PDA

View Full Version : Romney Backs Away From Own Tax Plan



Qtec
10-04-2012, 02:35 AM
Told you.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At the first presidential debate in Colorado Wednesday night, former Gov. Mitt Romney disputed a central criticism of his tax reform plan — and appeared to disavow one of its central features.

Responding to President Obama’s description of Romney’s proposal, Romney claimed: “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of the scale you’re talking about. I think we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I won’t reduce the share of tax paid by high-income people. … I’m not looking to cut massive taxes and to reduce revenues going to the government. My number one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that no tax cut that will add to the deficit.”

So who’s right?

Romney has run for months on a plan to lower everyone’s tax rates by 20 percent — an amount that independent analysts have concluded will reduce revenues by $5 trillion over 10 years.

Romney has also insisted that his plan will be deficit neutral and <span style='font-size: 14pt'>that it won’t increase taxes on the middle class.</span> But according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center and other analysts, Romney won’t be able to make good on both of those latter promises.

According to TPC, even if Romney closes all loopholes and deductions for high-income earners, that alone will not account for all the revenue he loses because of the rate cut. Thus, to make the overall plan deficit neutral he’d have to raise the tax burden on middle income Americans.

Faced with this basic description, Romney said, “If the tax plan he described were a tax plan I was asked to support, I would say absolutely not.” </div></div>

It doesn't make any sense! The rich pay the same but the MC pay less taxes? Where does the money come from?

If he is taking it from the rich then that's wealth redistribution, something he says he is totally against!

Many more to come.

Q

Gayle in MD
10-04-2012, 10:08 AM
Romney Lied His Butt Off!

He may have been more glitzey, but the President was far more Presidential, and the President came off far more genuine and honest, IMO.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Tonight’s presidential debate will feature plenty of talk about the economy, healthcare and the role of government, but if it’s anything like every other political event ever anywhere, it will also feature plenty of exaggerations, mistruths and outright lies. We’ll be calling them out real-time and bring you the, you know, facts, so refresh this page often to stay up-to-date.

10:45 — Big Bird is tiny: Mitt Romney says he’d help bring down the deficit by cutting PBS and “Big Bird.” PBS receives about $445 million from the federal government, which represents about .01 percent of the federal budget.

10:20 — Romney left his heart in Zurich: Romney tells Obama, “The place you put your money is a pretty good indication of where your heart is.” The obvious rejoinder, ready-made for a DNC attack ad, is that Romney’s heart must be in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda or Switzerland, where Romney has put his money.

10:10 — “The same fucking bill”: Romney says his healthcare plan in Massachusetts is very different from Obamacare. The guy who designed both the plans calls them “the same fucking bill.”

10:00 — Romney sees death panels: Romney comes dangerously close to invoking death panels, saying Obamacare has “a board that will tell people what kind of treatment they’re going to get.” He’s referring to IPAB, a board of doctors, hospital officials and government officials who try to find best practices to reduce the cost of Medicare (and only Medicare — no one else’s healthcare — which is already a government plan). IPAB does not decide on individual cases, is subject to congressional oversight and is legally prohibited from rationing care. In August, Paul Ryan told Florida seniors Obamacare has a “rationing board.”

9:45 — Obamacare still doesn’t cut Medicare: Romney revived one of the most repeated falsehoods of the campaign – that Obamacare cut over $700 billion from Medicare. It’s not true, and Paul Ryan’s budget included the same cuts; Ryan and almost every other Republican in the House voted for them. Obamacare did cut funds from Medicare, but from providers, not beneficiaries. The actuaries in charge of the program say the savings will actually extend the life of the program and experts say the cuts won’t affect benefits.

9:40 — NFIB fib: Romney uses as a cudgel against Obama’s tax plan a study from the National Federation of Independent Business. The NFIB sounds like an anodyne business group, but like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce it is actually a very partisan Republican group funded mostly by large corporations, not small businesses.

9:35 — Some small businesses not so small: Romney says Obama wants to raise taxes on “small businesses” by letting the Bush tax cuts on the top tier of income expire. Indeed, many small businesses pay taxes as if they’re individuals via companies called S-corporations. Many of these small business are mom-and-pop stores, home businesses, doctors offices, etc. – real small businesses. But some large privately held large corporations classify themselves as S-corps for tax purposes. For example, one “small business” registered this way: Koch Industries, the country’s second-largest privately held corporation.

9:20 — Romney’s curious studies: Responding to Obama’s waving around the Tax Policy Center Study, Romney said there are five other studies that show he’s right. The problem with this is some aren’t studies (Wall Street Journal Op-Eds are not studies) and others are by economists advising his campaign.

