http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-policy-center-spotlight-romney-173604062.html

no argument from me for either side, just wondering what you guys have to say about this.

Meh, they've been talking about this report for some time now. A place that claims to be non-partisan but only does a "report" on the plan of one candidate, loses all credibility.

Can't really do a new report on the 'other guy' because it's basically the same as we've been living with for 4 years...except that he wants the Bush tax cuts to expire for people earning $200K. That will not come close to impacting the deficit....and that is not in dispute. This is just one organizations report, and quite a few other organizations do not agree with it. Of course, Obama's campaign will seize upon it...claiming that it won't work, but then offer no alternative except to play the class warfare game.

HitsRus;1304457 wrote:Can't really do a new report on the 'other guy' because it's basically the same as we've been living with for 4 years...except that he wants the Bush tax cuts to expire for people earning $200K. That will not come close to impacting the deficit....and that is not in dispute. This is just one organizations report, and quite a few other organizations do not agree with it. Of course, Obama's campaign will seize upon it...claiming that it won't work, but then offer no alternative except to play the class warfare game.

No one is saying that it will solve the deficit. But ending the tax cuts for those making more than a million dollars a year makes sense. No one has ever said just letting that happen will solve the deficit though so I don't understand why the bolded statement keeps popping up.

As for the evaluations of Romney's tax plan we're seeing it's not surprising that there is some disagreement since we know absolutely nothing about what his plan actually is. He says he'll cut everyone's rate by 20%, then he says that's not true, etc. And even if we assume the first is what he actually means we then don't know which of the loopholes and deductions that he's said he's closing will be closed. So it's hard to analyze. Though if it actually is the 20% cut I don't see what deductions and loopholes could be eliminated to overcome that. And then there's the massive increase in military spending to consider.

I Wear Pants;1304623 wrote:No one is saying that it will solve the deficit. But ending the tax cuts for those making more than a million dollars a year makes sense. No one has ever said just letting that happen will solve the deficit though so I don't understand why the bolded statement keeps popping up.

Please tell me, how does it make economic sense. Don't give me the "fair share" social economic retribution argument, give me a sound economic (you know, with math) argument that says "it makes sense".

No one is saying that it will solve the deficit. But ending the tax cuts for those making more than a million dollars a year makes sense. No one has ever said just letting that happen will solve the deficit though so I don't understand why the bolded statement keeps popping up.

The problem is...that million keeps being talked about when what BHO proposes is $200K. Moreover, it's not about ending the Bush era tax cuts which would affect everyone....but only using the class warfare game as a political tool. It solves nothing and isn't a solution for anything.

HitsRus;1304457 wrote:Can't really do a new report on the 'other guy' because it's basically the same as we've been living with for 4 years...except that he wants the Bush tax cuts to expire for people earning $200K. That will not come close to impacting the deficit....and that is not in dispute. This is just one organizations report, and quite a few other organizations do not agree with it. Of course, Obama's campaign will seize upon it...claiming that it won't work, but then offer no alternative except to play the class warfare game.

CBO projects that allowing the top marginal rate to revert back to 39.6% will reduce the deficit by upwards of $900 billion over the next ten years without causing a noticeable contraction in aggregate demand and a concurrent contraction gdp. So, it brings in a significant chunk of money without hurting the economy according to the evidence. It is a win win.

jmog;1304687 wrote:Please tell me, how does it make economic sense. Don't give me the "fair share" social economic retribution argument, give me a sound economic (you know, with math) argument that says "it makes sense".

It makes economic sense because we can reduce the deficit in a way that won't contract the economy based upon the evidence. For instance, allowing the payroll tax cut to expire looks like it would be very bad right now because it would take a lot of money out of people's pockets that actually spend it. Allowing the top marginal rate to rise won't have that effect...according to the models used by the CBO.

Still would like to see a place in the constitution where someone who makes more money has to pay a higher RATE in taxes. Not more in taxes, but a higher rate. Talk about "fairness" and paying your "fair share".

HitsRus;1304692 wrote:It solves nothing and isn't a solution for anything.

It solves a significant portion of our budget gap without contracting the economy. Win/Win.

BoatShoes;1304786 wrote:It makes economic sense because we can reduce the deficit in a way that won't contract the economy based upon the evidence. For instance, allowing the payroll tax cut to expire looks like it would be very bad right now because it would take a lot of money out of people's pockets that actually spend it. Allowing the top marginal rate to rise won't have that effect...according to the models used by the CBO.

You mean the same CBO that says we will be bankrupt in 2016? According to you, all we need is MOAR stimulus!

sleeper;1304787 wrote:Still would like to see a place in the constitution where someone who makes more money has to pay a higher RATE in taxes. Not more in taxes, but a higher rate. Talk about "fairness" and paying your "fair share".

