Ty Webb;1280581 wrote:So what you're telling me...is that you,**** Morris,and the Republican Party believe that polls are so biased towards Democrats that they show a 7 point Obama lead while Romney is really up 11? To quote Keyshawn Johnson"COME ON MAN"

Scott Rasmussen has even said that site it full of ****

Is that a direct quote from Rasmussen? I seem to have read it a little differently.

"We have got to reform our tax system," Romney said at a morning event here. "Small businesses most typically pay taxes at the individual tax rate. And so our individual income taxes are the ones I want to reform. Make them simpler. I want to bring the rates down. By the way, don't be expecting a huge cut in taxes because I'm also going to lower deductions and exemptions. But by bringing rates down we will be able to let small businesses keep more of their money so they can hire more people.

Willard has lost his damn mind.

At a rally in Westerville yesterday he basically admitted in that comment that the Middle Class needs to get ready to bend over because he plans on giving it to us good.

Even if that is his intention, who dumb do you have to be to admit it ahead of time?

All comments like this from him do is play into the Liberal Meme that he is going to raise taxes on the middle class (by slashing all of their major deductions) to finance a tax cut for the wealthy and well to do.

IggyPride00;1280788 wrote: At a rally in Westerville yesterday he basically admitted in that comment that the Middle Class needs to get ready to bend over because he plans on giving it to us good.

How do you get that from "don't expect a huge cut because I'm lowering [offsetting] deductions"?

It's not rocket science. You lower the marginal rate and pay for it with eliminating deductions. For people who actually pay income taxes, lowering the marginal rates on AGI can easily be equal or greater to the exclusion of a deduction at a higher rate.

The people that stand to lose are those paying no income taxes, and mostly only if they do anything with the EIC and/or mortgage interest deduction. And I don't see anything happening there.

The concept of lower marginal rates and removing deductions (i.e. simplicity & efficiency) is hardly new or some evil concoction of Romney to soak the middle class in favor of the rich.

Maybe the revenue neutral rate isn't a 20% reduction when you consider what deductions can reasonably be eliminated. However, it IS a pro growth policy when you consider it increases the after-tax return on profitable investment.

Concerns over the implementation are fair, however tax simplicity has long been argued by people on all sides. And it's widely acknowledged there are efficiency gains to be made from simpler taxation.

gut;1280827 wrote:How do you get that from "don't expect a huge cut because I'm lowering [offsetting] deductions"?

It's not rocket science. You lower the marginal rate and pay for it with eliminating deductions. For people who actually pay income taxes, lowering the marginal rates on AGI can easily be equal or greater to the exclusion of a deduction at a higher rate.

The people that stand to lose are those paying no income taxes, and mostly only if they do anything with the EIC and/or mortgage interest deduction. And I don't see anything happening there.

The concept of lower marginal rates and removing deductions (i.e. simplicity & efficiency) is hardly new or some evil concoction of Romney to soak the middle class in favor of the rich.

Maybe the revenue neutral rate isn't a 20% reduction when you consider what deductions can reasonably be eliminated. However, it IS a pro growth policy when you consider it increases the after-tax return on profitable investment.

Concerns over the implementation are fair, however tax simplicity has long been argued by people on all sides. And it's widely acknowledged there are efficiency gains to be made from simpler taxation.

For the deductions he needs to eliminate to even approach it being revenue neutral, it would amount to a couple thousand dollar tax hike on Middle class people even with the lower marginal rate.

How is that going to help grow the economy?

The only people in the country that come out ahead swapping deductions for lower marginal rates are those making alot of money. To everyone else it is going to be a net loser (tax increase).

To me it seems like a cure that's worse than the disease.

IggyPride00;1280872 wrote:For the deductions he needs to eliminate to even approach it being revenue neutral, it would amount to a couple thousand dollar tax hike on Middle class people even with the lower marginal rate.

How is that going to help grow the economy?

The only people in the country that come out ahead swapping deductions for lower marginal rates are those making alot of money. To everyone else it is going to be a net loser (tax increase).

To me it seems like a cure that's worse than the disease.