9:15 – Romney still can’t explain his tax plan: One of Mitt Romney’s core economic policies is a 20 percent tax cut for all Americans, which economists estimate will cost about $5 trillion over 10 years. Nonetheless, tonight Romney said,“I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut.” What he means is that the net cost of his plan will be zero because he’ll find ways to raise $5 trillion to make up for lost revenue by closing loopholes and expanding the tax base. He wants “no tax cut that adds to the deficit,” as he said tonight. The problem with this is he won’t say how. In a much-cited study, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that there’s no way this is possible without significantly raising taxes on the middle class, which Romney also says he’s not going to do.

The Romney campaign has disputed that study and others that came to similar conclusions, but has so far refused to offer details as to how they would pay for the tax cut. Paul Ryan said Sunday that it would take too long to explain the math. Romney came a little closer last night by saying he would cap deductions rich people could take by $17,000, but it’s still unclear that this would be enough to cover the cost of his plan.

Alex Seitz-Wald is Salon's political reporter. </div></div>

http://www.salon.com

LWW
10-04-2012, 10:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Told you.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At the first presidential debate in Colorado Wednesday night, former Gov. Mitt Romney disputed a central criticism of his tax reform plan — and appeared to disavow one of its central features.

Responding to President Obama’s description of Romney’s proposal, Romney claimed: “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of the scale you’re talking about. I think we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I won’t reduce the share of tax paid by high-income people. … I’m not looking to cut massive taxes and to reduce revenues going to the government. My number one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that no tax cut that will add to the deficit.”

So who’s right?

Romney has run for months on a plan to lower everyone’s tax rates by 20 percent — an amount that independent analysts have concluded will reduce revenues by $5 trillion over 10 years.

Romney has also insisted that his plan will be deficit neutral and <span style='font-size: 14pt'>that it won’t increase taxes on the middle class.</span> But according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center and other analysts, Romney won’t be able to make good on both of those latter promises.

According to TPC, even if Romney closes all loopholes and deductions for high-income earners, that alone will not account for all the revenue he loses because of the rate cut. Thus, to make the overall plan deficit neutral he’d have to raise the tax burden on middle income Americans.

Faced with this basic description, Romney said, “If the tax plan he described were a tax plan I was asked to support, I would say absolutely not.” </div></div>

It doesn't make any sense! The rich pay the same but the MC pay less taxes? Where does the money come from?

If he is taking it from the rich then that's wealth redistribution, something he says he is totally against!

Many more to come.

Q </div></div>

LEARN (http://www.mittromney.com/JobsPlan)

IF YOU DARE (http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederaltaxesandtax/a/Simpson-Bowles-Report.htm)

eg8r
10-04-2012, 12:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Romney has also insisted that his plan will be deficit neutral and that it won’t increase taxes on the middle class. But according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center and other analysts, Romney won’t be able to make good on both of those latter promises.</div></div>While being vague Romney explained that the Tax Policy Center is wrong.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-04-2012, 05:37 PM
While being vague Romney explained that the Tax Policy Center is wrong.

He vaguely claimed they were wrong, without explanation.

Unless his explanation is that he hasn't said what his plan is, so how could they know?

The answer is they tortured the possibilities, with even hilariously optimistic assumptions (2.6% UE???) including a phenomenal 'supply side effect' that no one has any evidence for (i.e., far more growth in the gdp than anyone claims is credible), and in every dry run of the data, found that there is no possible way to do what he claims he'll do.

Romney has previously praised the TPC as experts, and it includes one of McCain's economic advisors as a top man in that org.

As a non-partisan org, with a former key GOP economic advisor as its co-head, they have zero motive to lie, whereas Romney has every incentive in the world to lie. And so, does.

eg8r
10-04-2012, 07:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
He vaguely claimed they were wrong, without explanation.</div></div>So I state he says they are wrong and he is vague in doing so, and you state exactly the same thing. Do you just like to hear yourself talk?

Basically he was quite clear last night that he will not implement any tax cuts if they cannot be paid for with spending changes, or tax code modifications. Other than that he was vague but if you take what he said and believe what Obama said there would be a net no change. Romney says no tax cuts if they cannot be paid for, and Obama says they cannot be paid for the way Romney says he will do it. If Romney is elected and is a man of his word, and if Obama is correct (which not a single forcast of his has been correct) then there would be no tax cuts.

eg8r

LWW
10-04-2012, 07:12 PM
Oh please ... it's part of the Brookings Institute which is Diane Feinstein's charade.

