-
Time to Go for the Kill
May 22, 2013 | 67 comments
-
Obamacare Implodes
May 15, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Obama’s Rising Inequality
May 8, 2013 | 101 comments
-
Downsize the Liberals
May 1, 2013 | 53 comments
-
Fight Back! Privatize the FAA!
April 24, 2013 | 65 comments
The Tax and Spend Spectator
No, Romney Won’t Raise Your Taxes $2,000
Mitt Romney’s tax plan is a winner, and, lacking a serious rebuttal, President Obama settles for fabricating charges.
In a campaign stop at Rollins College in Florida last week, Barack Obama suggested that the middle class should resent Mitt Romney’s tax proposals:
“I want everybody to understand here — he’s not asking you to pay an extra $2,000 [in taxes] to reduce our deficit; he’s not asking you to pay an additional $2,000 to help care for our seniors; he’s not asking you to pay an additional $2,000 in order to rebuild America or to fight a war,” the president said. “He’s asking you to pay more so that people like him can pay less.”
But here is the actual truth: Mitt Romney is not asking the middle class or anyone else to pay more taxes. Mitt Romney is proposing to cut tax rates for everyone, across the board. That would finally liberate the economy for a long overdue recovery. Increased revenues from that booming economic growth, combined with savings from cutting Obama’s runaway spending and closing loopholes that mostly benefit the highest income taxpayers, would enable a U-turn, from the four straight highest deficits in world history to a balanced budget in 5 years. The roadmap for doing that is Paul Ryan’s 2013 budget, which has already been adopted by the Republican controlled House. (The Democrat majority Senate, by contrast, has never shown up for work.) This is classic tax reform, cutting rates and closing loopholes.
Obama’s Tax Plan: Higher Taxes, No Jobs
The only candidate in this race proposing to increase taxes is
Barack Obama. He has already enacted increases in the top rates of
virtually every major federal tax, which will go into effect
January 1. That is when the tax increases of Obamacare will hit,
and when the Bush tax cuts will expire. (Remedial education for
Obama supporters: “Bush tax cuts expire” means tax increases).
As a result, the top two income tax rates are already scheduled in current law to increase by nearly 20 percent; the capital gains tax rate is slated to soar by nearly 60 percent; the tax rate on dividends will explode to nearly three times its current level; the Medicare payroll tax rate will rocket up by 62 percent for disfavored taxpayers (the nation’s job creators, investors, and successful small business entrepreneurs); and the death tax will rise further from the grave with a 57 percent increase in the top rate.
This is all on top of the corporate income tax rate, which under President Obama is already the highest in the industrialized world at 35 percent — or nearly 40 percent counting state corporate rates on average. Even Communist China has a lower corporate income tax of 25 percent. The average in the social welfare states of the EU is less than that. Germany has an 18 percent federal corporate rate. Canada, which has been booming under a conservative government, is now at 15 percent.
American businesses are uncompetitive in the global economy under these tax policies. But with President Obama there is no relief in sight. Instead he is continually barnstorming the country calling for still more tax increases. Under his so-called Buffett rule, the capital gains tax rate would increase by 100 percent, to the fourth highest in the industrialized world.
Then in 2014, the Obamacare mandate tax will go into effect, requiring every employer and every worker in the country to buy the expensive health insurance plan that the federal government decides you must have. That is another tax increase on the middle class, which — in addition to all the other tax increases in Obamacare they will have to pay — trashes Obama’s central campaign promise in 2008 not to raise taxes on working people.
Obama promised in 2008 that he would only increase tax rates on the wealthy — the nation’s job creators, investors, and small business owners — to the levels that existed under President Clinton. But this talking point, which he and his brain dead supporters are still repeating, is now long outdated. In total, these tax increases will raise top rates well beyond the Clinton rates, and in an even worse context. Other countries have learned the lessons of Reaganomics and slashed rates on capital in particular since then, and so they are already outcompeting America today. Thus, the combined effect of all those tax rate increases on “the rich” would be a renewed recession, double-digit unemployment, and a federal deficit that tops $2 trillion.
The Romney Tax Plan
Mitt Romney, in sharp contrast, actually has a very good tax plan
that will get the economy booming again and restore the American
Dream. The key is reducing tax rates, in particular
marginal tax rates, which are the rates that applies to the next
dollar of income. Marginal rates determine the incentive for
productive activity, such as working, saving, investing, expanding
businesses, starting businesses, or creating jobs.
Romney’s tax plan proposes to:
• Extend all of the Bush tax cuts that are scheduled to expire in January.
• Repeal the unfair death tax, which taxes yet again a lifetime of savings that have already been taxed multiple times.
• Repeal all of the Obamacare taxes.
• Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which was originally meant to stop the richest from avoiding taxes altogether, but which increasingly applies to millions in the middle class.
About the Author
Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (202) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Peter Ferrara
More Articles From The Tax and Spend Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/08/romneys-tax-plan-is-a-winner
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Von Mises Jr| 8.8.12 @ 6:40AM
Thank you Peter for calling Obama what he is, a "Damn Liar."
I saw part of his disgusting speech yesterday where he said Romney wanted to raise taxes on the poor and working class to give rich people making $3M a $250K tax break. Apparently, Obama thinks we are stupid, and he knows his base is stupid.
For middle class income earners, the effective tax rate is about 11%. For high earners, it averages 22%. So if you earn $3M and pay 22%, your tax liability is $660K. So if Romney gave them a $250K tax break, they would theoretically pay $410K. But based on $3M in income, this is only a 13.67% effective tax rate. So to reach this level, Romney would need to cut all tax rates over the 25% bracket back to about 15%. This is pure and utter nonsense.
Here is what is really going on. Fortune 500 companies pay more like 8% effective tax rate once they get all their exemptions and credits. GE paid zero taxes on $5 BILLION in US income last year. GM got a $50 BILLION additional bailout with tax breaks in the future. But small business owners normally pay at the individual level and much of their income is taxed at the 35% marginal rate. This will go to $39.6 if the Bush rates are not extended, plus 3.8% ObamaCare tax. So if you work for a small business, you won't. Eventually, statist aim to control all business. So your kids under this plan will necessarily work for GE or GM as slave labor with no place else to go.
vtwin| 8.8.12 @ 8:10AM
The present rates are 35%, 25%, and 10% Romney’s tax plan 20% across all income rates the new tax rate world become 28%, 20%, and 8%. The wealthy get a 7% reduction while the working poor get only a 2% tax reduction. Sound fair?
Von Mises Jr| 8.8.12 @ 8:14AM
No. It should be a 15% flat tax for everyone, Jackal. What gives a slimy little loser like you the right to someone else’s wealth?
Get a decent education and get a real job, troll.
vtwin| 8.8.12 @ 8:16AM
"It should be a 15% flat tax for everyone." But that is not Romney plan.
Al Adab| 8.8.12 @ 9:24AM
The progressive income tax is an abomination. Why should one persons money be treated differently than any other persons based on volume or source? Confiscation of wealth is a taking of property and differing rates violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. A progressive tax is a punative tax; it punishes success in stead of promoting it. Bad policy by all standards.
Stkman| 8.8.12 @ 3:23PM
I tend to lean towards a flat rate of 10% for everyone with absolutely no deductions of anykind. God only ask for 10% and think God knew what he was doing when he gave us that number.
As for the plan the author just proposed, phooey! Talk about a plan written for those in the top brackets. Sorry, but if you change the tax system to not having to pay for profits made in other countries, then real quick you'll see every corporation claiming they lost money in the U.S. and paying no taxes at all. Sounds kind of like GE doesn't it.
I don't care whoyou are, rich, poor, individual or corporation, 10%, no deductions to be paid on income.
Here's the law I'd like to see passed, that no American citizen shall have an out of country bank account, and that no checks from the U.S. Government will be sent to anyone with an out of country address or to anyone living outside of the United States.
Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 8.8.12 @ 5:39PM
"Most importantly, Romney is not Reagan."
Irony is, Mittens isn't even a conservative-- he is Rockefeller liberal in disguise.
CJW| 8.8.12 @ 8:38AM
vtwin
That is the result when you have progressive tax rates. Is it fair thatyou pay 35% and others pay 10%? Why?
Who decides what is fair?
vtwin| 8.8.12 @ 9:01AM
I don’t pay 35% I pay 25% but if my income was high enough to pay 35% I wouldn’t complain as I don’t complain because the man that cuts my grass pays only 10%. Why is this fair? Because I have been more fortunate, a least in earning money, and can afford to pay more.
