Romney: Why tax cut is a bad deal

[Rationalist]

You're liberal, and liberalism survives in the US mainly due to the Democrat Party. A flat tax would destroy the Democrat Party and therefore destroy liberalism.

I know plenty of liberals who support flax taxation, albeit with an allowance (which is necessary). For the personal income tax, I think around 17% on everything over 40k would do the trick.

 

[Bfgrn]

According to many Democrats, individuals who bring in $200,000 should be regarded as "wealthy." This is so laughable it warrants no response.

John McCain received a lot of flak for saying $5 million is the point at which one could be considered wealthy, and yet even that is not necessarily the case. It seems obvious to me that most liberals possess a very limited understanding of wealth, particularly as it relates to operating a small or medium-sized business.

I have no objection to temporarily taxing the super wealthy at a high rate to pay down the national debt - let's say, 50% on everything over $50 million. I do object to left-wing extremists such as Bernie Sanders penalizing the hard-working entrepreneurs who provide the majority of Americans with jobs.

No one penalized the hard-working people AND entrepreneurs more than Ronald Reagan. Reagan transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. He looted Social Security to cover the shortfalls of his tax cuts for the wealthy. And the whole 'small businessman is the engine of growth' was cruel rhetoric. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent under Reagan.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

No one penalized the hard-working people AND entrepreneurs more than Ronald Reagan. Reagan transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. He looted Social Security to cover the shortfalls of his tax cuts for the wealthy. And the whole 'small businessman is the engine of growth' was cruel rhetoric. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent under Reagan.

is it your claim the middle class did not grow under reagan? and become better off?

 

[DamnYankee]

No it wouldn't you are reaching here, son.

Not at all. The Democrat Party survives merely because there are voters who pay no tax or receive government benefits and therefore feel beholden to them. A flat tax would make everyone pay their fair share.

 

[DamnYankee]

I know plenty of liberals who support flax taxation, albeit with an allowance (which is necessary). For the personal income tax, I think around 17% on everything over 40k would do the trick.

Why should there be an allowance? Everyone needs to have skin in the game.

 

[DamnYankee]

No one penalized the hard-working people AND entrepreneurs more than Ronald Reagan. Reagan transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. He looted Social Security to cover the shortfalls of his tax cuts for the wealthy. And the whole 'small businessman is the engine of growth' was cruel rhetoric. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent under Reagan.

Too much ignorance in your post here to attempt to correct.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

But that's what stimulus spending is supposed to be.

If you are looking for a 'stop the hemorrhaging' quick short term fix, I agree that is the fastest way. However, you don't keep doing it over and over and over again as a long term solution. The first part of the stimulus package should have gone to such programs immediately, the second part should have gone to infrastructure build out as it actually puts those unemployed people to work.

It makes plenty of sense. Food stamps are spent on purchases of food.

Wow... food stamps used to purchase food? Really? Thanks capt obvious.

The problem with food stamps is that they tend to focus the purchases on one sector of the economy. Again, as an immediate quick fix, it is a good stop gap. But it is not a solution. You use stop gaps to give you time to put the long term solution into play. ie... ideally a stop gap would have been used in the first quarter 2009 with the long term portion put into effect starting second quarter. We did not do this. We instead keep extending unemployment over and over and over again. This does not put people to work. It simply keeps pushing the problem into the future.

Tax cuts are not necessarily spent on new purchases but are oftentimes either saved or used to pay down existing debt. That's the difference. If the tax cuts were made by issuing people vouchers that could only be used to purchase goods then the stimulative effect of tax cuts and food stamps would be the same. Likewise, unemployment benefits are typically spent as opposed to saved or used to pay down debt.

see above.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So what I am getting from the former Governor is that the main reason he is not happy about the compromise is that his (note his not mine) tax cuts won't be permanently entrenched in the laws of this nation. So, he doesn't want to play this game.

Gov. Romney makes a good point when he says, "In many cases, lowering taxes can actually increase government revenues. If new businesses, new investments and new hiring are spurred by the prospects of better after-tax returns, the taxes paid by these new or growing businesses and employees can more than make up for the lower rates of taxation." I believe that if conditions are right, tax cuts for the rich do in fact help to spur growth, but the operative word there is "IF". Conditions have to be right. The important question is whether or not conditions are right at this time in our history and I have to say that I have my doubts as to whether or not those conditions are right today. Corporate taxes are already extremely low. Will lowering them further provide the additional boost necessary to increase revenues as promised? That is a question that any stores marketing department needs to answer whenever the store contemplates advertising a "sale". Will the lower prices bring in enough sales of the products to actually increase revenue or not? Like I said, at this point in time, I have my doubts.

