. I'd love to see your math I also love how you dismiss its effect because you only know how to look at the economy in the short-run aggregate. Where's that $1 going to come from? How is Romney going to make up that loss revenue from his tax cut? What loopholes is he going to close? It's a hopeless question. You will never answer it, because Romney has no answer. Why should I have to prove anything. It's Romney's plan, so the burden of proof is on him (or you, since you support it). Luckily, the TPC has already done the math for him and said that it's mathematically impossible. Nope, just put more on the table than the TPC has assumed or reduce the reduction in the marginal rates. EZPZ The TPC already puts everything viable on the table, except those which Romney ruled out. If you cut less than 20%, then that just goes to show that Romney's plan is mathematically impossible, and that he hasn't thought this through. Of course, there's no doubt that he hasn't thought this through since he keeps talking about loophole closing the the abstract but refuses to give a single loophole he would close. You say that I'm dismissing the long run effect of the Romney tax plan, and that I've only looked at the short run. But the depressed economy is a short run problem. It makes no sense that the way to get out of a recession is to simplify the tax code. What if we've simplified everything to a flat 15% tax on everything and everyone, and have another recession. What then is the solution? How can we simplify further? And what about the long run? Where's the evidence that this is good in the long run, and where's the evidence that what's good in the long run is good in fixing the short run? In the short run, there is no debt problem, but in the long run there is. So how is it a good idea to give a tax cut which almost certainly cannot be paid for in the long run? In the long run, there needs to be a tax increase. No, we've been over this. The TPC took off the table what they assumed Romney ruled out. Romney has since stated that he's very willing to eliminate deductions for higher earners. And there's plenty room to lower rates while closing loopholes. That's what Simpson-Bowles wanted to do - reduce the highest tax rates to 29% or less - right in line with what Romney wants. Romney's tax plan can be read on his website. Unless Romney makes changes to it, the TPC's analysis was perfectly valid - one of its two promises has to be broken for the other one to hold. OK, if that's the way it works out then give his play a few tweaks. 20% is too much? Knock it down to 19%. Can't get a particular deduction removed? Knock it down a bit more. I'm pretty sure 20% was chosen for its nice roundness - not because it is exactly the best number to use.
If his plan isn't numerically possible, he really shouldn't have proposed it in the first place. He should of chosen 20% because it was a workable number, if it isn't then 15% is a nice round number to go to.
The core of his plan, rate cuts in trade for loophole deduction, is a great idea. That said I don't trust Republicans to enact a deficit neutral tax plan, they will cover part of it with cuts and then shrug and say "well tax cuts pay for themselves" and call it a day.
Edit: @Blues: These sorts of tax changes will have a slight impact on the economy, both parties assume that receipts will increase as time goes on, so do government expenditures we already have promised to pay out, the difference is Republicans have a tendency to pretend it will grow enough to offset most of the tax cuts cost when it doesn't do that.
|
On October 05 2012 06:23 TheRabidDeer wrote:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/04/barack-obama/obama-says-romneys-plan-5-trillion-tax-cut/"The center estimated that altogether, the lost revenues would total $480 billion by 2015. The Obama campaign adds up the cost over a decade and winds up with $4.8 trillion, which it then rounds up to $5 trillion. The conclusion is accurate but misleading. Yes, the cuts would total that amount, but as Obama himself noted as he continued speaking, Romney hopes to offset the lost revenues by closing loopholes and deductions. The reductions in tax breaks are as much a part of Romney’s plan as the tax cuts." The thing that irritates me most, is that they continue to tout the "5 trillion" line, but neglect to say that it is over 10 years. 480 billion a year in loopholes and other methods is definitely a lot more tolerable than trying to close "5 trillion" in loopholes.
I'm pretty sure Obama said the words "over 10 years" at least two or three times in the back-and-forth.
|
On October 05 2012 06:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Romney's entire tax scheme is dependent on the economy growing and the government bringing in more tax receipts through higher business earnings and personal incomes. It's dishonest for Obama and the Democrats to ignore that and talk about how he's cutting taxes so less money will come in, but Romney acts like it's guaranteed that this growth and consequent higher receipts will happen, when it is not.