We do through our democratically elected representative government.
Louisiana Joe| 8.8.12 @ 9:15AM
I am sorry that you are too stupid to complain about a 35% tax rate. Did you read the article? Don't you get it that high tax rates hurt the economy and that means everyone.
You may be in the 25% bracket because you are fortunate but I am in the 35% bracket because I busted my butt and earned it. Fortune had nothing to do with it. I started at poverty level and worked my way up.
When I was in poverty, I drove on the same roads and was protected by the same military so I should have been paying the same rate of taxes since I got the same bennefits. Whe need a flat tax and everyone pays it, eliminate the middle clas crap, they should be paying the same rate as the wealthy.
CJW| 8.8.12 @ 10:09AM
vtwin
If you use a commercial landscaper, he pays 25 dto 35%. If you pay a guy cash, he pays zero because he does not report it. If you really want to help, pay the guy more money so he is in a higher bracket, instead of sending your money to Obama to give to Solyndra.
Our representatives voted for 28% top rate under Reagan and we had a boom. Our representatives voted for the present rates that you and others call the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
vtwin| 8.8.12 @ 12:32PM
We had a “boom” under Reagan because Reagan through Hayek out the window and employed Keynesian economics massive government spending but with borrowed money instead of tax increases.
CJW| 8.8.12 @ 1:07PM
v/purp
Wrong, as usual.
We had a Reagan boom because due to the tax cuts, indiviudals and businesses had money to spend an invest, instead of the federal government wasting it.
If your argument was valild, then we should be having an Obama boom since he borrowed 5 trillion dollars in 3 years. Where is the Obama boom with his 5 trillion in borrowed spending?
Purp| 8.9.12 @ 8:04AM
Reagan raised taxes 6 times in 8 years. Get it straight bubba - that's what created the boom. Tax cuts never do - and didn't under GW Bush either. Bush ignored financial regulation and presided over the creation of the huge bubble that burst and just about destroyed us.
CJW| 8.9.12 @ 3:58PM
Purpie
Your'e funny. Raising taxes creates economic booms!! Is the Dem party going to campaign on raising taxes to create a booom? You are a silly troll.
TLP| 8.8.12 @ 10:20AM
So. 35% is okay with you?
What about 45%?
55%?
The new White Obama in France, has just made the Tax Rate for all of the Rich Ccksckr's, where he lives 75%.
How's 75%? Does that sound all right, to you? And, do you think that any of these Selfish Rich Bastards, who should all be taken out back, and SHOT, are Stupid enough to stay in the Future Zimbabwe of Europe?
You say that you like 35%. But, it's not35%, is it.
Let's say you live in NYC. You pay 35% Federal Income Tax. You also pay a State Income Tax, plus a City Income Tax, and the Sales Tax is Outta Control.
Is it FAIR for Government to take from Anyone, MORE THAN HALF of their Income?
Does it sound fair that the average person has to work 5 Months of every year, just to pay his Taxes? Soon to be 6.
The Rich are Mobile, as are their Businesses, and the Jobs that go along with them.
Yet, someone like you, who wants to Bash Their Heads In via the Tax Man, is the 1st, and the Loudest one, standing at the Docks, as these people you hold in Contempt, do the Obvious thing, and head off to Hong Kong, and Singapore.
See how Stupid you are?
Of course you do.
vtwin| 8.8.12 @ 12:40PM
The country is $16 trillion in debt someone has to pay, no?
TLP| 8.8.12 @ 3:18PM
We need to STOP SPENDING, no?
We need to stop running 1,000,000,000,000 Deficits every Year, no?
Your Boy has added $5,000,000,000,000 to the National Debt, in 3 Years.
He needs to Stop that, no?
You need to get your Head outta your Ass, and Open your Eyes to the Fact, that this Marxist Punk, ain't Gettin it done, no?
Yes, you do.
Warrior| 8.8.12 @ 4:24PM
Why not just stop spending money we don't have? We don't have a debt problem, we have a spending problem.
JD| 8.8.12 @ 10:54AM
You don't nearly pay 25%. You have deductions. Quit acting like marginal rates are the only factor in taxation.
vtwin| 8.8.12 @ 12:33PM
My mistake, I assumed everyone was aware of deductions.
Al Adab| 8.8.12 @ 12:43PM
The entire debate boils down to jealousy and resentment. Those once were called covetesnous before they became government policy. Does the law make it moral? If so then are there any immoral laws? If so how do we distinguish?
Stkman| 8.8.12 @ 3:33PM
I'm not sure if it does boil down to just jealousy and resentment. There was a time that many wealthy people seemd okay paying a bit more, they were patriotic. We've lost a lot of that patriotic feeling with todays rich. There are way more minnionaires and billionaires than there were fifty years ago. Some of them are fine Americans, others would bail out on America and their feloow Americans in a heart beat if they thought they might have to pay a little more in taxes. I think all of us pay too much as it is with the exception of the poor. I'd be all for a flat tax of 10% with no deductions for everyone, and a law that states no on can recieve back more than they pay in to federal taxes.
But there are those rich and wealthy people who have more money than they will ever spend who are just plain old greedy. If you have 100 million and you don't intend to invest into something that creates jobs and more wealth, that you intend to just sit on, why not consider paying a bit more voluntarily even to support the country that gave you the opprotunity to become so rich in the first place. And no, goivernment didn't help you do it, but the blood of some middle or lower class American soldier did.
No different than what the local pasto would say, if you have more, give more. But give at least 10%.
TLP| 8.8.12 @ 3:42PM
The top 2% pay more than 50% of all Taxes.
Is that Fair?
Or, are you just Stupid?
Stkman| 8.8.12 @ 4:10PM
Tim,
Stop with the name calling okay, it's what liberals do and I know your not a liberal.
I understand the top 2% pay 50% of all taxes(actually they probably pay a lot more), are you aware the top 2% control 98% of the economy? Is that fair? Seems to me if the top two are paying 80% of the taxes but control 98% of the economy they are gaining an 18% advantage on the available money in the economy. Even so, i'd be okay with a flat 10% for everyone including those who earn the least.
While we are asking whats fair, is it fair that some rich fat cat sitting on the board of a publicly owned company see the financial report the day before we do and when he sees the report is not that rosie he sells a large portion of his stock that afternoon at a high price. Then the next morning the report comes out, the stock takes a tumble and yours, mine and everyone elses 401K takes a hit while he made millions? The the SOB buys his stock back in the afternoon making more millions because he sold it high and bought it back low. Does that sound fair Tim? Because thats th etruth of the stock market. There is still no one looking out for middle class Americans and the rich and powerful, not all of them, but enough of them just keep F'ing the middle class over for their own personal gain. So chill out Tim and remember there are good guys and bad guys on both sides of every issue. Except Obama, and he's a bad guy no matter what.
John Navratil| 8.8.12 @ 5:13PM
(continued...)
Table 2 shows the breakdown by tax brackets. What is telling is that the number of persons paying taxes out of the highest marginal tax rate is steadily declining (that would be those deductions we are talking about limiting in exchange for a lower rate.)
One is not surprised to find that 1040 Itemized Deductions are the largest source of deductions.
The next biggest is the General Business Credit which is all the "good things" the government wants business to do to benefit low-income persons and the environment - examples are welfare-to-work, contributions to Community Development Corporation, and alternative fuels credit to name just a few. This is the social engineering deduction.
Next is the Tentative research credit which has been enhanced and expanded over the last several years. It was a big source of deductions in the early nineties, dropped in the middle years and is now larger in real terms than it ever was. Did businesses not invest in their own future in the late 90's and early 2000's when it was half the size? It is now larger than the deduction for taxes paid and almost twice the deduction for interest paid. This is the crony capitalism deduction.
Reform is greatly needed to minimize the influence of government on investment decisions.
TLP| 8.8.12 @ 6:50PM
The Middle Class can look out for themselves, once The Government gets out of the way.
You wanna Punish The Rich?
Go to France.
And, then go get a Job from a Poor Person.
I Guarantee you that, once this THING is removed from the White House, the Rich, that you despise so, will open their wallets, and this Economy will take off like Alan Brooks in a Gay Bar with a pocket full of Poppers.
The Rich aren't STUPID.
That's why they're RICH.
They already Pay well over 50% of All Federal Taxes.
What more do you want from them?