What I find disturbing... disturbing but not unexpected, is that the man who may very well be the next Republican Candidate for the White House doesn't even seem to consider the need for tax cuts. Raising tax revenue won't do a doggone bit of good if Congress simply continues to raise expenditures above and beyond any increased tax revenues.

Immie

First, welcome back.

Second, we have the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world. They are no where near being low.

Third, you are correct in that it matters not if Congress finds ways to raise revenue if they continue to outspend it every year as they have since 1960.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

A flat tax would be better than what we have today, but I still think the "Fair Tax" kicks butt over either. With a flat tax, it will still be too easy to hide income and not pay taxes at all.

Immie

If you have a flat tax with a standard deduction, it would be the best solution.

A 'fair tax' simply puts us on the same path as our current system. Lobbyists would come in force to DC to push to make their products 'exempt' or get special treatment. The bribes would flow. The tax code would get insanely complex again. The fair tax is also by nature more regressive.

 

[WinterBorn]

If you have a flat tax with a standard deduction, it would be the best solution.

A 'fair tax' simply puts us on the same path as our current system. Lobbyists would come in force to DC to push to make their products 'exempt' or get special treatment. The bribes would flow. The tax code would get insanely complex again. The fair tax is also by nature more regressive.

One of the cornerstones of the Fair Tax is no deductions at all. That prevents special interests from taking over again.

That is why lobbyists are fighting it so hard.

 

[Bonestorm]

If you are looking for a 'stop the hemorrhaging' quick short term fix, I agree that is the fastest way. However, you don't keep doing it over and over and over again as a long term solution. The first part of the stimulus package should have gone to such programs immediately, the second part should have gone to infrastructure build out as it actually puts those unemployed people to work.

So your long term solution is longer term spending or direct employment by the government for people to be paid to do stuff? I'd agree with that, but I doubt you could get anything like that to pass Congress.

The "long term solution" under current policy is for the short term solution to result in sufficient economic growth to prevent the need for longer term government policies to prop up the economy.

Wow... food stamps used to purchase food? Really? Thanks capt obvious.

The problem with food stamps is that they tend to focus the purchases on one sector of the economy. Again, as an immediate quick fix, it is a good stop gap. But it is not a solution. You use stop gaps to give you time to put the long term solution into play. ie... ideally a stop gap would have been used in the first quarter 2009 with the long term portion put into effect starting second quarter. We did not do this. We instead keep extending unemployment over and over and over again. This does not put people to work. It simply keeps pushing the problem into the future.

My point was simply that the difference in the stimulative effect of tax cuts and food stamps is that food stamps are entirely spent on new purchases of goods while tax cuts are used for savings and to pay down debt, which have limited stimulative effect.

 

[Topspin]

How many wives does Mitt have?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

One of the cornerstones of the Fair Tax is no deductions at all. That prevents special interests from taking over again.

That is why lobbyists are fighting it so hard.

Which would make it extremely REGRESSIVE. That is not a good option in my opinion.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So your long term solution is longer term spending or direct employment by the government for people to be paid to do stuff? I'd agree with that, but I doubt you could get anything like that to pass Congress.

I would qualify the above. Spending on infrastructure. Something that the government HAS to spend money on anyway. Escalate the spending during periods of economic downturns when unemployment is high. Right now you have people who need the work, construction materials relatively cheap due to a lack of construction via new office buildings, apartments, condos, homes etc..., and a severely deteriorated infrastructure.

That said, I would agree it isn't likely as the idiots in DC never take the common sense approach to solving problems. They take the 'who paid me the most' approach.

The "long term solution" under current policy is for the short term solution to result in sufficient economic growth to prevent the need for longer term government policies to prop up the economy.

True. Which is the problem as the current policy's short term solutions do not provide for job creation. They provide for stabilization. That is the problem.

My point was simply that the difference in the stimulative effect of tax cuts and food stamps is that food stamps are entirely spent on new purchases of goods while tax cuts are used for savings and to pay down debt, which have limited stimulative effect.

