[FONT=&quot]There is no plan to offset the tax cuts; Romney is just intending to blow up the deficit to lavish favors on the wealthy, then use it as an excuse to savage Social Security and Medicare.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"[/FONT]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf

Willard is going to have to figure out how to deal with this as they used the rosiest set of assumptions possible as far as his tax plan and that was still the net effect.

Obama's new campaign slogan iis now "He pays less, you pay more" in regards to Willard's tax plan.

Romney needs to get on this and show the public how he plans to cut taxes on everyone, increase military spending (as he promised) and at the same time not explode the deficit even worse than it is right now.

This thing with the taxes though really needs to be nipped in the butt immediately because it is the kind of thing that makes for a great slogan and can easily take hold with independents.

24 hours after it has come out there has still not been a denial from the Willard camp that I have seen over the math from that study (they have of course attacked the group who conducted it). That is unacceptable if it is indeed a lie. If it's not, then it is time to get back to the drawing board because such a plan is terribly bone headed politically.

[video=youtube;r1D1jI61ckY][/video]

Before anyone questions it.

[LEFT]They tried to brush the Tax Policy Center’s analysis off as “just another biased study from a former Obama staffer.” That former Obama staffer is Adam Looney, one of the study’s three co-authors, who was a staff economist on the Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010. But William Gale, one of Looney’s coauthors on this study, was a staff economist on George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. And the Tax Policy Center is directed by Donald Marron, who was actually a principal on George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. Calling the Tax Policy Center biased is ridiculous. Just ask…the Romney campaign, which
[/LEFT]
referred to the TPC’s work as “objective, third-party analysis” during the primary. Oops.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/02/nine-takeaways-on-romneys-tax-plan/?hpid=z5

Bigdogg;1238937 wrote:



http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf

Under the OBAMA Administration
"Your kids and mine and their children will pay more than everyone for Obama failued agenda"
"The only reason the middle class is paying less taxes because they have less money and are unemployed. Obama failure agenda creates less for everyone"
"Obama welfare society plan hits the middle class first"

Belly35;1238982 wrote:Under the OBAMA Administration
"Your kids and mine and their children will pay more than everyone for Obama failued agenda"
"The only reason the middle class is paying less taxes because they have less money and are unemployed. Obama failure agenda creates less for everyone"
"Obama welfare society plan hits the middle class first"

This boys and girls is how you justify voting for a man who's going to raise your taxes when you hate the idea of paying more taxes.

Romney also came out and used Tax Policy Center studies against Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich in the primary season calling them "objective, third-party analysis." He doesn't feel that way now :laugh:

I'm also looking forward to hearing about the explosion of growth that's going to happen.

BoatShoes;1239038 wrote:This boys and girls is how you justify voting for a man who's going to raise your taxes when you hate the idea of paying more taxes.

Kids here just one example of why taxes have to be raised because of this failure Administration 535M tax dollars for Solyndra pissed away by pressure from the Obama failure agenda...

How many more examples do you need to vote this clown out....

When half the country doesn't pay any federal income tax, a 1.2% bump seems pretty damn reasonable.

Obama keeps trying to sell a 5-10% increase on "the 1%" and cutting for the 99% is going to magically fix the deficit problem. How stupid does he think you are? You are going to vote for a guy who makes no attempt to hide the fact that he thinks you're stupid?

gut;1239164 wrote:When half the country doesn't pay any federal income tax, a 1.2% bump seems pretty damn reasonable.

Obama keeps trying to sell a 5-10% increase on "the 1%" and cutting for the 99% is going to magically fix the deficit problem. How stupid does he think you are? You are going to vote for a guy who makes no attempt to hide the fact that he thinks you're stupid?

I might agree if Romney was proposing a deficit reduction plan...instead, he's proposing tax raises on lower and middle income americans to ameliorate the $5-$8trillion he intends to add to the deficit in tax breaks for high earners.

BoatShoes;1239185 wrote:I might agree if Romney was proposing a deficit reduction plan...instead, he's proposing tax raises on lower and middle income americans to ameliorate the $5-$8trillion he intends to add to the deficit in tax breaks for high earners.

That would be quite the trick since that's several multiples of what the high earners make in a year. Not to mention, he's largely offsetting tax cuts with the closing of loopholes and exemptions. Base broadening - key detail you're ignoring (what a surprise). And the tax cuts hit far, far more people than just those making over $200k.

Love this part:

Spending cuts are excluded from the analysis. As a result, tax rate reductions are wholly financed by the most progressive possible combination of cuts in available income tax expenditures. If spending cuts were used as a form of partial financing for the rate cuts listed above, the precise distributional effects would depend on the composition of the cuts and which programs and government functions were reduced. It is likely, however, that cutting spending would make the plan even more regressive because government spending tends to benefit low- and middle-income households more than tax preferences do.