Keep pushing, and they will Leave, and take all of their Money, all of their Companies, and all of the Jobs that go with them, with them.
Capiche?
I understand that it's nice, in Singapore, this time of year.
Wake Up!
TLP| 8.8.12 @ 6:58PM
If you know that the top 2% pay over 50% of the Taxes?
Then WTF are you talking about?
John Navratil| 8.8.12 @ 5:13PM
Stkman,
See http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08intop400.pdf which reports data on the top 400 filers based on adjusted gross income from 1992-2008. Gross income is, of course, from all sources. This is the top 1% to 2% for each year and is not the same people over time. In Table 4 you will find that 72.88% of individuals appear in the top 400 only once and only 4 individuals (out of 3,672 = 0.1%) appear all seventeen years.
There is a trove of information here for anyone wanting to see what the top 2% pay on what kind of income and what sorts of deductions are employed to reduce rates.
At the bottom of Table 1 (page 10/13), you will find that, indeed, the average tax rate paid by the richest has dropped from 26.38% in 1992 to 18.11% today. That's more than the 10% you advocate and just about my effective rate and I make about half the average of these people.
You will find that taxes on salaries and wages are miniscule, the greatest taxable incomes are dividend and income with the big winner be capital gains. That would be the investment in profit-making entities. This is where taxing the top 2% more would hurt small business by discouraging investment.
(continued...)
Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 8.8.12 @ 9:23PM
"God only ask for 10% and think God knew what he was doing when he gave us that number."
God said not to love money- yet you do.
Truncheon| 8.8.12 @ 9:24AM
Yes, Vtwin. Giving everyone across the board a 20% reduction is fair.
Naturally, if I'm payin a million a year in taxes, and you pay a thousand a year, I will seem to get "more" ... and likewise I will continue to pay "more".
God, how can you have a discussion with people who are so incompetent they don't grasp elementary school arithmetic?
TLP| 8.8.12 @ 3:19PM
You can't.
lost| 8.8.12 @ 10:34AM
"The wealthy get a 7% reduction while the working poor get only a 2% tax reduction." Yes it does. I fall in your working poor group but the thing is I do not feel poor. You think a progressive tax is fair so you should have no problem with a progressive tax cut. Grow up and stop being jealous of those who have what you do not.
TLP| 8.8.12 @ 3:21PM
"Thou Shalt Not Covet."
It's just that simple.
Warrior| 8.8.12 @ 4:29PM
Does the taxes on gas hurt you or Warren Buffet more? Does the property taxes you pay hurt you or the Koch brothers more? There are so many taxes that are hurting "working" and "poor" America. The left only wants to have a limited discussion on that which they can statistically twist.
TLP| 8.8.12 @ 6:59PM
He's an idiot.
You're wasting your breath.
Mike in N.C.| 8.8.12 @ 9:54PM
Warrior,
You make the case for progressive taxation perfectly in your first two sentences. The taxes on gas are flat taxes. "Fair taxes" by the logic so some who post here. But, does Warren Buffet really get hurt if the gas tax is raised? What about the maid driving to the houses she cleans?
francisdesales| 8.8.12 @ 1:11PM
Wow. Do math often? Apparently not.
A reduction from a 10% to an 8% tax rate is NOT "2%". It is a 20 percent drop... 2/10 = .2
A reduction from 35% to 28% is NOT a "7%" drop., it is 20%. 7/35 = .2
whew... Equality across the board. Isn't that fair enough for Obama?
TLP| 8.8.12 @ 3:37PM
A flat Tax of 17% Across the Board, No Deductions, EVERYBODY PAYS.
As long as we have Half the Country paying No Income Tax, we're gonna have this Bullshit.
Imagine if all of these people paying Nothing, chipped in $100.
How many Hundreds of Billions would that add to the Treasury?
What if Everyone paid a Co-Pay for their Doctor Visits, and their Prescriptions? Even if it was just $5?
How many Billions would that add to Medicare?
This ain't Rocket Science, people.
They're still gonna get the same Benifits. They'll just be Chipping In now, and helping to keep these thing Viable.
WTF is wrong with that?
Stkman| 8.8.12 @ 4:12PM
Think of the money the treasury would have if we just quit refunding more on returns than people actually paid in.
John Navratil| 8.8.12 @ 5:15PM
TLP,
Does a business get to deduct the taxes it pays to other governments (foreign, state, federal excise taxes)?
TLP| 8.8.12 @ 6:56PM
I don't know, and I don't care.
We don't have an Income Problem.
We have a SPENDING PROBLEM.
Why don't you understand this?
John Navratil| 8.8.12 @ 7:13PM
TLP,
Calm down! Of COURSE we have a spending problem. Part of it is that government tells business how it wants businesses to spend on its behalf through the tax code.
Your flat tax would quickly turn into a VAT if you don't keep the supply chain untaxed.
TLP| 8.8.12 @ 8:19PM
So, what are you saying?
That we shouldn't implement a Flat Tax, because sooner or later it will become a Vat Tax?
You have no proof of that.
Maybe we should take your advice, and just do nothing.
Nice Plan.
Don't get me wrong.
I like you, and you have many great posts.
This just wasn't one of them.
John Navratil| 8.8.12 @ 9:22PM
TLP,
I'd like to tax consumption not income.
Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 8.8.12 @ 9:24PM
I want a defense tax.
WhiteBikerTrash| 8.8.12 @ 2:19PM
V-Twin,
Your understanding of simple math is sorely lacking. A rate reduction of 10% to 8% is a 2 Point reduction but it is also a 20% reduction of rate. If you drop the 35% rate to 28% you have a 7 Point drop but also a 20% reduction of rate. Seems fair to me.
By the way how is the Honda running?
JD| 8.8.12 @ 3:24PM
Vtwin's problem is that the poor already pay so little that cuts for them are tiny dollar amounts. He's trapped in the typical liberal fallacy of taking deltas vs a status quo as indications of fairness, even though the starting point is far from fair.
jmulcahy1| 8.8.12 @ 10:08PM
Math is obviously not your strong point. Everyone gets a 20% reduction in their tax rates. Sounds fair as far as cuts go.
And if you like a flat rate (as most of us do) then that would offer up bigger cuts to the wealthy. Which is it Vtwit? How much more progressive do you want the effective tax rates than they already are?
vtwin| 8.8.12 @ 8:14AM
Romney claims his plan is revenue neutral is paid for by eliminating some tax deductions. What deductions? Romney doesn’t say. The Tax Policy Center study concluded that there is not enough tax deduction to pay for the tax rate reductions even if Romney eliminated the interest and property tax deduction for home ownership which if eliminated the middle class would actually see a tax increase. Sound fair?
DTOM| 8.8.12 @ 8:51AM
Deductions only apply to people who pay taxes. So what do you care?
Romney's only error here is not explaining the fact that the growth in the economy that will come from rational, reasonable tax policies will solve the deficits, short term. Unless we as voters fail to give the country a CONSERVATIVE Senate and House.
A Republican Senate and House is NO guarantee of the spending cuts that are absolutely necessary to save our country's finances.
Don't Tread On Me!
vtwin| 8.8.12 @ 12:36PM
That was Bush's argument, cut taxes on the rich to create job, and we all know how that worked out.
JD| 8.8.12 @ 3:22PM
Unemployment fell from 6% to 4.4% over the next few years, until 2006 when Democrats took power.
Of course, it took tax cuts for everyone, mostly the poor, to make that happen.
vtwin| 8.8.12 @ 8:31AM
Romney tax plan to cut taxes, especially the 7% cut for himself, like Bush’s tax cuts before would only add more red ink to our already out of control budget deficit placing at risk Social Security and Medicaid benefits for the elderly. Sound fair?
Von Mises Jr| 8.8.12 @ 8:41AM
Beware, Twitdim is Perp. I know since it is responding to itself with moronic diatribes. Don't get sucked into this Soros plot of disrupting and side-tracking intelligent conservative conversation.
Your momma must be proud, troll. Or perhaps your mommy is a commie.
CJW| 8.8.12 @ 8:46AM
Why are you concerned about the rate when people at the top rate pay a higher amount and pay most of the taxes?
If you want fairness go with a flat income tax so all are treated equally for the rate, but the rich will always pay more.
And have a national sales tax to capture the underground economy of cash and also when the rich liberals buy expensive toys, for example when Teresa Heinz buys a yacht to John, or the Hollywood crowd with their cars, jewelry, and toys.
vtwin| 8.8.12 @ 9:47AM
"People at the top...pay most of the taxes." Really?