That depends on other factors. If the cost of inflation is rising on goods used by the majority of people as they are today in food, energy, gasoline, health care, etc... at a pace that most people cannot keep up with, then the corresponding tax cuts will provide them money to spend on those areas having the same effect (albeit a slower more sustained effect).

It all depends on consumers disposable income levels. That said, as a country we need to start getting better at paying down debt and saving more.

 

[WinterBorn]

Which would make it extremely REGRESSIVE. That is not a good option in my opinion.

Considering the cost of almost everything we buy is roughly 22% taxes, its not much of a difference from what we have now.

The pluses would be no one paying taxes on the necessities, no more special interests involved in our taxes, and criminals being taxed, I see it as a big improvement.

Plus, any used items purchased are tax exempt.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Considering the cost of almost everything we buy is roughly 22% taxes, its not much of a difference from what we have now.

Except for the fact that it is regressive. The poor do not pay roughly 22% on what they buy now.

The pluses would be no one paying taxes on the necessities, no more special interests involved in our taxes, and criminals being taxed, I see it as a big improvement.

This is where the corruption would come into play. Where the lobbyists would line up with the bribes. WHO decides what is a 'necessity'???

While I think it would be an improvement initially vs our current system, the flat tax with standard deduction is the better system. It is fair, simple, progressive and there would be no room for lobbyists bribes.

Plus, any used items purchased are tax exempt.

I don't see that as a huge plus.... and it leads to more potential corruption.

If a dealer 'uses' a car for a few hundred miles and then sells it, is it taxed? Who defines 'used'?

 

[Jarod]

Hey Immie, good to see you around.. Hope you are well.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

This is where the corruption would come into play. Where the lobbyists would line up with the bribes. WHO decides what is a 'necessity'???

While I think it would be an improvement initially vs our current system, the flat tax with standard deduction is the better system. It is fair, simple, progressive and there would be no room for lobbyists bribes.

I disagree. The flat tax is still an income tax, not a consumption tax. That is what makes the fair tax more attractive, we are a consumer nation. Every plan I've seen for a fair tax, doesn't allow for 'exemptions' in the tax on certain products. It has a built-in pre-bate. Each month families would receive a check for the amount of fair tax they will pay for basic needs. This eliminates the need to make exceptions for this or that.

To me, the most attractive thing about the fair tax, actually two things... The elimination of payroll taxes entirely, and the elimination of corporate income tax. We'll all have what amounts to about a 35% raise on our paychecks... you don't think THAT would spark the economy? Corporations would no longer have to pay income taxes, can you imagine how many companies worldwide, would be knocking our doors down to create new jobs here?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I disagree. The flat tax is still an income tax, not a consumption tax. That is what makes the fair tax more attractive, we are a consumer nation. Every plan I've seen for a fair tax, doesn't allow for 'exemptions' in the tax on certain products. It has a built-in pre-bate. Each month families would receive a check for the amount of fair tax they will pay for basic needs. This eliminates the need to make exceptions for this or that.

To me, the most attractive thing about the fair tax, actually two things... The elimination of payroll taxes entirely, and the elimination of corporate income tax. We'll all have what amounts to about a 35% raise on our paychecks... you don't think THAT would spark the economy? Corporations would no longer have to pay income taxes, can you imagine how many companies worldwide, would be knocking our doors down to create new jobs here?

Consumption taxes are regressive and boneheaded. The rich actually dont consume an amount that's commensurate with their outsized income.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I disagree. The flat tax is still an income tax, not a consumption tax. That is what makes the fair tax more attractive, we are a consumer nation. Every plan I've seen for a fair tax, doesn't allow for 'exemptions' in the tax on certain products. It has a built-in pre-bate. Each month families would receive a check for the amount of fair tax they will pay for basic needs. This eliminates the need to make exceptions for this or that.

To me, the most attractive thing about the fair tax, actually two things... The elimination of payroll taxes entirely, and the elimination of corporate income tax. We'll all have what amounts to about a 35% raise on our paychecks... you don't think THAT would spark the economy? Corporations would no longer have to pay income taxes, can you imagine how many companies worldwide, would be knocking our doors down to create new jobs here?

1) Congrats, you figured out that the flat tax was an income tax.... Kudos

2) The fair tax 'rebates' are derived from politicians deciding what goods/services are 'necessities' and what are not.

3) Again, the fair tax is highly REGRESSIVE, even with rebates