Basically what I gather from that paragraph is that Romney's plan sucks because it won't transfer and redistribute massive amounts of wealth from rich people (who earned it) to low- and middle-income people who didn't.

jhay78;1239196 wrote:Love this part:



Basically what I gather from that paragraph is that Romney's plan sucks because it won't transfer and redistribute massive amounts of wealth from rich people (who earned it) to low- and middle-income people who didn't.

Low and middle class people don't earn money? Are you sure?

jhay78;1239196 wrote:Love this part:



Basically what I gather from that paragraph is that Romney's plan sucks because it won't transfer and redistribute massive amounts of wealth from rich people (who earned it) to low- and middle-income people who didn't.

And "more regressive" is really a sanitized critique when you consider almost half aren't paying anything. Also very misleading to call a tax plan regressive on the basis of reduced spending/handouts. If it doesn't actually raise their taxes then it isn't really "more regressive", so you have to do a slight-of-hand to include govt handouts as part of their earnings.

gut;1239194 wrote:That would be quite the trick since that's several multiples of what the high earners make in a year. Not to mention, he's largely offsetting tax cuts with the closing of loopholes and exemptions. Base broadening - key detail you're ignoring (what a surprise). And the tax cuts hit far, far more people than just those making over $200k.

LOL, don't you see that is the magic asterisk...the efforts to broaden the base are what in effect raise taxes on the middle class and even under the most pristine assumptions. In the previous post I should have said "national debt" instead of "deficit."

jhay78;1239196 wrote:Love this part:



Basically what I gather from that paragraph is that Romney's plan sucks because it won't transfer and redistribute massive amounts of wealth from rich people (who earned it) to low- and middle-income people who didn't.

But in effect this is the same thing as base broadening really. If you claim the home mortgage interest deduction for instance it is just like accepting a check from the government to pay your mortgage interest. Economically they are the same. Under pure income tax norms a deduction for mortgage interest does not exist. Ironically this type of thinking is why we have so many inefficient tax expenditures...people don't have the same type of contempt for people claiming a credit on their tax return as they do for people cashing a check from the local department of jobs and family services.

BoatShoes;1239038 wrote:This boys and girls is how you justify voting for a man who's going to raise your taxes when you hate the idea of paying more taxes.

I don't hate paying more taxes. I hate paying more when others are paying none.

Abe Vigoda;1239201 wrote:Low and middle class people don't earn money? Are you sure?

That's not what he said. He is saying that if you transfer money from the rich to lower classes, that money was earned (by the rich) and passed on to the lowers (who had it given to them).

BoatShoes;1239246 wrote:LOL, don't you see that is the magic asterisk...the efforts to broaden the base are what in effect raise taxes on the middle class and even under the most pristine assumptions. In the previous post I should have said "national debt" instead of "deficit."

You really should try to learn to read and understand for yourself, and research, rather than be spoonfed BS and regurgitate. "Broadening the base" does not refer only, or even necessarily, to the base of taxpayers. In tax/accounting lingo, "base" does not refer to taxpayers but types of income. When people talk about broadening the base they are referring to the elimination of exclusions and deductions that would lower qualifying income or promote the additional realization of deferred income.

BoatShoes;1239248 wrote:..people don't have the same type of contempt for people claiming a credit on their tax return as they do for people cashing a check from the local department of jobs and family services.

I would argue TAKING less money from Peter is categorically different than GIVING less money to Paul.

gut;1239325 wrote:You really should try to learn to read and understand for yourself, and research, rather than be spoonfed BS and regurgitate. "Broadening the base" does not refer only, or even necessarily, to the base of taxpayers. In tax/accounting lingo, "base" does not refer to taxpayers but types of income. When people talk about broadening the base they are referring to the elimination of exclusions and deductions that would lower qualifying income or promote the additional realization of deferred income.

Well despite your condescension, I understand what is meant by base broadening and the point remains the same. For example, under pure income tax norms, the value of employer provided health insurance provided as compensation for services rendered would necessarily be recognized as taxable income to the employee. However, that value is need not included as income under the current code. If employer provided health insurance were to be included as income, because it is the single largest tax expenditure in the code and a perfect candidate to be included in the tax base under a "lower the rate, broaden the base" plan, very many middle income taxpayers would see a rise in taxable income and concurrent tax bills as well. I know you like to talk down to me but the fact is middle class taxpayers would see a higher when more types of income are included in the tax base.

