PDA

View Full Version : The NEXT Romney tax secret we'll hear about...



Soflasnapper
07-23-2012, 04:55 PM
Romney USED to have a very comprehensive 60-page or so detailed economic plan. That was panned, and under the slightest pressure he caved as he typically does, and then tore up that plan which kept the Bush top rate in effect at 35%, replacing it with about a single sentence proposal.

This proposal, which doesn't really exist (meaning in any detail, on paper, to where it could be scored by CBO or others), is to drop the top rate to 28%, with a promise of unspecified trimming of tax preferences (loopholes, in other words) that, by 'broadening the base' (taking away deductions), would be revenue neutral (compared to now, with the 35% top rate).

It would also zero out capital gains tax altogether.

Now, there is approx. $1.2 trillion in tax expenditures (the net lowered federal revenues effect of the various tax preferences in the code). Romney's cut from 35% to 28% on the top rate AND his zeroing out of cap gains adds a lot to that figure (all preferred tax rates are included in the tax preference/tax expenditures category).

Basically, to even get this thing to revenue neutrality will require approx. 70% to 80% of all CURRENT tax preferences to be done away with.

Such things as the $1,000 per child tax credit, the mortgage interest deductibility, the deductibility of state taxes from federal taxes, deductibility of medical expenses, etc.

Not surprisingly, Romney has not shown his work on his answer, nor described WHAT or HOW MUCH he was going to take out of these popular and widely used tax breaks and deductions.

Why? Because slashing the dollar amounts of these things by the 70-80% across the board that would be necessary will be highly controversial, and broadly opposed by even middle-class workers.

This issue dwarfs his personal tax return hiding, and there is no POSSIBLE defense to the demands that he release some better details of his entirely vague program. What would he say? Mirroring his current answer on the current tax program, could he get away with claiming, 'I've done all that is required with these broad outlines. All providing additional details would do is provide the Democrats with something to attack me with.'

I thought he was going down in flames already. Once this one-two punch comes through, he'll certainly be down on the canvas nursing a very sore giant lantern jaw that he has, with the referee at '5.... 6.....'

Qtec
07-24-2012, 12:34 AM
You mean,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The NEXT Romney tax secret we </div></div>
won't hear about!

Romney doesn't have a serious plan. Everything he has proposed,his time at Bain, his tax returns - everything is shrouded in a cloak of secrecy.

Its time the media started doing its job and start pressing him on details of his policy as well as his tax returns.

Q

LWW
07-24-2012, 12:52 AM
So he proposed a repeat of the Reagan success ... and implementation of Obama's own deficit reduction commission?

DiabloViejo
07-24-2012, 02:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So he proposed a repeat of the Reagan success ... and implementation of Obama's own deficit reduction commission? </div></div>

Please explain and elaborate on the matter.TIA!

Qtec
07-24-2012, 02:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So he proposed a repeat of the Reagan success ... and implementation of Obama's own deficit reduction commission? </div></div>

LOL

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So he proposed a repeat of the Reagan success . </div></div>


<span style='font-size: 23pt'>HIGHER TAXES FOR THE RICH !!!! Thanks for that.</span>

Q..... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
07-24-2012, 06:08 AM
Haven't you heard? His queen has told us that they have already given "You People" everything you need to know!!!

How dare you go against the queens rules!!!!

Off with your head!

G.

LWW
07-24-2012, 06:17 AM
Yes, Nancy Pelosi has told us that we have all the tax records we are going to get.

LWW
07-24-2012, 06:18 AM
http://liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/liberal-logic-101-136.jpg

Soflasnapper
07-24-2012, 09:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So he proposed a repeat of the Reagan success ... and implementation of Obama's own deficit reduction commission? </div></div>

The 'Reagan Success' was so great at throwing off red ink at 4x the previous record level of annual deficit that even though he was forced to cancel his entire corporate tax cut before it was in place a year, raise the payroll tax rate by 50% on all workers and employers (more, actually as the cutoff income was more than doubled with that 50% increased rate), raise taxes at least in 6 of his final 7 years 11 different times, his 8 years still saw the original national debt he came in with end up tripled as of when it was over.

Some success. Obama is thought horrific on fiscal policy because he's on track to just DOUBLE the prior national debt in his 8 years, if this track continues.

To switch to a regime that might triple it, IF Romney had Reagan's nerve and flexibility to raise taxes 11 times in 7 years (which he will not), and to probably do far more than triple it because of Romney's fear and weakness, is unsound.

LWW
07-24-2012, 02:51 PM
Why don't you stay on topic with the revenue it generated.

That we had a traitorous congress that renegedon it's promised spending cuts is well known.

By your logic union members should refuse raises because it puts thm farther in debt.

Y'all believe the silliest things.