Obama needs to tell a convincing argument about how, and why, trickle-down theory doesn't work. He needs to use his own words and not Clintons. It has to be a solid, but easy-to-understand and not wonkish answer.
If Romney wants to argue based on principles and policies, than Obama should challenge those principles. Obama should point out that Romney is running on speculation and theory, and history tells us that it sucks.
|
On October 05 2012 06:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Romney's entire tax scheme is dependent on the economy growing and the government bringing in more tax receipts through higher business earnings and personal incomes. It's dishonest for Obama and the Democrats to ignore that and talk about how he's cutting taxes so less money will come in, but Romney acts like it's guaranteed that this growth and consequent higher receipts will happen, when it is not.
Well it basically is, in a certain way. Romney kept saying he would add 12 million jobs, but that's the number economists are predicting if the President does nothing at all. Obama really should have said that though. I mean our economy will be in full swing by the end of 2013 regardless of who is President. The President has the power to make our structure far more resilient, and of course get it more than just 12 million jobs.
|
Edit: @Blues: These sorts of tax changes will have a slight impact on the economy, both parties assume that receipts will increase as time goes on, so do government expenditures we already have promised to pay out, the difference is Republicans have a tendency to pretend it will grow enough to offset most of the tax cuts cost when it doesn't do that.
Slight reform of the code has a slight impact, but cutting rates has a big one. My point is that Romney assumes that he can grow receipts in bigger amounts and cut more discretionary spending.
Republicans have a tendency to ignore spending when they're talking about tax cuts bringing in more revenue to offset the "lost" revenue from lowering the rates. If they actually reigned in spending like they always say they will do then the growth would offset the "loss," but they never deliver on the spending. But I prefer to take a chance on Romney shocking the world and delivering on cutting spending than putting my faith on Obama's "What, me worry? We'll just tax the rich, yeah, it won't come near to covering the spending, but RICH RICH RICH" stance.
Well it basically is, in a certain way. Romney kept saying he would add 12 million jobs, but that's the number economists are predicting if the President does nothing at all. Obama really should have said that though. I mean our economy will be in full swing by the end of 2013 regardless of who is President. The President has the power to make our structure far more resilient, and of course get it more than just 12 million jobs.
I doubt the economy will be in full swing by the end of next year regardless of who is president, personally I think we'll be in another official recession by then.
Romney's implication is that with Obama in charge these predictions are as worthwhile as the prediction that unemployment would quickly go down to around 6% if the stimulus was passed.
That contention is arguable, but it isn't Romney taking credit for what would happen anyway.
|
On October 05 2012 06:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 06:23 TheRabidDeer wrote:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/04/barack-obama/obama-says-romneys-plan-5-trillion-tax-cut/"The center estimated that altogether, the lost revenues would total $480 billion by 2015. The Obama campaign adds up the cost over a decade and winds up with $4.8 trillion, which it then rounds up to $5 trillion. The conclusion is accurate but misleading. Yes, the cuts would total that amount, but as Obama himself noted as he continued speaking, Romney hopes to offset the lost revenues by closing loopholes and deductions. The reductions in tax breaks are as much a part of Romney’s plan as the tax cuts." The thing that irritates me most, is that they continue to tout the "5 trillion" line, but neglect to say that it is over 10 years. 480 billion a year in loopholes and other methods is definitely a lot more tolerable than trying to close "5 trillion" in loopholes. I'm pretty sure Obama said the words "over 10 years" at least two or three times in the back-and-forth.
I dont remember him saying it in the initial statement. I dont remember hearing it much in the debate either, but that may be because I wasnt paying 100% attention and missed it though.
On October 05 2012 06:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:I hate the "over ten years" rubric politicians use anyway. It's just a way for them to make the impression that they're bringing in more revenue than they really are and cutting spending more than they really are. Oh we'll cut the deficit 4 trillion (Obama) over 10 years, but we'll still be running yearly trillion-dollar deficits each of those ten years. But we're cutting the deficit!
This will bring in 3 trillion in new revenue over ten years! (Romney, and he didn't say three trillion, he hasn't given a number really, but I had to put some kind of number up to make my point.) Three trillion sounds better than 300 billion a year, and 4 trillion sounds better than 400 billion a year. And they both sure as hell sound a lot better than "we'll still be running huge deficits."
