queencitybuckeye;1286994 wrote:Absolutely. What I could do is outsource much of my work to India for a fraction of my current labor costs, and hire plenty of people to handle the additional work. And then in your mind, I'd be the evil capitalist for doing exactly what the current government policies make sense for me to do.

Sure you can, but then you'll find out that it's not the rosey picture you thought it was. What you saved in labor was quickly made up in shipping costs, opportunity costs from delayed said shipping, inconsistencies in your product performance, piracy of your said procduct.. you know.. all the stuff companies are finding out about now

If you were smart you'd at least send it to China since that's where a lot of your product will be sold. India would be a waste. Majority of jobs being sent overseas aren't to manufacture and bring back here to sell.. it's to enter Asia's market.

dwccrew;1286913 wrote:The American voting public isn't smart enough, and also lacks the attention-span, to listen to these two canidates go in-depth about the details of their plans. This is why both canidates speak in talking points and general terms.

This debate, nor will the next two debates, change anyone's mind. It may sway a few independents, but I doubt many polls will shift significantly in the next few weeks. Mittens may get a little bump, but he really needs to close the gap in the swing states if he wants to win this thing.

Bingo. If the two candidates really went deep into their plans, 95% of the voting public would be completely lost, and it would be a waste of time. Time that you don't have in a debate.

queencitybuckeye;1286989 wrote:I don't think we're that far apart. If Mr. Romney is portraying tax cuts as a "magic bullet", he's exaggerating. To claim that they would have no effect on employment defies basic economic theory (IOW it's nonsense).

I agree with this. The incentive effects of reductions in marginal tax rates are indisputable. It is not really up for debate that there should be a pro-growth effect. However, the evidence just not support the idea that a 20% rate reduction in marginal rates can be revenue neutral without eliminations of popular tax expenditures that middle class Americans use because the incentive effect is not going to cause enough growth.

He seemed to indicate that he would back away from the 20% reduction in rates in the event that it wouldn't be revenue neutral and/or require raising taxes on middle income Americans but that marginal rate cut has indeed been the cornerstone of his tax reform plan for the entire campaign...

I actually like the idea that he'd be open to changing his mind on that were he to get into office if his commitment above all else is a deficit neutral tax reform as opposed to the 20% rate cut being his number one priority.

http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/study-shows-tax-cuts-for-rich-dont-spur-growth_2012-09-18.html

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1287020 wrote:http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/study-shows-tax-cuts-for-rich-dont-spur-growth_2012-09-18.html

Couldn't get past the title of that article. Listen about 50 seconds in.

[video=youtube;Fsu-G5BIHHU][/video]

I thought I read about Mitt's zingers here, but if I did I could not find the thread. Were they effective?

http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romneys-debate-zingers-able-deliver-163944654.html

Mitt Romney's hair is amazing.

mucalum49;1287026 wrote:Couldn't get past the title of that article. Listen about 50 seconds in.

[video=youtube;Fsu-G5BIHHU][/video]

Yes I know what he said, but he can't lower their tax rate by 20%, close their loop holes..and not reduce their tax. It's mathematically impossible.

This is killing me. I just can't wait to see the polls surge after Roney destroyed Obama in the debate last night.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1287041 wrote:Yes I know what he said, but he can't lower their tax rate by 20%, close their loop holes..and not reduce their tax. It's mathematically impossible.

How is it mathematically impossible?

I have say $20,000,000 in "income", of which only say $500,000 is open to the IRS (rest is in loopholes). If you lower my taxes by 20%, but then take away some of the loopholes, you can EASILY make up for the $100,000 I "saved" by reducing my tax 20%. In fact, closing the loopholes would result in MORE tax money being collected because we're talking about taxing nearly $19,500,000.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1286926 wrote: How can Mittens guarantee he's going to create enough jobs to offset these tax cuts?

A) He's an alternative to Obama. We know Obama's record on this and it's deplorable.

B) It's a pro-growth policy. While it's no guarantee, it's superior to Obama's anti-business agenda.

C) Stop regurgitating the leftist talking point about Romney's "tax cut". He's cutting marginal rates, but offsetting it with elimination of deductions. The whole "he can't do 20% blah blah blah" is more obfuscation. So there's no "tax cut" to offset, because he's not actually lowering taxes but lowering marginal rates. If you were listening - if you were hearing - last night he explained this pretty clearly.

D) If Romney can't get this economy going again then he should be fired, just like Obama should be.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1287041 wrote:Yes I know what he said, but he can't lower their tax rate by 20%, close their loop holes..and not reduce their tax. It's mathematically impossible.

It's semantically impossible but not mathematically impossible. You're reducing their technical "tax", but in all actually the Government would be making more money off of most of the richer folks.

Example: You and your tax shelters generate $20,000,000 last year, of which the IRS can only tax $500,000 of it as "income". Lower that by 20% and you're saving $100,000. Now remove some of the stupid loopholes and you're opening up a lot more than $100,000 the government can go after.


I don't think the biggest obstacle to our government getting more tax money from the rich is either the Dems or Repubs fault, it's the stupid IRC.

lhslep134;1287047 wrote:How is it mathematically impossible?