DiabloViejo
10-04-2012, 09:14 PM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/259114_506801642664644_1124709764_o.jpg

Qtec
10-05-2012, 12:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Romney says no tax cuts if they cannot be paid for, </div></div>

For the last 18 months, Mittens has been going around the country telling everyone that <span style='font-size: 14pt'>he is going to cuts taxes, across the board, by 20%. No ifs or buts.<u>Now he is saying 'maybe'</u>!!!!!!!!!</span>
He is either lying now or has been lying and misleading the voters for 18 months. Take your pick.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If Romney is elected and is a man of his word, </div></div> LMFAO. You have got to be joking, right?

Again.

For the last 18 months, Mittens has been going around the country telling everyone that <span style='font-size: 14pt'>he is going to cuts taxes, across the board, by 20%. No ifs or buts.<u>Now he is saying 'maybe'</u>!!!!!!!!!</span>

He can't even keep his word on his major promise!

Q

Qtec
10-05-2012, 12:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While being vague Romney explained that the Tax Policy Center is wrong.

He vaguely claimed they were wrong, without explanation. </div></div>

He claimed they were wrong. Period. Nothing vague about it IMO.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unless his explanation is that he hasn't said what his plan is, so how could they know?

</div></div>

Funny you should say that. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Romney: My tax plan can't be scored</span> (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsTIIjKsmZU)

LOL

Note that in the video Romney admits that limiting deductions and closing tax loopholes won't pay for his tax cuts.

Mittens admits this when he says..."we are going to limit deductions and exemptions to pay for <u>MOST of that, </u>then additional growth will pay for <span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>the rest of that</u></span>".

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Romney has previously praised the TPC as experts, and it includes one of McCain's economic advisors as a top man in that org. </div></div>

Correct. The quote above shows that Mittens HAS crunched the numbers and he is basically agreeing with the TPC. Limiting deductions and exemptions will NOT be enough to keep his tax cuts revenue neutral.

His plan requires some Fairy Dust!



Q

Qtec
10-05-2012, 12:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Number two, I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals. </div></div>

Call me crazy but if you get a tax cut, your tax bill is lower so you get to keep more of your income, ie you have more money in your hand.
If Mittens lowers your tax rate but you pay the same amount in taxes, that's not a tax cut!!!!!!!!!!!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Romney Contradicts Himself On Cutting Taxes Of The Wealthy From Earlier Debate

The Republican presidential nominee said he wouldn't lower the share of the burden higher income people pay in taxes at the debate Wednesday night. In a February Republican primary debate, Romney said he would cut taxes for everybody “including the top one percent.” </div></div>

check it out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=curfKaWmVs0)


http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/7680/large/bigbirdromney.jpg


Q

LWW
10-05-2012, 04:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/259114_506801642664644_1124709764_o.jpg </div></div>

It obviously is well over your head.

Gayle in MD
10-05-2012, 07:00 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">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Number two, I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals. </div></div>

Call me crazy but if you get a tax cut, your tax bill is lower so you get to keep more of your income, ie you have more money in your hand.
If Mittens lowers your tax rate but you pay the same amount in taxes, that's not a tax cut!!!!!!!!!!!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Romney Contradicts Himself On Cutting Taxes Of The Wealthy From Earlier Debate

The Republican presidential nominee said he wouldn't lower the share of the burden higher income people pay in taxes at the debate Wednesday night. In a February Republican primary debate, Romney said he would cut taxes for everybody “including the top one percent.” </div></div>

check it out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=curfKaWmVs0)


http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/7680/large/bigbirdromney.jpg


Q </div></div>

He's telling the same lies about tax cuts now that he told about tax cuts in Massacusettes!

Continues to say he didn't raise taxes in Mass., whenn in fact he did raise taxes there, through heavy increases in Fees, for all sorts of things.

He's a LIAR, bottom line, a gross pathological LIAR.

G.

Soflasnapper
10-05-2012, 07:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh please ... it's part of the Brookings Institute which is Diane Feinstein's charade. </div></div>

I'm not sure if you're saying Brookings is credible, or not credible. They do not agree that Romney's goals are achievable, so presumably, if you know that fact, you are disparaging them.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I. Introduction

Our paper examined the effects of simultaneously pursuing five goals that Governor Romney has proposed:

cut current marginal income tax rates by 20 percent,
preserve and enhance incentives for saving and investment[2],
eliminate the alternative minimum tax,
eliminate the estate tax, and
maintain revenue neutrality

We found that a tax reform plan that simultaneously met the first four goals would imply reduced tax burdens on families with income above $200,000. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Meeting the fifth goal – revenue neutrality – would then imply increased tax burdens on other taxpayers, a necessary but perhaps unintended consequence.</span> This was true even though we made the financing of the plan via tax expenditure reductions as progressive as possible by assuming that tax expenditures would be eliminated from the top down: first, we eliminated all available tax expenditures for those with income above $200,000; only if those revenues were insufficient to achieve revenue neutrality (which in fact they were) did we reduce tax expenditures for households with incomes below that level.