The findings of that study are in dispute, to be kind (some might call it "junk" based on bad assumptions). There's a lot of ways this can go, and it ultimately depends on what Congress puts in and takes out.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/25/usa-campaign-romney-taxplan-idINL1E8KOM4H20120925
William Gale, one of the authors of the Tax Policy Center report, said he did not dispute the Heritage findings but said they were adding back in tax breaks that Romney has indicated in general ways that he would protect.

"Yes, if you go after those three taxes on savings and if you raise taxes on capital gains and dividends you can get the money to pay for this," Gale, an economist, said.



It's really not that big of a deal. The exact details might need some work, but the concept is not inherently unfair - depends on the cuts and deductions.

And the reality is simply that soaking the rich can't fund the massive expansion of the socialist state. The middle class is ultimately going to pay more under both Romney and Obama. You can't stimulate the economy by cutting taxes (i.e. increasing handouts) on people who don't pay any - just look at Europe's growth.

Romney's plan might ultimately have little impact, but it certainly has potential. It depends on how well it aligns the tax burden with investment that can create jobs. "Subsidies" don't just exist for the poor/middle class, it exists for corporations and the wealthy, too. What Romney's plan attempts to do, at its core, is to be pro growth by not forcing the winners to subsidize the losers among the job creators. It's really an entire other topic - the debate here shouldn't be about the shift of tax burden to the middle class, but whether the short-run transition costs of removing "corporate welfare" outweigh the long-run benefits. It's an especially pertinent question given the fragile state of the economy.

gut;1280910 wrote:The findings of that study are in dispute, to be kind (some might call it "junk" based on bad assumptions). There's a lot of ways this can go, and it ultimately depends on what Congress puts in and takes out.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/25/usa-campaign-romney-taxplan-idINL1E8KOM4H20120925
William Gale, one of the authors of the Tax Policy Center report, said he did not dispute the Heritage findings but said they were adding back in tax breaks that Romney has indicated in general ways that he would protect.

"Yes, if you go after those three taxes on savings and if you raise taxes on capital gains and dividends you can get the money to pay for this," Gale, an economist, said.



It's really not that big of a deal. The exact details might need some work, but the concept is not inherently unfair - depends on the cuts and deductions.

And the reality is simply that soaking the rich can't fund the massive expansion of the socialist state. The middle class is ultimately going to pay more under both Romney and Obama. You can't stimulate the economy by cutting taxes (i.e. increasing handouts) on people who don't pay any - just look at Europe's growth.

Romney's plan might ultimately have little impact, but it certainly has potential. It depends on how well it aligns the tax burden with investment that can create jobs. "Subsidies" don't just exist for the poor/middle class, it exists for corporations and the wealthy, too. What Romney's plan attempts to do, at its core, is to be pro growth by not forcing the winners to subsidize the losers among the job creators. It's really an entire other topic - the debate here shouldn't be about the shift of tax burden to the middle class, but whether the short-run transition costs of removing "corporate welfare" outweigh the long-run benefits. It's an especially pertinent question given the fragile state of the economy.

They're not really in dispute and the Romney camp has already thrown Martin Feldstein and Kevin Hasset under the bus over them. But why run away. Why not just have some balls and say... "Yes, the middle class needs to pay more and super-awesome-job-creators like myself need to pay less because it encourages investment and economic growth while allowing you to keep more money because of distortionary tax expenditures is really meaningless in the long run as it doesn't make us wealthier in the long run."

Sack up and make the argument. Your boy who is supposed to be such a leader is running away from it. Romney is has not and will not make the case that getting rid of tax expenditures will make us better off in the long run which is the only leg he has to stand on (even though there's not much evidence that he has a case).

That's why he's going down like the Hindenburg.

BoatShoes;1282054 wrote:They're not really in dispute .

What's not in dispute? Romney has said he won't raise taxes on the middle class. I already explained the concept of revenue neutral and how the actual shape of it will depend on tradeoffs between rate deductions and eliminations of credits/deductions.

This fairy tale about Romney raising taxes on the middle class is just that. First off, 2/3 of filers take the standard deduction. And Congress will never take away the EIC or the MID (perhaps they will cap it). That equates to absolutely no tax increase for probably 98% of the middle class. The "threat" is just an extension of the class warfare argument, even though Romney has said he won't do it and analysts admit it can be done without raising taxes on the middle class.

It's not even a purely Republican idea. Tax efficiency/simplicity is something that has been talked about for a long time, and that's all Romney's plan really is.