The 16th amendment grants Congress the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several states and without regard to any census or enumeration.

So, your source is the plain language of the document.

sleeper;1304789 wrote:You mean the same CBO that says we will be bankrupt in 2016? According to you, all we need is MOAR stimulus!

Not according to me...according to the evidence from the real actual world. I have no special knowledge that is not available to you.

BoatShoes;1304793 wrote:The 16th amendment grants Congress the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several states and without regard to any census or enumeration.

So, your source is the plain language of the document.

You forgot the part about where "All men are created equal"; not "All men are created equal, unless you are rich, then you pay more in taxes".

BoatShoes;1304794 wrote:Not according to me...according to the evidence from the real actual world. I have no special knowledge that is not available to you.

CBO comes out with a report that supports your position = CREDIBLE
CBO comes out with a report that does not support your position = NOT CREDIBLE

Gotcha.

sleeper;1304789 wrote:You mean the same CBO that says we will be bankrupt in 2016? According to you, all we need is MOAR stimulus!

Boatshoes resists even the slightest reduction in spending as "austerity", yet when the CBO does some hocus-pocus suddenly raising taxes on the wealthy don't matter.

It's not surprise that keynesians and Obama have cast their lot together in the failed policies of the past 4 years. Deficits less than half this matter when a Repub is in the WH, but monstrous deficits under Obama suddenly don't matter.

BoatShoes;1304788 wrote:It solves a significant portion of our budget gap without contracting the economy. Win/Win.

90 Billion on a 1.2 Trillion deficit. I'll go fire up the parade floats. I guess your definition of "significant" is a little different than mine.

sleeper;1304801 wrote:CBO comes out with a report that supports your position = CREDIBLE
CBO comes out with a report that does not support your position = NOT CREDIBLE

Gotcha.

Find a post when I said the CBO is not credible.

BoatShoes;1304794 wrote:Not according to me...according to the evidence from the real actual world. I have no special knowledge that is not available to you.

^^

fish82;1304811 wrote:90 Billion on a 1.2 Trillion deficit. I'll go fire up the parade floats. I guess your definition of "significant" is a little different than mine.

Well we're not going to have a 1.2 trillion deficit as the economy improves. In case you haven't noticed it's down 20% from last year. But you're right, because it's not $200 billion it shouldn't be done even though it won't harm the economy to do so :rolleyes:

gut;1304802 wrote:Boatshoes resists even the slightest reduction in spending as "austerity", yet when the CBO does some hocus-pocus suddenly raising taxes on the wealthy don't matter.

It's not surprise that keynesians and Obama have cast their lot together in the failed policies of the past 4 years. Deficits less than half this matter when a Repub is in the WH, but monstrous deficits under Obama suddenly don't matter.

If I were acting on my intuition, I would say that we should not raise the top marginal rate because it would contract aggregate demand; I argued as much when BHO and congress extended the full bush tax cut package. However, the best you can do is rely on the evidence rather than my own intuition. Hence, since we've got a bunch of budget hawks, might as well do it if it's not going to contract aggregate demand.

sleeper;1304824 wrote:^^

You aren't making sense. My original position on the matter is that you don't raise marginal rates at any level until full employment is reached or nearly approaching and the FED has ammo to respond to the contraction. The CBO has produced evidence that my intuitive position does not hold. So, the facts change and I change my mind since we're a world full of deficit hawks.

I am the resident defender of the CBO on here. I don't see how you're suggesting that I'm saying the CBO's analysis is not credible in the post you quote.

sleeper;1304799 wrote:You forgot the part about where "All men are created equal"; not "All men are created equal, unless you are rich, then you pay more in taxes".

LOL.

BoatShoes;1304830 wrote: I am the resident defender of the CBO on here. I don't see how you're suggesting that I'm saying the CBO's analysis is not credible in the post you quote.

Then you will just LOVE this report:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/06-05-Long-Term_Budget_Outlook_2.pdf

BoatShoes;1304828 wrote:If I were acting on my intuition, I would say that we should not raise the top marginal rate because it would contract aggregate demand; I argued as much when BHO and congress extended the full bush tax cut package. However, the best you can do is rely on the evidence rather than my own intuition. Hence, since we've got a bunch of budget hawks, might as well do it if it's not going to contract aggregate demand.

Yet, curiously, you don't support Romney's plan which seeks to lower marginal rates (which would STIMULATE aggregate demand) while not lowering the overall tax burden.

I mean, you keep harping about "budget hawks" and "austerity". You've pounded that strawman to death. But it appears you either don't fully grasp the issues, or are so blinded by supporting Obama for reasons unknown that pointing out your logical inconsistencies is fish in a barrel.