The working poor pay 10% in income tax plus another approximate 15% in Social Security and Medicare taxes that’s 25% in federal taxes. Sure, the working poor might see some benefits from Social Security and Medicare if he or she lives long enough. But, Romney a "topper" only paid 13.9% total in federal taxes on $21 million of income 2010 and apparently zero federal income taxes some years. Sound fair?
CJW| 8.8.12 @ 10:17AM
If you are in the 10% bracket your effective tax rate is probably zero given the credits, exemtions, and deductions. There are numerous articles showing this, take a minute to educate yourself.
You do not pay 15%, you pay about 7%, the employer pays the matching half. You pay 15% only if you are self employed.
The capital gains tax is 15% which is what Romney paid because most of his income was capital gains. He paid 3 million each of last two years in taxes, and paid 3 million to charity, so with the charitable deduction he paid the 13.9%.
Would you rather have a president who is smart enough to earn money to pay 3 million in taxes, or do you want a politcal hack like Obama who had to get a Chicag felon Rezko to pay for his house, and had to give an earmark of one millio dollars of our tax money to a Chicago hospital to give Michele a rasie from $100,000 per year to $350,000 per year?
If you go with a flat income tax rate, then all income, such as earned and capital gains will be taxed at the same rate. But you lefties oppose a flat tax, because you are envious of persons who make more money, and you want to punish them.
What do you think is a fair tax rate?
Al Adab| 8.8.12 @ 11:47AM
W:
Could we not ask if the employer paid 7% was not required if wages would rise a similar amount? If so each employee does in one way pay the full 15%.
That said, if we must tax incomes at all - something the founders found undesireable - what possible justification could there be for progressive rates which only serve to punish rather than promote success? A flat rate is clearly a more just rate with deductions eliminated and 40,000 pages of tax code "Gone With the Wind." If withholding were eliminated also and people had to write a check every year, how long would the system survive?
vtwin| 8.8.12 @ 12:43PM
"If you are in the 10% bracket your effective tax rate is probably zero given the credits, exemtions, and deductions." Then why do we have the 10% tax bracket?
francisdesales| 8.8.12 @ 1:14PM
Ever do a 1040 before?
CJW| 8.8.12 @ 2:20PM
v/purp
It is obvious you do not work and complete a tax return, otherwise you would know, and not ask these questions.
Hint: These are marginal rates so your income is taxed at different rates, and not all your income at one rate.
Once you get a job and do a tax return,you may know.
TLP| 8.8.12 @ 3:48PM
Don't forget The Earned Income Credit, they receive.
TLP| 8.8.12 @ 3:48PM
Don't forget The Earned Income Credit, they receive.
TLP| 8.8.12 @ 3:48PM
Oops.
Mike in N.C.| 8.8.12 @ 10:00PM
Nixon's legislation to keep low income workers off of welfare.
John Navratil| 8.8.12 @ 6:13PM
vtwin,
See: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org....._taxes.pdf - Table 1
"The average effective federal tax rate—federal taxes paid as a percentage of cash income—will be 20.9 percent in 2008. The effective tax rate (ETR) will increase with income, rising from 1.1 percent for households in the bottom quintile (the lowest-earning 20 percent of the population) to 26.2 percent for those in the top quintile (table 1). Within the top quintile, ETRs will climb sharply from 21.8 percent for households in the 80th to 90th percentiles to 30.0 percent for those in the top 1 percent of the population. The top 0.1 percent—the richest 1 in 1,000—will pay an average ETR of 31.6 percent."
Only the top quintile pays 25% in federal taxes.
CJW| 8.8.12 @ 8:37PM
John
You are correct, but vtwin/purpie et al. do not understand the difference between marginal rates, effective rates, and that lowering a marginal tax rate is not the same as cutting taxes. Or they do not want to understand it.
jmulcahy1| 8.8.12 @ 10:14PM
Man,
Not only must you have slept through math class but didn't you learn in Sunday school that envy is a sin.
The math again: Romney paid $2.92 million in federal taxes in 2010, while you sucked at the federal government teat. Why aren't you contributing more. Furthermore, he gave at least $2 million to his Church, how much charity did you provide that year? 10% of your income? Doubt it.
Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 8.8.12 @ 5:03PM
Mittens will get us into another war- that's what he will do.
George True| 8.9.12 @ 10:12PM
Sure, sure. Go take your Prozac now.
aware| 8.8.12 @ 6:41AM
Supply side snake oil. Only when we cut spending will the economy "soar". Former Reaganites love living in the past, constantly reminding us of the glory days.
Get a clue, Peter, this is not 1980, Obama is not Carter, and this economic nightmare is nothing like we have ever seen. Most importantly, Romney is not Reagan.
Thinking cutting taxes solves the problem is infantile. Reagan never even imagined a debt overhang we are now looking at and Romney will do next to nothing about it.
You supply siders constantly prove you are not free market believers nor do you believe in honesty in government or money. You have no problem with a legal plunder system. If you did you would be arguing for the abolition of income taxes instead of "adjustments" in how the plunder is collected.
DTOM| 8.8.12 @ 9:15AM
unaware,
Supply side works every time it is tried - but every time it has been tried irresponsible politicians have been utterly incapable of any spending restraint. Every Treasury cash inflow has resulted in even larger outflows, or "spending" and further deficit increases.
Democrats blame tax cuts for their increases in spending and the deficits they create.
That makes them liars.
We need three things:
1. Cut tax rates to stimulate business, jobs, and tax collections.
2. Sane regulation that does not penalize business or resource use.
3. CUT THE DAMN FEDERAL BUDGET TO CLINTON LEVELS, adjusted for inflation and population, ala Colorado's Constitution's requirement that their budget can grow no faster than the population and inflation.
This is not rocket science, even a Democrat could do it. If one wanted to. Which they don't. Not mainstream republicans either.
And we need those three things starting Nov 7!
If Obama loses, do you think he'll invite Romney to the White House to hear his thoughts on Obama's remaining decisions in his last 60 days - like Bush did for Obama?
NOPE - it's gonna be the Clinton thing all over again with tax cheats, terrorists getting pardons (Has tax cheat Tim been pardoned? Not to worry.) new crazy regulations, Communist
Party members appointed to the Federal Bench a, and the "R" keys will be disappear from from White House keyboards. Remember the missing "W" keys in 2000?
You betcha! Tea, anybody?
DTOM!
aware| 8.8.12 @ 5:33PM
Yeah, you make it sound so easy, just "cut the budget". It won't happen. Only a fool would believe it would. Nobody can be (s)elected or re(s)elected by cutting the largess that 49% of the citizens receive. Add in the confused non-receivers who think it's the "right" thing to hand this plunder out, and you have possibly the largest voting block in the US(formally America).
If cutting taxes "spurs" the "economy", then why have the taxes at all? If "government" cuts taxes it is still exercising control of the economy. And that's the problem, ain't it?
Even the career criminals that run the show admit the taxes are not about revenue, but about "fairness". To argue rates is to totally accept this arrangement. If you think the State should make everything "fair" then support progressive income taxes by quibbling over the rates.
And this "recession" is absolutely unlike any ever seen. To think tax rate adjustments will "fix" it is to show utter lack of understanding of what is going on. This is not a "business cycle" event, it is systematic and the rotten things that caused it are even more in control now than in '08. Debt had nothing to do with the Reagan years and is everything now.
TLP| 8.8.12 @ 7:07PM
Only a Fool would cut spending, when he doesn't have any more money.
That's what Regular Working Americans do EVERY DAY, while your Boy is playing Golf, and his Fat Assed Wife is walking around in $300 Sneakers, and carrying a $3,000 Handbag, as she looks for a $5,000 Evening Gown to wear at The State of the Union Address, before heading off to another $1,000,000 Vacation.
So STFU, Dumbass.
aware| 8.9.12 @ 5:28AM
The cuts won't happen, dupe. You can call anything you want but the cuts won't happen. If you say they will then you are the dumbass.
And "regular" people can't print money. See the difference? Neo con dipshit.
Truncheon| 8.8.12 @ 9:26AM
Bogus premise. The economy would surely grow more if we also cut spending, however should spending remain constant a reduction in taxes would still improve the economy.
And since history demonstrates it will increas federal revenue, should spending remain constant the deficit would decrease.