[...]

[They add that using dynamic scoring per a Romney advisor's estimates of that also don't change that conclusion]

We showed, in addition, that the same qualitative conclusions arise even when we added in feedback effects of tax changes on economic growth and revenues, using estimates of those effects that were developed by Harvard professor, and economic advisor to the Romney campaign, Greg Mankiw.</div></div>

Brookings (http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/08/16-romney-tax-implications-brown-gale-looney)

LWW
10-05-2012, 08:06 AM
By gosh ... I think I am.

eg8r
10-05-2012, 09:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For the last 18 months, Mittens has been going around the country telling everyone that he is going to cuts taxes, across the board, by 20%. No ifs or buts.Now he is saying 'maybe'!!!!!!!!!</div></div>I am game, can you find a example of him saying he would cut taxes no ifs or buts?

eg8r

eg8r
10-05-2012, 09:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mittens admits this when he says..."we are going to limit deductions and exemptions to pay for MOST of that, then additional growth will pay for the rest of that".</div></div>Yet another quote that proves your perception of what others have told you about his tax plan was incorrect. You act like he said he was going to give a 20% tax cut and that was it, no ifs or buts is what you said. However beyond the debate, in this video, he clearly states to pay for it he will cut deductions and exemptions AND with the growth that comes with those changes combined the balance will be covered.

You haven't quite shown an example yet where he said he will cut taxes and that is it.

eg8r

eg8r
10-05-2012, 09:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Call me crazy but if you get a tax cut, your tax bill is lower so you get to keep more of your income, ie you have more money in your hand.
If Mittens lowers your tax rate but you pay the same amount in taxes, that's not a tax cut!!!!!!!!!!!!!</div></div>Crazy. You are obviously once again ignoring the part where he said he will remove deductions and exemptions. If the rate is cut and so are the deductions and exemptions then the person is basically back where they started from.

eg8r

eg8r
10-05-2012, 09:16 AM
Kind of like Obama raising taxes on the poor.

eg8r

eg8r
10-05-2012, 09:18 AM
LOL, it is funny to see you don't really understand what was said and resort to pictures to prove you don't really understand.

eg8r

LWW
10-05-2012, 09:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, it is funny to see you don't really understand what was said and resort to pictures to prove you don't really understand.

eg8r </div></div>

That'swhat happens to people who get their "FACTS" from comic books.

Qtec
10-05-2012, 10:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For the last 18 months, Mittens has been going around the country telling everyone that he is going to cuts taxes, across the board, by 20%. No ifs or buts.Now he is saying 'maybe'!!!!!!!!!</div></div>I am game, can you find a example of him saying he would cut taxes no ifs or buts?

eg8r </div></div>

Are you a FKN moron or what???????????????

Did I not just post this?

link for morons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=curfKaWmVs0)

<span style='font-size: 20pt'><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">we are going to cut taxes across the country by 20%. including the top 1%".t</div></div> PERIOD!!!

That's pretty clear. Don't you think?</span>

<u>If you want to include the things he didn't say,</u> how about he forgot to mention that when he gets to the WH, he is going to become Muslim, change his name from Willard to Pixie and have a sex change!


What a moron you are. You say you are not partisan but you carry water for Mitt all the time. You are Mittens biggest apologist.


Q

Soflasnapper
10-05-2012, 10:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Call me crazy but if you get a tax cut, your tax bill is lower so you get to keep more of your income, ie you have more money in your hand.
If Mittens lowers your tax rate but you pay the same amount in taxes, that's not a tax cut!!!!!!!!!!!!!</div></div>Crazy. You are obviously once again ignoring the part where he said he will remove deductions and exemptions. If the rate is cut and so are the deductions and exemptions then the person is basically back where they started from.

eg8r </div></div>

Kind of a lot of fuss to a) cut the rates amounting to $5 trillion in lost revenue and then b) raise the base amount by eliminating deductions or tax preferences, in what is effectively a $5 trillion dollar tax hike.