Yea, I agree. You know things are in bad shape when they are forced to say it that way to make it sound reasonably close to what we are spending. Deficits are yearly, cuts are by decades. Imagine how itd sound if they went apples to apples. "The deficit is looking to be 13 trillion over the next 10 years, but that is 4 trillion less than what it wouldve been otherwise!"
|
Thinking of problems and solutions in 4 year increments is fucking arbitrary and stupid anyway.
One of the things I hate most about political 'discourse' in America.
|
On October 05 2012 06:21 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 05:07 kwizach wrote:On October 05 2012 04:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 03:55 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 03:27 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 03:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 03:17 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] The idea of lowering marginal rates and closing loopholes has long been advocated by various tax experts. Its what Simpson-Bowles advocated too. The idea is that it will boost the economy through efficiency. Savings and investment will be made where it is efficient - not where the government directs it. Taxes will be less complex so less money will be wasted trying to game the system. Different plans but both have the same general idea of lowering rates while broadening the base: Fiscal CommissionBipartisan Policy Center That doesn't address the first part of my post about the fact that Romney will reduce marginal tax rates on the rich and that his plan doesn't add up.Also, it's laughable that rejigging the tax system would have anything more than the most minimal effect in boosting the economy. To suggest that increased efficiency in the tax code will boost the economy is to say that what's holding the economy is that people are really confused about how to fill in the tax return, that businesses would hire more workers if only they didn't have to spend so much money paying their tax accountants, and that not enough people are been taxed currently. Your point about reducing marginal rates is irrelevant. If you reduce taxes on the rich by $1 and raise taxes by $1 you have not given them a tax cut. I don't know why this is hard math for you. Prove that it doesn't add up please. I'd love to see your math I also love how you dismiss its effect because you only know how to look at the economy in the short-run aggregate. Where's that $1 going to come from? How is Romney going to make up that loss revenue from his tax cut? What loopholes is he going to close? It's a hopeless question. You will never answer it, because Romney has no answer. Why should I have to prove anything. It's Romney's plan, so the burden of proof is on him (or you, since you support it). Luckily, the TPC has already done the math for him and said that it's mathematically impossible. Nope, just put more on the table than the TPC has assumed or reduce the reduction in the marginal rates. EZPZ The TPC already puts everything viable on the table, except those which Romney ruled out. If you cut less than 20%, then that just goes to show that Romney's plan is mathematically impossible, and that he hasn't thought this through. Of course, there's no doubt that he hasn't thought this through since he keeps talking about loophole closing the the abstract but refuses to give a single loophole he would close. You say that I'm dismissing the long run effect of the Romney tax plan, and that I've only looked at the short run. But the depressed economy is a short run problem. It makes no sense that the way to get out of a recession is to simplify the tax code. What if we've simplified everything to a flat 15% tax on everything and everyone, and have another recession. What then is the solution? How can we simplify further? And what about the long run? Where's the evidence that this is good in the long run, and where's the evidence that what's good in the long run is good in fixing the short run? In the short run, there is no debt problem, but in the long run there is. So how is it a good idea to give a tax cut which almost certainly cannot be paid for in the long run? In the long run, there needs to be a tax increase. No, we've been over this. The TPC took off the table what they assumed Romney ruled out. Romney has since stated that he's very willing to eliminate deductions for higher earners. And there's plenty room to lower rates while closing loopholes. That's what Simpson-Bowles wanted to do - reduce the highest tax rates to 29% or less - right in line with what Romney wants. Romney's tax plan can be read on his website. Unless Romney makes changes to it, the TPC's analysis was perfectly valid - one of its two promises has to be broken for the other one to hold. OK, if that's the way it works out then give his play a few tweaks. 20% is too much? Knock it down to 19%. Can't get a particular deduction removed? Knock it down a bit more. I'm pretty sure 20% was chosen for its nice roundness - not because it is exactly the best number to use. The guy has no concrete plans. At all. I've been saying this all along. Should you need actual policy to become the president? Does it matter? I'm actually not sure. Let's just say it's a lot easier to criticize SC2 for all it's faults and imbalances than actually design a better game.