This is basic, fourth grade mathematics. You should look into it...
lost| 8.8.12 @ 11:13AM
"aware" and vtwin do not get math beyond 1+1 and never will
TLP| 8.8.12 @ 3:50PM
And, Reagan inherited a Much worse economy.
Double Didget EVERYTHING.
aware| 8.8.12 @ 6:07PM
There was no 16 trillion debt. He was able to deficit spend to spur growth. The same thing that Bush and now Obama is doing and it is not working is it?
Because this is nothing like the cyclical recessions experienced and the usual "cures" are not going to work. But it's all we know even if it's uncharted waters. Nobody knows what happens when paper money backed by debt and nothing else collapses on a world wide scale.
John Navratil| 8.8.12 @ 6:16PM
aware,
You are aware, no doubt, that Reagan did NOT deficit spend during the last worst recession since the Great Depression and it was over in 24 months. The deficits came when Tip O'Neill promised a $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. Reagan caved on the taxes - what he called his worst decision - but the cuts never materialized.
TLP| 8.8.12 @ 7:08PM
Exactly.
aware| 8.9.12 @ 5:34AM
What's the maximum range of an excuse, private? The deficits happened, even you agree. Again you are failing to understand what is going on. This is NOT a cyclical recession. Even you will see this soon.
So in order to believe Reagan didn't have anything to do with the deficits under his watch, we should believe he was completely clueless about politics and human nature. Do you think these things through?
aware| 8.8.12 @ 5:50PM
I always loved this aspect of the supply side hoodwinkers, "it increases revenue".
I give you the numbers mildly support this and agree with you. But why would you think larger sums of plundered wealth in the hands of the State would lead to "constant" spending? This is an example of unfounded faith over hard experience. If they have more money they spend more money. How simple could THAT be? Even a "fourth grader" gets that.
If you can show me where "fourth grade" or any other mathematics is the standard used by the bandit gang that rules us, then we can talk math. But I'm talking politics not math. Politics is all that matters when the rulers have unlimited control and can even defy math. For a while.
George True| 8.9.12 @ 10:27PM
Want to talk about hoodwinkers, genius? You and your Keynesian brethren are the greatest hoodwinkers of all time. Your false god Obama's sad devotion to that execrable failed doctrine has plundered untold amounts of earnings and net worth from the entire middle class. Your leftist fellow travelers are the greatest robbers and plunderers of all time.
aware| 8.10.12 @ 5:35AM
You only prove how freaking stupid you are, dumbass. I'm an Austrian economics guy and an anachro-capitalist. Just so your stupid ass understands that, it means I am way to the right of you stupid neo cons.
Keynes was the snake oil peddler for the left statists and supply side is the snake oil of the pretend right statists(neo cons). Neither is in any way free market. Both support the Leviathan State.
Stupid neo cons think all criticism has to come from the left.
Get a clue, knave.
Fiscal| 8.8.12 @ 7:33AM
Another "lie" from Ferrara! A number of tax policy groups have reviewed the Romney plan. The problem is that Romney is vague (on purpose) on how he will get his plan "revenue neutral", and that is the issue and where this middle class tax increase comes from. Unless he raises taxes on the middle class, his budget is a huge deficit increase -- something we cannot afford to do. The math here is not even questionable.
The fact is that neither Obama or Romney have a plan that will solve our debt problems. Romney's plan will actually cause more debt than Obama's because politically Romney will not raise taxes on the middle class. Romney also knows that the tax cuts will not stimulate the GDP which is why he never makes that argument.
Simpson-Bowles did have numbers that added up and included huge spending cuts and a very modest tax increase. It's too bad our educational system has collapsed and people don't have a rudimentary understanding of math and economics. Why can't a "conservative" actually come up with a plan to cut the deficit. Ryan's plan didn't do it and Romney's plan increases it. We know the left will never come up with such a plan....
DTOM| 8.8.12 @ 7:51AM
Fiscal - Romney may be vague, but he's still a candidate. Obama will be the first President who NEVER passed a budget.
You are pushing the Obama meme that there will be no difference between Obama and Romney.
I call that out as a tactic to attempt to dispirit the conservatives - to suppress their vote.
1. It's complete bologna, baloney, blarney! Romney will have sane, sensible budgets that will respect the law and the citizens he will be so proud to serve.
2. You are just a shiftless, poorly paid shill for Obama with so little intellectual capital that you can only repeat the arguments dictated to you.
Time to get a new TAS handle.
We know that you! And that you are empty-headed, what we do not know is whether you are just a useful idiot or an unrepentant communist!!
Begone, TROLL!
Don't Tread On Me!!!
Fiscal| 8.8.12 @ 8:04AM
If you really want to be fiscally responsible, you must be willing to do your homework and be truthful. I didn't say there is no difference between Obama and Romney, only that Romney doesn't have a plan to reduce the deficit which I consider our major problem. The problem with most of you here at TAS is that you don't do your homework and will accept the hype.
I supported Romney in 2008 and support him in 2012 because Obama is a failure at leadership -- not because Romney has a better financial plan. We need to start pressing conservatives to be fiscally responsible and not put out this dribble that tax cuts stimulate the economy and that their numbers actually add up. The fact is we solutions that will solve our debt issues -- and debt is our major problem. I'm not drinking the KoolAid like you... We need to cut Medicare, Social Security, AND the military -- move to a flatter tax with only deductions for mortgage and heath care, and then raise enough taxes to pay for the resulting plan. It is immoral to ask our grandchildren to pay for our excesses...
DTOM| 8.8.12 @ 8:13AM
So you missed the huge increase in Treasury collections after the Reagan tax cuts, Troll?
DTOM
vtwin| 8.8.12 @ 8:36AM
... and you missed the tripling of our national debt under Reagan.
DTOM| 8.8.12 @ 8:46AM
Because the DEMOCRATIC HOUSE radically amped up spending when they saw the tidal wave, oops, I mean tsunami, of inbound cash to the Treasury!!! Remember Democratic Houses used to write budgets. In the old days - not in Obama times.
vtwin, you have often shown useful and unrepentant tendencies...
DTOM| 8.8.12 @ 8:47AM
And Obama TRIPLED the national deficit in three years under the Reid-Pelosi "leadership."
You must be stupid.
vtwin| 8.8.12 @ 12:49PM
The national debt when Obama took office was $10 trillion. Today it is about $16 trillion. From 10 to 16 is a tripling? And you're calling me stupid.
francisdesales| 8.8.12 @ 1:21PM
DTOM said "deficit", not "debt".
Jacob McCandles| 8.8.12 @ 9:08AM
Economic growth under Reagan? Didn't the GDP grow around 80% ? And how much growth have we seen under Obama? Could this POSSIBLY be related to our persistently high unemployment?
HIGH TAXES DO NOT EQUAL REVENUE, they destroy it.
DTOM| 8.8.12 @ 9:24AM
Jake, Dude,
Take it easy - it was as high as 8 per cent, not 80.
That was just a typo, right?
Please be careful, vtwin, purp, and jack in wisconsin will be quoting your clumsy fingers forever.
FORGET IT TROLLS! Nothing to see here, just move along...
DTOM
DTOM
Jacob McCandles| 8.8.12 @ 3:25PM
'twas a typo. My point was that under Reagan we saw REAL economic growth, real job growth, and the debt tripling must be taken into context relative to GDP. Sort of like my 10,000 debt is not as big a deal if my income is 500,000 annually.
vtwin| 8.8.12 @ 1:07PM
“Didn't the GDP [under Reagan] grow around 80%” Yes Jacob, and there was free beer and ice cream for everyone.
lost| 8.8.12 @ 11:17AM
vtwin is purp! it's still making up number!
George S| 8.8.12 @ 11:24AM
Every time the debt is increased it is because of FDR and LBJ. Social security and Medicare. Without those, there is no debt because the tax rates will more than pay for defense, Post Offices, prosecution of piracy and counterfeiting, to promote the arts and sciences, etc.
Debt was always envisioned as a consequence of war. Not welfare.
vtwin| 8.8.12 @ 1:02PM
Actually, both Social Security and Medicare benefits are paid for with a separate tax, a payroll tax of about 15% on wages, which has collected more in revenue over the years than has been paid out in benefits to the elderly. In fact, the Social Security Trust Fund is the largest source of funds we borrow from to finance our nation’s debt.
I know, sometimes reality conflicts with our ideology.
George S| 8.8.12 @ 2:10PM
Then why are we 5 trillion in debt? Accounting error?