Which does not begin to pay down the deficit, let alone the debt, because this is designed to be REVENUE NEUTRAL. Revenue neutral. Neither raising any additional funds nor losing income to the federal government from the federal income tax area.

That's a fair bit of trouble to go through, including the apparent benefit to higher incomes (yes, that is promised to go away and never occur, but it looks bad to average people), all for absolutely no deficit reduction.

One might almost think there is some OTHER angle being pursued by that. Logically, that would be when the stated tax preferences to be reduced on the top marginal rate earners do NOT equal the monies extra they get from the rate cut, and so DO receive a net tax cut (despite promises to the contrary).

Or...? What is the reason to move the pile around and leave things intact, as is the supposed goal and end result of this?

Qtec
10-05-2012, 11:04 AM
If you reduce rates and everyone pays the same, what's the point?

Q

eg8r
10-05-2012, 12:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Which does not begin to pay down the deficit, let alone the debt, because this is designed to be REVENUE NEUTRAL. Revenue neutral. Neither raising any additional funds nor losing income to the federal government from the federal income tax area.</div></div>He was also clear about this but you lefties must have been soooo stunned to see your leader faltering that you turned your brains off. The intent is to increase jobs (no gaurantee it will work). More jobs mean more revenue. The "idea" is that the additional revenue will be used to pay down the debt/deficit.


eg8r

LWW
10-05-2012, 12:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you reduce rates and everyone pays the same, what's the point?

Q </div></div>

The following is an oversimplified example, but it makes the point clear.

A citizen makes $200,000 a year. Their tax rate is 30%. They are diverting $40K per year into things which are deductible ... not because that is the most efficient area to invest, but because it avods taxation. This comes to 30% of the $160K in after tax income ... or $48K in taxes paid.

Now, let's remove the deductions and lower the rates by 20%. This leaves with a lower taxable rate of 24% ... but a higher taxable income of $200K, so the tax paid is again $48K.

Hence the lower rate did not result in lower taxes collected.

Now, since the reduction in fact is revenue neutral in a static economy ... why do it is a natural question.

Heres's why ... the $40K which being invested based on tax aversion will now be allocated solely based on it's profit potential.

If that $40K becomes even a meager $41K, the tax cut is no longer revenue neutral ... it is now generating more revenue than the higher rate did.

Every time this as been tried ... the treasury revenue went up.

Soflasnapper
10-05-2012, 02:11 PM
The theory is already well known, but it is relatively insane.

Who is it that blows a dollar which saves 30 cents in taxes, but still finds you down a net 70 cents in your pocket? (Multiply by some 100s or 1000s for this to be more realistic.)

That would be entirely irrational, assuming the point is to have the most money net of taxes in your pocket.

LWW
10-05-2012, 02:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The theory is already well known, but it is relatively insane.

Who is it that blows a dollar which saves 30 cents in taxes, but still finds you down a net 70 cents in your pocket? (Multiply by some 100s or 1000s for this to be more realistic.)

That would be entirely irrational, assuming the point is to have the most money net of taxes in your pocket.



</div></div>

Thanks for arguing against a point which nobody made.

Soflasnapper
10-05-2012, 03:18 PM
You said people were mal-investing, based on tax aversion.

Meaning WHAT, unless what I said?

Generally, most investments aren't tax deductible in the first place. (IRAs or 401ks an exception, and only as to timing, a delay of the realization of the income and the tax, not a decrease.)

So, perhaps you meant how the YIELD presents itself, and is taxed? Trying for a cap gains treatment eventually, or a dividend yield, or a municipal bond's interest yield?

LWW
10-05-2012, 04:25 PM
There is a difference between what you call mal-investing money ... or placing it not where it is most likely to generate maximum return, but where it is shielded from state confiscation ... and "BLOWING" a dollar.

If you truly believe in freedom, how can you believe that it s "FAIR" to tax two individuals of identical income different amounts?

If someone makes $200K their income tax should be the same regardless of whether they saved like Scrooge or invested half in hard liquor and soft women and then blew the rest.

Soflasnapper
10-05-2012, 06:17 PM
I note your call to eliminate the tax preferences for dividend and cap gains income, to tax all that income at regular income tax rates, and join you, wholeheartedly, although with considerable surprise.

Sid_Vicious
10-06-2012, 12:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I note your call to eliminate the tax preferences for dividend and cap gains income, to tax all that income at regular income tax rates, and join you, wholeheartedly, although with considerable surprise. </div></div>

That ain't happening with a Republican plan. Total bullshit. Let's hear Romney actually state even a hint at this. sid