What was Obama's detailed plan in '08? Hope and Change? What's his detailed plan now? Resurrect old bills that got voted down? How will that work?
Guess we can't vote for either then...
|
On October 05 2012 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 05:07 kwizach wrote:On October 05 2012 04:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 03:55 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 03:27 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 03:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 03:17 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 02:16 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
But then he's still reducing the tax rates on the rich.
Even if what he really meant was that on net, the rich will not pay less taxes because of closed loopholes, that still makes no sense, it's not possible to close enough loopholes to make his plan revenue neutral. Further, interpreted this way, the statement would mean that Romney promises to closed enough loopholes specifically on the rich to be greater than the tax cuts he would give to the rich. This just adds another constraint into an already impossible math problem.
Under this interpretation, it's just rejigging where tax money comes from. How does rearranging the tax system in a way that the final tax revenue is exactly the same boost the economy? Where's the evidence.
Of course, we're both just making shit up about Romney's plan here, because he hasn't specified a plan. The idea of lowering marginal rates and closing loopholes has long been advocated by various tax experts. Its what Simpson-Bowles advocated too. The idea is that it will boost the economy through efficiency. Savings and investment will be made where it is efficient - not where the government directs it. Taxes will be less complex so less money will be wasted trying to game the system. Different plans but both have the same general idea of lowering rates while broadening the base: Fiscal CommissionBipartisan Policy Center That doesn't address the first part of my post about the fact that Romney will reduce marginal tax rates on the rich and that his plan doesn't add up.Also, it's laughable that rejigging the tax system would have anything more than the most minimal effect in boosting the economy. To suggest that increased efficiency in the tax code will boost the economy is to say that what's holding the economy is that people are really confused about how to fill in the tax return, that businesses would hire more workers if only they didn't have to spend so much money paying their tax accountants, and that not enough people are been taxed currently. Your point about reducing marginal rates is irrelevant. If you reduce taxes on the rich by $1 and raise taxes by $1 you have not given them a tax cut. I don't know why this is hard math for you. Prove that it doesn't add up please. I'd love to see your math I also love how you dismiss its effect because you only know how to look at the economy in the short-run aggregate. Where's that $1 going to come from? How is Romney going to make up that loss revenue from his tax cut? What loopholes is he going to close? It's a hopeless question. You will never answer it, because Romney has no answer. Why should I have to prove anything. It's Romney's plan, so the burden of proof is on him (or you, since you support it). Luckily, the TPC has already done the math for him and said that it's mathematically impossible. Nope, just put more on the table than the TPC has assumed or reduce the reduction in the marginal rates. EZPZ The TPC already puts everything viable on the table, except those which Romney ruled out. If you cut less than 20%, then that just goes to show that Romney's plan is mathematically impossible, and that he hasn't thought this through. Of course, there's no doubt that he hasn't thought this through since he keeps talking about loophole closing the the abstract but refuses to give a single loophole he would close. You say that I'm dismissing the long run effect of the Romney tax plan, and that I've only looked at the short run. But the depressed economy is a short run problem. It makes no sense that the way to get out of a recession is to simplify the tax code. What if we've simplified everything to a flat 15% tax on everything and everyone, and have another recession. What then is the solution? How can we simplify further? And what about the long run? Where's the evidence that this is good in the long run, and where's the evidence that what's good in the long run is good in fixing the short run? In the short run, there is no debt problem, but in the long run there is. So how is it a good idea to give a tax cut which almost certainly cannot be paid for in the long run? In the long run, there needs to be a tax increase. No, we've been over this. The TPC took off the table what they assumed Romney ruled out. Romney has since stated that he's very willing to eliminate deductions for higher earners. And there's plenty room to lower rates while closing loopholes. That's what Simpson-Bowles wanted to do - reduce the highest tax rates to 29% or less - right in line with what Romney wants. Romney's tax plan can be read on his website. Unless Romney makes changes to it, the TPC's analysis was perfectly valid - one of its two promises has to be broken for the other one to hold. OK, if that's the way it works out then give his play a few tweaks. 20% is too much? Knock it down to 19%. Can't get a particular deduction removed? Knock it down a bit more. I'm pretty sure 20% was chosen for its nice roundness - not because it is exactly the best number to use.