CJW| 8.8.12 @ 2:23PM
Right v/purp, what happened to the Algore lockbox to guarantee the Trust Fund?
JD| 8.8.12 @ 2:52PM
vtwin, you know full well that that money isn't there, and even if it was, these programs today take in less than they pay out, and that will only get worse over time.
TLP| 8.8.12 @ 3:55PM
My question to my friend vtwin, is this - Why is the Tax that is the only source of Income for Social Security, the only Tax that he wants cut?
Why does he want to let Social Security Wither on the Vine?
JD| 8.8.12 @ 4:02PM
He wants to eliminate the last vestiges of "fairness" from a program whose payin/payout ratio is already ridiculously "progressive", and make it like other social entitlements, where most people pay nothing in whatsoever. He wants it funded out of taxes on the rich, exclusively.
Mike in N.C.| 8.8.12 @ 10:05PM
DTOM
Obama could have used some help from Republicans on passing the budget.
Five point deduction for disingenuousness .
Mimi | 8.8.12 @ 8:02AM
The facts....REAL facts compared to the LIES is a God send to hear...Thanks Peter. The problem is people in general don't go by real facts....they listen to the SOUNDBITES. The truth is caught in the minutia of these numbers. The trickster knows this...CLEVER he is.
This is the roadmap of how we ended up with the "O" in the first place.....4 years of horror for this country all built on lies, and a dismal future for all our children to deal with.
It will all boil down to.....WHO CAN BE MOST TRUSTED ? Obama MUST .....above all else, be called out and made famous for the DISHONESTY and LYING!
Fiscal| 8.8.12 @ 8:11AM
Mimi, it is not what Ferrara tells you, but what he omits. If you're willing to accept what he says, then you are responsible for the huge increase in debt that will result because you can't decrease the debt without increasing taxes to the middle class under Romney's plan. Otherwise, the numbers just don't add up.
Like Reagan said, "Trust but verify". I've reviewed the implied budgets from BOTH sides, and you don't find the whole truth in either place. After all, these are politicians and Ferrara is political hack.
May I suggest a good starting point is to go to the neutral fact checking sites like Politifact or FactCheck.org and don't believe anything you hear on either Fox News or MSNBC. Until we get people thinking again, we will get the country we deserve.
DTOM| 8.8.12 @ 8:23AM
What TRIPE! Mimi is responsible for the huge increase in debt, not Harry "Budgetless" Reid and Nancy "We don't need no stinkin' budgets" Pelosi?
You argue bombastically - then hide behind your supposed personal review of "implied" budgets. What a joke! An 'implied budget' is based on your inferences of what YOU think each candidate will do.
Here's an idea for you. Compare any actual, not imaginary, Obama budget from 2009 through 2012 to any Romney budget for Massachusetts 2003 through 2007. Oh yeah, that's right, THERE ARE NO OBAMA BUDGETS!!!!
Romney will put this country back on a budget!
Fiscal, you do not live up to your handle, except maybe as "fiscally oblivious" or "Fiscally irresponsible."
Bad Mimi, you could have saved the US economy! Why didn't you. Fiscal you are submoronic. With a big vocabulary. Which suggests education. Which suggests understanding. Which means you mean this country ill, not well.
Again, begone TROLL!
Fiscal| 8.8.12 @ 9:11AM
I never said Obama was better, but Romney doesn't have a proposed budget either, only an rough outline where the numbers don't add up. We need to hold candidates to a higher standard because if we don't, Romney will be another Bush.
Regarding "implied" budgets -- if Romney didn't want anyone to imply, then he give us some detail.
DTOM, YOU are the problem because you base your views on ideology rather than facts. That's why this country is in trouble.
And you believe that education will hurt this country? I guess we are in real trouble because Romney has more education from Harvard than Obama!!
You're obviously not the type of individual that looks at facts other than the rants of ideologues. There's not much help for people with blinders.
Here's an editorial on the Romney budget...
http://www.tampabay.com/opinio.....244067.ece
DTOM| 8.8.12 @ 9:33AM
Ideology?
I am the problem?
I base my arguments on a few simple things:
The Constitution, the Bible, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, logic, rational thought, deductive and inductive logic.
Your turn, useful or unrepentant one.
Don't forget Karl Marx, Margaret Sanger, Saul Alinsky, and Chairman Mao.
This oughtta be good.
PS And did I ever make a single solitary mention of education and the thought that it would hurt the country? I did not. No, you are the bombastic oaf, making crap up and then assailing people for supposedly having said it.
Which one of the "Rules for Radicals" is that, I forget? Just look at that tattoo on your chest - the Rules are tattooed there, upside down, so you can read them, right?
Subsubmoron.
Purp| 8.8.12 @ 3:36PM
This is where you go wrong.
JD| 8.8.12 @ 2:54PM
Obama never even had a budget proposal, nor has a budget ever passed under him.
That's the problem. Democrats are always looking for something to attack, while they avoid attack by putting nothing out there.
And when they attack, they do so dishonestly. Romney hasn't published a complete proposal. He's only offered snippets. Democrats take these snippets, fill in the blanks with whatever will make Romney look the worst, and attack their straw man.
TLP| 8.8.12 @ 3:58PM
Actually, The Muslim has submitted Budgets. Three of them, I think.
They all went down in flames.
In fact, I don't think ANY OF THEM got one single Vote.
Interesting.
Purp| 8.8.12 @ 8:07AM
Romney will be raising taxes on EVERYONE that reads AS. And most everyone else too. It's in his plan.
As you people are so fond of screaming "50% of Americans pay no income tax at all! " ... As Romney's plan reduces taxes on "Everyone" to 25%, those that pay more (the rich) will pay far less in taxes. But those that pay less or none will pay substantially more. Whether it is actually $2000 is beside the point. He will raise taxes on the current low tax payers (because they have little income) and lower taxes a lot on those that currently pay higher taxes (because they can afford it). It's that simple. It's simple math, and he CAN'T escape it.
Sorry Mitty, we gotcha! Mitt the Twit loses again.
DTOM| 8.8.12 @ 8:36AM
Poor, stupid, uninformed, ignorant Purp,
Here's what you missed. When tax cuts were cut and government regulation was reduced in the early 1980's tax RATES went down, but tax COLLECTIONS surged, hugely.
No WAY! Sez you?
Way, sez me. What happens is, in a stable, relaxed regulatory environment business flourishes. More people have jobs, make money, and pay taxes. Thus the Treasury collects more $.
Under your 'raise taxes stupidity', fewer people have businesses, fewer people have jobs, and far, far fewer people pay taxes at the increased rates. What happens? Treasury collections fall, dramatically.
This has happened every time taxes have been raised. That's why Reid and Pelosi got the votes to allow the Bush tax rates to stand. Obama could have vetoed them, BUT HE DIDN'T. WHY? BECAUSE EVEN HE KNOWS THIS TO BE TRUE!
Are you a useful idiot or an unrepentant communist?
Either way you are a TROLL!
But tell Vlad after the election, I'll have a lot more freedom to crush the American economy!
DTOM| 8.8.12 @ 8:37AM
Oops - meant "when tax RATES were cut..."
Al Adab| 8.8.12 @ 9:26AM
Purp isn't ignorant, he just knows so much that isn't true. If I may borrow a quote.
DTOM| 8.8.12 @ 9:34AM
You betcha!!
MK48| 8.8.12 @ 9:35AM
DTOM.......I thought you said don't feed the trolls
DTOM| 8.8.12 @ 9:40AM
That was bait! Like one feeds to rodents...
Purp| 8.8.12 @ 2:08PM
And, yet, 3 of the 4 times of greatest growth in the United States were AFTER taxes were raised? But that doesn't fit the right wing mythology does it? Go back and look at history and you'll see that it' true.
In a nutshell, what seems to happen is that when taxes are raised, those that can find tax shelters and tax avoidance schemes do (the wealthy of course) and by so doing invest in things that they wouldn't normally invest in. THAT creates jobs and boom times, because more people have money and business is increased because there are more customers. Investment is nothing without the customers to buy the products or services.
What you've been told is a lie, but you are free to believe what you will.
JD| 8.8.12 @ 2:56PM
Name the three times.
Undoubtedly one of them will be the Clinton years. Nevermind that things actually got worse for 18 months after the change, then got better after Republicans swept the midterms. And nevermind that you know as well as I do that the tech bubble overwhelmed the impact of any federal policy on the economy for a few years, until it burst and things went downhill quickly.