I have say $20,000,000 in "income", of which only say $500,000 is open to the IRS (rest is in loopholes). If you lower my taxes by 20%, but then take away some of the loopholes, you can EASILY make up for the $100,000 I "saved" by reducing my tax 20%. In fact, closing the loopholes would result in MORE tax money being collected because we're talking about taxing nearly $19,500,000.

B/c Tax Policy Central already said there weren't enough deductions available to make up the difference
http://factcheck.org/tag/taxes/feed/

sleeper;1286862 wrote:I did. I didn't hear any specifics from either candidate, because debates aren't long enough to outlay specific plans. Your bias in singling out Mitt and then claiming Obama laid out his plan is pretty embarrassing.

This. And Romney gave plenty of detail as can reasonably be expected in the time allotted. Ty's perspective is one that simply dug into to support Obama regardless of what the real facts are. There's clearly an emotional attachment because why else do people continue to back such a failure?

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1287052 wrote:B/c Tax Party Central already said there weren't enough deductions available to make up the difference
http://factcheck.org/tag/taxes/feed/

Again, you're speaking semantically. There might not be enough "deductions" to remove, but there's certainly enough loopholes. The problem would be getting to those loopholes, which is unrealistic without completely changing the code IMO.

lhslep134;1287057 wrote:Again, you're speaking semantically. There might not be enough "deductions" to remove, but there's certainly enough loopholes. The problem would be getting to those loopholes, which is unrealistic without completely changing the code IMO.

Ok. I see what you're saying.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1287058 wrote:Ok. I see what you're saying.

Yeah in a perfect world, the best candidate would/could have a plan that would completely tear up the IRC to make something more functionally productive, I just wish that it wasn't an impractical impossibility. Way too much big money to allow that to happen.

gut;1287048 wrote:A) He's an alternative to Obama. We know Obama's record on this and it's deplorable.

B) It's a pro-growth policy. While it's no guarantee, it's superior to Obama's anti-business agenda.

C) Stop regurgitating the leftist talking point about Romney's "tax cut". He's cutting marginal rates, but offsetting it with elimination of deductions. The whole "he can't do 20% blah blah blah" is more obfuscation. So there's no "tax cut" to offset, because he's not actually lowering taxes but lowering marginal rates. If you were listening - if you were hearing - last night he explained this pretty clearly.

D) If Romney can't get this economy going again then he should be fired, just like Obama should be.

It doesn't change the fact that his numbers don't add up and if the jobs are not created that he's saying will be created only further exacerbates the deficit.

Was last nights ass beating a hate crime?

Al Gore: Denver altitude affected Obama's performance:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/04/al-gore-blames-denver-altitude-for-obama-debate-performance-video/

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1287067 wrote:It doesn't change the fact that his numbers don't add up and if the jobs are not created that he's saying will be created only further exacerbates the deficit.

It's superior to anything Obama has tried or would do. It's largely a strawman argument to rationalize more of the same failure with Obama. THAT'S a fact for you.

IMO, Romney is being pretty smart not going overly into specifics for the left to parse and spin. They're already busy misrepresenting and distorting the few points of his tax plan that he's outlined. The revenue neutral marginal rate reduction (let's not call it a tax cut, that misrepresents the plan) might not be 20%, but in the political game you can't start saying it's 15-17% or you get skewered. And then it depends on what Congress agrees to as far as closing loopholes and eliminating deductions.

And nobody is talking about the implications of the same approach on corporate rates. People are zeroing in on the personal income tax and I don't think a broad-based plan needs to be so limited. It's a good plan - quibbling over the details and assumptions doesn't negate the merit.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1287067 wrote:It doesn't change the fact that his numbers don't add up and if the jobs are not created that he's saying will be created only further exacerbates the deficit.

Good point. Hey did you check to see if Obama's numbers add up?

sleeper;1287104 wrote:Good point. Hey did you check to see if Obama's numbers add up?

Everyone is harping on some mythical $2000 tax increase on the middle class that Romney allegedly is proposing....but what they don't want to talk about is the nearly $4000 drop in incomes for the middle class under Obama.

lhslep134;1287057 wrote:Again, you're speaking semantically. There might not be enough "deductions" to remove, but there's certainly enough loopholes. The problem would be getting to those loopholes, which is unrealistic without completely changing the code IMO.

Well you know that's the point about tax reform really is that the IRC is a hodge-podge of tax expenditures that have been thrown in to help the middle class and so if you did do it, it effectively amounts to a raise in taxes on middle income Americans who effectively live under a consumption tax.

The perfect example is the exclusion for employer provided health insurance. It is the most expensive tax expenditure. A lot of economists think this was originally a bad idea and it has kind of played a part in entrenching our inefficient healthcare system. If Romney eliminated that tax expenditure it would go a long way to making a marginal rate cut revenue neutral. This was in fact part of the Bowles-Simpson proposal.

But, a lot of middle income Americans may be unhappy and burdened if suddenly they're going to have to recognize that huge share of benefits they get from their job as taxable income.

And to me, that's why he ought toat least lay out a proposal for what position he would take with Congress when he would be bargaining to eliminate tax expenditures. He says "We'll figure that out with Congress" but I think the people would like to have an idea about what his bargaining position is going to be.