Yes, I'm sure we'll only have to knock it down by "a bit". The bottom line is that his plan, as it has been published, can't work for both of its core promises.
On October 05 2012 06:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 06:21 Defacer wrote:On October 05 2012 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 05:07 kwizach wrote:On October 05 2012 04:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 03:55 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 03:27 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 03:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 03:17 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
That doesn't address the first part of my post about the fact that Romney will reduce marginal tax rates on the rich and that his plan doesn't add up.
Also, it's laughable that rejigging the tax system would have anything more than the most minimal effect in boosting the economy. To suggest that increased efficiency in the tax code will boost the economy is to say that what's holding the economy is that people are really confused about how to fill in the tax return, that businesses would hire more workers if only they didn't have to spend so much money paying their tax accountants, and that not enough people are been taxed currently. Your point about reducing marginal rates is irrelevant. If you reduce taxes on the rich by $1 and raise taxes by $1 you have not given them a tax cut. I don't know why this is hard math for you. Prove that it doesn't add up please. I'd love to see your math I also love how you dismiss its effect because you only know how to look at the economy in the short-run aggregate. Where's that $1 going to come from? How is Romney going to make up that loss revenue from his tax cut? What loopholes is he going to close? It's a hopeless question. You will never answer it, because Romney has no answer. Why should I have to prove anything. It's Romney's plan, so the burden of proof is on him (or you, since you support it). Luckily, the TPC has already done the math for him and said that it's mathematically impossible. Nope, just put more on the table than the TPC has assumed or reduce the reduction in the marginal rates. EZPZ The TPC already puts everything viable on the table, except those which Romney ruled out. If you cut less than 20%, then that just goes to show that Romney's plan is mathematically impossible, and that he hasn't thought this through. Of course, there's no doubt that he hasn't thought this through since he keeps talking about loophole closing the the abstract but refuses to give a single loophole he would close. You say that I'm dismissing the long run effect of the Romney tax plan, and that I've only looked at the short run. But the depressed economy is a short run problem. It makes no sense that the way to get out of a recession is to simplify the tax code. What if we've simplified everything to a flat 15% tax on everything and everyone, and have another recession. What then is the solution? How can we simplify further? And what about the long run? Where's the evidence that this is good in the long run, and where's the evidence that what's good in the long run is good in fixing the short run? In the short run, there is no debt problem, but in the long run there is. So how is it a good idea to give a tax cut which almost certainly cannot be paid for in the long run? In the long run, there needs to be a tax increase. No, we've been over this. The TPC took off the table what they assumed Romney ruled out. Romney has since stated that he's very willing to eliminate deductions for higher earners. And there's plenty room to lower rates while closing loopholes. That's what Simpson-Bowles wanted to do - reduce the highest tax rates to 29% or less - right in line with what Romney wants. Romney's tax plan can be read on his website. Unless Romney makes changes to it, the TPC's analysis was perfectly valid - one of its two promises has to be broken for the other one to hold. OK, if that's the way it works out then give his play a few tweaks. 20% is too much? Knock it down to 19%. Can't get a particular deduction removed? Knock it down a bit more. I'm pretty sure 20% was chosen for its nice roundness - not because it is exactly the best number to use. The guy has no concrete plans. At all. I've been saying this all along. Should you need actual policy to become the president? Does it matter? I'm actually not sure. Let's just say it's a lot easier to criticize SC2 for all it's faults and imbalances than actually design a better game. What was Obama's detailed plan in '08? Hope and Change? What's his detailed plan now? Resurrect old bills that got voted down? How will that work? Guess we can't vote for either then...
His detailed plan is right there on his website. It's amazing to me that some people have the nerve to put the Romney and Obama plans on equal footing when Obama's actually has the specifics that Romney refuses to include in his. And, by the way, your "old bills that got voted down" argument got completely debunked in this very thread when it was explained to you that the bills submitted by Republicans were in reality not Obama's plan at all.
|
Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms
"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"
"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"
and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.
You say what you need to to get elected.
All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.
People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.
The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.
Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.
Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.
People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.
Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