Keep in mind though...If Romney wins, when we're reminded how silly old employees who aren't the real engines of economic growth need to have their tax base broadened you can be sure to hear from the Bidnez w0rld how investors need their tax base not to include income from capital gains and dividends to be taxed so Capitalism can finaaaaallllyyyy thrive as is proposed by Paul Ryan. That's right, if only Mitt Romney's marginal tax rates were zero our economy will surely grow at double digit rates!

gut;1239328 wrote:I would argue TAKING less money from Peter is categorically different than GIVING less money to Paul.

Suppose Peter and Paul owe obligations of $100 to Gus. Both Paul and Peter Pay their obligations to Gus who now has $200.

Next Year, Gus thinks it would good to encourage Peter and Paul to have homes. Thus, Gus offers to accept a lower obligation from Peter than he is due in the amount equal to his home mortgage interest. To Paul, Gus offers to send him a check back from his obligation in the amount of his mortgage interest.

So, when it is time to pay up, Peter sends Gus a check for $80 subtracting the amount he paid on his mortgage interest. Gus ends up with $80 in his treasury from Peter. When it is Paul's time to pay up, he sends Gus a check for $100. Gus, fulfilling his promise to Paul, sends him a check for $20 to cover the interest Paul paid on his mortgage. Gus ends up with $80 in his treasury from Paul.

At the end of the day, they're the same. It's just politically better to "spend" through the tax code than write out gubmint checks.

Con_Alma;1239262 wrote:I don't hate paying more taxes. I hate paying more when others are paying none.

Racist. Bigot. Homophobe. Class warfare wager. Sexist. Age-ist! (<--- even if that's not a word, you're one of them!!!)

I think you have a "whole in your sole"!!!!!

BoatShoes;1239359 wrote:Well despite your condescension, I understand what is meant by base broadening and the point remains the same.

No, it really doesn't.

But to use your example, the employee gets higher income receiving the health insurance (instead of the employer paying it directly), and then is taxed at a [likely] lower rate. So while some funky things might happen to their marginal rates, this is intentionally misleading because at the end of the day said employee has higher after tax income, which is what is relevant.

And please avoid "the fact is" when you know nothing of the sort. You have no idea what happens to any specific group of taxpayers as it will depend on which loopholes are closed, deductions eliminated, and how much income they were excluding before. We won't even go into the debates of "fair" or "justified" as the wealthy have been paying a higher % of taxes over the years. Truthfully, the tax proposals are blind of income and wealth status. EVERYONE who has capital gains will benefit from that tax remaining lower. EVERYONE who has a mortgage interest deduction will be hurt if they revise that item (and likely only wealthier payers as I don't see them ever touching that below at least $400k). Marginal rates are going down for EVERYONE.

Now, the top 20% of taxpayers pay 94% of the federal income tax, therefore if you are going to cut who is going to get the cut? You can't cut people's taxes when they don't pay anything.

The most likely thing in Romney's plan to affect more average income earners is eliminating the AMT, which many have called for over the years and has increasingly been hammering people who certainly aren't rich.

Another slight-of-hand is the bulk of cuts are not new cuts but simply not letting the Bush tax cuts expire. The $800-$900B number assumes in lost revenues assumes, first of all, that the Bush tax cuts expire in 2013 (and almost no one agree that is feasible). Second, I'm not sure how they do this analysis because he hasn't detailed which exemptions, loopholes, etc they'd close. Third, they're ignoring economic growth and expansion of the base from realizing gains and repatriating foreign income (something that is observed with all tax cuts).

BoatShoes;1239367 wrote:Suppose Peter and Paul owe obligations of $100 to Gus. Both Paul and Peter Pay their obligations to Gus who now has $200.

Next Year, Gus thinks it would good to encourage Peter and Paul to have homes. Thus, Gus offers to accept a lower obligation from Peter than he is due in the amount equal to his home mortgage interest. To Paul, Gus offers to send him a check back from his obligation in the amount of his mortgage interest.

So, when it is time to pay up, Peter sends Gus a check for $80 subtracting the amount he paid on his mortgage interest. Gus ends up with $80 in his treasury from Peter. When it is Paul's time to pay up, he sends Gus a check for $100. Gus, fulfilling his promise to Paul, sends him a check for $20 to cover the interest Paul paid on his mortgage. Gus ends up with $80 in his treasury from Paul.

At the end of the day, they're the same. It's just politically better to "spend" through the tax code than write out gubmint checks.

WTF?!? One guy has earned his income, the other has not and is not entitled to anything. I'm not even going to bother to try and make sense of this drivel. Cutting someone's unearned entitlement is not remotely the same as confiscating less of someone's hard-earned income.