Soflasnapper
07-24-2012, 05:17 PM
Revenue went up over the 8 year period by about 80%, in nominal dollars, unadjusted for inflation.

Approx. 95% of that increase in revenue came from the effects of an average 5% inflation (5% x 8 years = 40%, not considering compounding) during that time, and the 11 or more tax hikes in at least 6 of the 7 last years. You know, when you put up the FICA rate by 50%, and raise the base of earned income to which you apply the tax by 100%, that raises a ton of money. And it did.

The 'traitorous Congress' included a GOP majority Senate for 6 years, and never less than 1/3rd of each body to sustain any financial reason veto of Reagan's, HAD HE MADE ANY.

You might have been right, had the Congress gotten together and routinely overturned Reagan's many vetoes. However, for odd reasons I hope you can explain, Reagan never did veto a bill to cause it to be repassed with a lesser spending amount. (He vetoed one bill because it included funding for legal services, but that was because he wanted the de minimus funding cut to zero, not reduced for overall deficit amount purposes.)

LWW
07-25-2012, 03:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So he proposed a repeat of the Reagan success ... and implementation of Obama's own deficit reduction commission? </div></div>

LOL

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So he proposed a repeat of the Reagan success . </div></div>


<span style='font-size: 23pt'>HIGHER TAXES FOR THE RICH !!!! Thanks for that.</span>

Q..... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

Very good ... with the Reagan tax cuts, the tax burden shifted heavily from the poor and middle class to the rich.

One would think you would be happy over that.

LWW
07-25-2012, 03:46 AM
That's both f you now agreeing with me.

LWW
07-25-2012, 03:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Revenue went up over the 8 year period by about 80%, in nominal dollars, unadjusted for inflation.

Approx. 95% of that increase in revenue came from the effects of an average 5% inflation (5% x 8 years = 40%, not considering compounding) during that time, and the 11 or more tax hikes in at least 6 of the 7 last years. You know, when you put up the FICA rate by 50%, and raise the base of earned income to which you apply the tax by 100%, that raises a ton of money. And it did.

The 'traitorous Congress' included a GOP majority Senate for 6 years, and never less than 1/3rd of each body to sustain any financial reason veto of Reagan's, HAD HE MADE ANY.

You might have been right, had the Congress gotten together and routinely overturned Reagan's many vetoes. However, for odd reasons I hope you can explain, Reagan never did veto a bill to cause it to be repassed with a lesser spending amount. (He vetoed one bill because it included funding for legal services, but that was because he wanted the de minimus funding cut to zero, not reduced for overall deficit amount purposes.) </div></div>

So congress should have trumped the vetoes you say he never made?

Wow!

Qtec
07-25-2012, 07:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> the Reagan tax cuts</div></div>


....are a myth. This has been explained to you a million times.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All told, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>the tax increases Reagan approved </span>ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 legislation.

Annual federal tax receipts during his presidency averaged 18.2% of GDP, a smidge below the average under President Carter -- and a smidge above the 40-year average today.
How might Reagan fare today?

Reagan's behavior might not pass muster with those voters today who insist their Congressmen treat every proposed tax increase as poisonous to the republic.

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>"By today's standards, the Gipper would easily qualify for status as a back-stabbing, treacherous RINO </span>[Republican in Name Only]," wrote Tax Analysts contributing editor Martin Sullivan, in an article for Tax Notes in May. </div></div>

The truth hurts, right?

Q

Soflasnapper
07-25-2012, 09:26 AM
So congress should have trumped the vetoes you say he never made?

Wow!

There are no more obtuse people than the willfully obtuse. Congratulations, for re-setting the personal record in that regard!!

Obviously I was making a far different point.

Presidents are not helpless creatures who are forced to sign whatever Congress passes. They have a powerful option known as the veto.

Your laughable position that Reagan was only the pitiful helpless victim of a runaway spending Congress forgets to consider whether or not he attempted to use this veto power. If he had, only to see it overturned by 2/3rds vote in both Houses of Congress, then he'd be excused from being a part of the spending problem, and it would all be on the runaway Congress.

He did not do so, failing EVER to veto ANYTHING to get a reduced spending level than what was passed, for each and every one of his eight years in office. Moreover, what he received as a law duly passed by both Houses of Congress as to spending levels had to also pass the muster of the Senate, where he not only had his party's ability there to insist on a 60 vote margin to pass it, but also had the majority for the first 6 years.

That means no bill could even be brought forward in the Senate unless his own party's leadership there said it could go forward. (The majority has the power of the agenda, what can be brought up, and what is instead buried, never brought up.)

So instead you tell fairy tales about how Reagan was a hapless figure, and his own party must not have controlled the Senate for 6 years, so obviously he fell victim to the Democratic juggernaut? An absurd tale, perhaps believable by children, but not once they've reached the age of 12.