Why do I keep having to repeat these points? You never have a response to them. You just ignore me when I debunk you, then come back the next day with the same bile, hoping I won't be around to debunk you again.
Purp| 8.8.12 @ 3:11PM
Go find them yourself.
You do not have to repeat your right wing mythology. It's a nice story, neatly woven, but that's all.
JD| 8.8.12 @ 3:21PM
As I said, you never have a response.
Purp| 8.8.12 @ 3:35PM
I have neither the inclination or the time to tutor you on economics.
TLP| 8.8.12 @ 3:59PM
You left out - The Intelligence, or The Honesty.
JD| 8.8.12 @ 4:04PM
If we could monetize your dishonesty, we'd eliminate the debt!
The bottom line, as always, is that you flee when presented with a strong argument. I answer your "arguments", such as they are, but you do no such courtesy.
Purp| 8.9.12 @ 8:07AM
Reagan, Papa Bush and Clinton. All raised taxes and presided over Booms. The only one that lowered taxes and had a boom was Kennedy. Happy now? You're so lazy, it's easy to find out this kind of information if you just TRY HARDER.
George S| 8.8.12 @ 5:30PM
Let's take Purp's theory(?) and apply it to history:
What tax hike caused the wealthy to shelter income that Eli Whitney received to invent the cotton gin or develop interchangeable musket parts? What tax shelter enable John Deere to create the plow or for Cyrus McCormick to develop the grain reaper? In 1844, Samuel Morse developed the telegraph. What tax havens made coast to coast telegraph lines everywhere by 1860?
The Watts steam engine? The Fulton steamer? Edison and the light bulb? Edison and A/C power? Bell's telephone? And the Ford assembly line?
All those ushered in the Industrial Revolution. All those occurred before the progressive income tax courtesy of the 16th Amendment. All those before the first of several 50% plus tax rates.
I eagerly await, along with you JD, the instances of growth after taxes. Unless Purp means government growth, then even that is not true.
Purp| 8.9.12 @ 8:10AM
With the exception of Henry Ford - did anyone of those INVENTORS create great wealth for themselves? No they didn't. And they were more inventors than they were businessmen.
Ford did have to deal with income tax, and was part of the first great boom in the early 1920's.
Now for more modern times, which is much more realistic for us today - Reagan, Papa Bush and Clinton all raised taxes and a boom followed.
Would you care to enter the 20th Century or the 21st Century now?
CJW| 8.8.12 @ 8:50AM
Obamaboy purpie
You are more stupid than usual. If the bottom rate drops from 10% to 8% how will that they pay more in taxes unless they report more income. To put it in your terms, without considering deductions and credits, you should pay one dollar on the ten dollars per hour you make as a paid obama troll, under Romney you pay eighty cents. So you save twenty cents, purpie. Got it?
CJW| 8.8.12 @ 8:51AM
should be "How will they" (no that)
Purp| 8.8.12 @ 2:09PM
Because those that have 0% tax rate will pay significantly more. How dumb can you be?
CJW| 8.8.12 @ 2:26PM
v/purpie
Who said anything about a 0% rate, idiot? Even a moron like you knows that 0% rate will produce no tax.
Can you read?
Purp| 8.8.12 @ 2:38PM
OMG - go reread what was written... you are completely dense.
CJW| 8.8.12 @ 5:00PM
vpurp
OMG, when you have no answser, obsfucate.
Purp| 8.9.12 @ 8:13AM
you can't read, can you? I said those that pay NO taxes today will pay far more under Romney. God you're dumb.
CJW| 8.9.12 @ 8:46AM
Purpie
You are a liar and stupid. Romney has proposed tax cuts,not tax increases. So if you are in a 0% effective rate now, like you as a $10 an hour Obama troll, you cannot pay more in taxes. I explained to you, moron, that the 10% rate drops to 8%. Read it slowly, drops not increses.
You always lie and make up facts.
Idiot.
Purp| 8.9.12 @ 2:13PM
Did you pass Math in school?
If I pay no income tax today, but by Romney's plan, 10% goes to 8%, but I pay nothing today - how do I not pay 8% more than I do today?
8% Romney - 0% today = 8% tax on my income, whatever it is.
CJW| 8.9.12 @ 4:02PM
Listen slowly idiot, 10% goes to 8% only if you area at 10%.
If you are at 0%, like you because you are too stupid to work, then you remain at 0% . You do not go to 8%
I am going to save this for a purpie screen shot. You actually believe that your rate goes from 0 to 8 because there is a reduction from 10 to 8.
I feel sorry for you. You are too stupid to laugh at.
George S| 8.8.12 @ 11:19AM
Romney can raise taxes all he wants and it would still send the economy roaring back to life. All he has to do is remove the uncertainty named Obama from office. Then he can issue executive orders to reverse the effects of ObamaCare, EPA, and IRS created regulations that Congress never wrote.
The tax rate discussion is chump bait -- thrown out by the leftists so that everyone can argue the details in the mix in the hope that you won't notice Obama's record.
Purp| 8.8.12 @ 2:11PM
Obama's record is fine - no need to worry on that account. But bumper sticker politics requires reaching the dumbest among us - you should understand that - it's how Republicans win anything. They sure don't govern well.
JD| 8.8.12 @ 2:58PM
Your straw men are bumper-sticker arguments, and you've never grasped the considerably more nuanced arguments you are replacing with those straw men.
Name one liberal idea that ISN'T bumper-sticker.
Purp| 8.8.12 @ 3:12PM
Name one conservative idea that isn't ...
JD| 8.8.12 @ 3:19PM
I asked first.
TLP| 8.8.12 @ 4:00PM
Let me help you out.
DRILL EVERYWHERE.
Stkman| 8.8.12 @ 4:48PM
Twerp,
the only record of Obama's that will be fine is the one that says, indicted/convicted/sentenced/serving, indicted, convicted/sentenced/serving.
George S| 8.8.12 @ 5:42PM
Then why is Obama not running on it? Why is he obsessed with Romney's tax returns? Why didn't he speak to the NAACP with all the great things he has done for African Americans like gay marriage and the shockingly high black unemployment rate? Why isn't he pounding his chest over the fact that we saved $2,500 off our health insurance premiums? Or that the middle class is doin' fine? Or that the stimulus has created millions of jobs? Or that the housing market and construction loans are on the uspwing after he signed Dodd-Frank? Or that the Middle East is all huggy kisses? Or that Medicare Part D is being terminated to give us better free stuff under ObamaCare?
Why is it that Obama cannot talk to an audience of adults and tell to their faces why his record is one to be proud of?
Indy| 8.8.12 @ 8:17AM
I don't like Romney's plan, nobody has the political courage to revamp the code and move to a flat tax, reduce deductions and rates. The Earned Income Credit has resulted in more people not paying Federal Income Taxes and worse than that they get money from those of us who pay. We must grow the tax base, by not making changes to get us there, we will be well over more than 50% not paying any Federal Income Taxes...
Fiscal| 8.8.12 @ 9:17AM
While I basically agree with you, especially on a flat tax and reducing deductions, the EIC was designed as an offset for the regressivity of payroll taxes. We need to get rid of payroll taxes completely and move to a flat tax and forget about all of those unfair "fixes" to "compensate". Washington needs to get out of the business of declaring winners and losers and needs to let the free market work properly.
DTOM| 8.8.12 @ 9:36AM
Fiscal,
Here you are trying to create a little credibility as a conservative.
We are neither stupid nor amused!
Scat, you commie cat!
JD| 8.8.12 @ 10:56AM
I'd be happy to get rid of payroll taxes when we get rid of the spending they're supposed to fund. Otherwise, it's just another broken liberal promise (the self-sufficiency of their pyramid scheme).
Purp| 8.8.12 @ 3:33PM
And, yet it (Social Security) has been solvent for 80 years and can be for another with minor tweaks.
So much for broken promises which is another right wing myth.
CJW| 8.8.12 @ 3:45PM
Obamaboy vpurp
You are getting more stupid each day. The minor tweaks are raising full retirement aga and increasing the income level subject to FICA. That is what "saved" SS. Only a brain dead lefty considers raising taxes and retirment age a minor tweak. So we will raise retirement age and increase the income subject to FICA.
JD| 8.8.12 @ 4:10PM
The payroll tax is six times what it was initially, the retirement age has been raised, and the payout scale has become more "progressive" by decreasing the benefit as income increases. You'll need more of the same to keep it going.
If those were "minor tweaks", then TARP wasn't even a blip on the radar. Guess the financial sector has never been remotely troubled!
Indy| 8.8.12 @ 5:57PM
all is well?http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/tr/2012/II_D_project.html#105057
"Annual OASDI cost exceeded non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The Trustees project that cost will continue to exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year valuation period. Nevertheless, total trust fund income, including interest income, is more than is necessary to cover costs through 2020, so trust fund assets continue to grow. Beginning in 2021, cost exceeds total income and combined OASI and DI Trust Fund assets diminish until they become exhausted in 2033. After trust fund exhaustion, continuing income is sufficient to support expenditures at a level of 75 percent of program cost for the rest of 2033, declining to 73 percent for 2086."
"Although assets of the DI Trust Fund were greater than annual expenditures at the beginning of 2012, the DI Trust Fund fails the Trustees’ short-range test of financial adequacy under all three alternatives. Furthermore, the DI Trust Fund becomes exhausted by the end of 2016 and 2015 under alternatives II and III, respectively."
You are more confident than I am, our elected officials do not have the backbone to make necessary changes. Under our current POTUS record numbers of citizens have qualified for Disability Insurance;I predict the numbers will increase especially as unemployment insurance runs out and the definition of what qualifies as a disability is relaxed. It will take more than minor tweaks to get us out of this mess.
Indy| 8.8.12 @ 6:02PM
The summary at this link is one that may interest readers here http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/tr/201.....html#76460
"the DI Trust Fund becomes exhausted in 2016, so legislative action is needed as soon as possible. In the absence of a long-term solution, lawmakers could reallocate the payroll tax rate between OASI and DI, as they did in 1994." it lists their solutions, more taxes and reduced benefits and soon.
Truth to Power| 8.8.12 @ 8:33AM
The trolls are out in force here. They are fighting to keep tax payer dollars flowing to the big O's gay money bundlers and jokes like Solyndra. It isn't going to work.
Prester John| 8.8.12 @ 10:05AM
Three questions:
1) Is it fair that almost half of the people who file income tax returns pay no federal income tax?
2) Is it realistic to believe that reforming the tax code won't result in some people paying less in taxes and some people paying more?
3) Is it too much to ask that federal spending on things like NPR, NEA, NEH, etc should be cut before anyone has more of their income confiscated by the federal government?
The country is going bankrupt and the middle schoolers are shooting spitballs at each other.
JD| 8.8.12 @ 10:58AM
What is foolish is measuring the supposed "fairness" of proposed changes by analyzing them as a delta to the status quo. That only works if the status quo is fair. Ours isn't close.
The way the Democrats analyze tax changes would suggest that freeing the slaves was a horrible injustice to white people!
lost| 8.8.12 @ 11:25AM
"The way the Democrats analyze tax changes would suggest that freeing the slaves was a horrible injustice to white people!" Um didn't Democrats do that once?
JD| 8.8.12 @ 11:46AM
The argument that freeing slaves couldn't be done without compensating their owners for the loss was made by appeasers in the name of "pragmatism", but I doubt any modern Democrat will accept being linked to it. One can certainly draw parallels to their modern notions of "fair" deltas, though.
George S| 8.8.12 @ 11:06AM
Romney should have never proposed a "tax plan". That is not the problem that needs to be solved. Right now the problem is Obama is choking us; Romney's plan is the equivalent of trying to force a breathing tube of tax relief in between Obama's fingers and our throats.
The solution is to remove Obama's death grip from our throats. With that done, you can even increase taxes and our breathing would still markedly improve.
It's the death grip, stupid. Romney should not get into any details of what he would do -- instead he must hammer the point Obama is purposefully destroying our future to appease his own personal demons.
Pecos Pete| 8.8.12 @ 11:35AM
George, you are soooo correct. The problem is Obama's death grip on the economy. Ferrera points out the tax INCREASES that will result if Obama is reelected. Add to the tax increases the even more rapid expansion of regulations that Obama's czars will institute. Obama must be called out for his ludicrous claims. Hopefully Romney's cash surplus will be used appropriately once he is the official nominee and can then begin to spend money.
George S| 8.8.12 @ 11:49AM
Right. And he we are arguing about the size of the breathing tube. A sure fire way of bringing the Obama campaign to legitimacy where he may just win on the argument.
sickofit5| 8.8.12 @ 11:43AM
"lacking a serious rebuttal" Those are the words that concern me. That is becoming a theme in the Romney campaign. The ad with Softdick crying about his wife's death and these claims about the middle class tax increases are rebutted so effeminately it makes the LGBT group look like Navy Seals. I am hoping against hope that what is really going on is that the Romney camp is just collecting material from the Obama group so that they can make one long ad using snippets from Obama and his ads to show how audaciously and frequently he liars. Some how I just don't think it's happening. I feel like I'm the weapons officer in Top Gun trying to get Maverick to engage but he is afraid to and claims that the time was right. Come on Mitt, unleash hell on this POS.
JD| 8.8.12 @ 12:23PM
He can't. The media spins everything. He has to tiptoe while Obama lies with impunity.
Purp| 8.8.12 @ 3:15PM
And, so Mitty loses ... it's in the cards.
BackToBasics| 8.8.12 @ 12:05PM
With baseline budgeting and leftist wordplay all we ever hear from democrats is if the rate of increase in a budget slows then it is considered a "cut."
A very simple solution for the Romeny camp would be a proposal that would use one word that is easy for everyone to understand and that is to propose a spending "freeze" at current levels.
It is so simple to UNDERSTAND and REMEBER that I think the use of "spending freeze" would trump the "spending cut" phrase and be a quick rebuttal anytime to the dems anytime they used that phrase.
A freeze would be a start at least and then they could work on actual cuts.
JD| 8.8.12 @ 12:46PM
Democrats define a "freeze" as "don't change the rules that define spending", not "don't change the amount spent." They'll agree to a "freeze" as they define it, which means entitlement spending will continue to grow because the payout formulas continue to yield larger numbers.
BackToBasics| 8.8.12 @ 9:55PM
I agree. I was speaking more to what I think the Romney campaign should say in referring to an actual freeze in spending amounts. Implied of course is that he would actually make every effort to follow-through once elected. I think it's likely Republicans will control both houses after November so it could be done.
Jack London| 8.8.12 @ 3:51PM
Just coming in late to say that this Ferrara article beats all records for economic fabrication in AmSpec - you really are poor ignorant saps if you believe this voodoo about Romney's 'tax plan' (you can hardly dignify it with the word plan).
JD| 8.8.12 @ 4:14PM
Romney has not issued a complete plan (neither did Obama, until after he took office, and none of his plans has ever gotten votes in congress). What Romney HAS done is issue snippets. Democrats have taken these snippets, filled in the blanks with with their straw men, and dishonestly attacked Romney based on the resulting animal.
As for you, you do not substantiate your claim. Why should anyone listen to you?
Nick| 8.8.12 @ 7:19PM
Hey, I'm still waiting for answers to my questions, Jack'o.
Why is it okay for you libs to discriminate against a father/mother who wishes to "marry" his/her adult daughter/son if they are "in love"?
Why is it okay to deny them so-called "equal rights"?
(And you can't use child deformities, because you liberals are all about contraception and abortion, remember?)
Mike in N.C.| 8.8.12 @ 4:31PM
The study was done by the Center for Tax Policy, a group Romney praised when it made mince meat out of Perry tax plan. Shoot the messenger. Always a reliable fall back when the message is not welcome.
Kingofthenet| 8.8.12 @ 5:43PM
Ask Willard about 'Son of Boss'
PHILLIPBERNAL| 8.8.12 @ 9:15PM
Romney will do nothing different from Obama. Once in office, he will feed at the trough and concentrate on maintaining the status quo. Why does everyone think that he will do anything different than he did when he was Massachusetts' governor? Yea, yea, he is not Obama. Great, it gives me a warm and fuzzy to have a liberal RINO who has never had to worry about the cost of a pound of meat, a gallon of gas, or a mortgage, as our President. Prepare to be disappointed if he is elected. Like the man said, Romney will still drive the train over the cliff but only slower.
EDBinOKC| 8.9.12 @ 7:00AM
If re elected, Obama will be the most dangerous man in the world. The MSM will do their best to see that it happens.
Toinfinityandbeyond| 8.9.12 @ 7:26AM
Romney confuses ‘Sikh’ with ‘sheik.’
Maybe, this is why.
Mormon Church 'owns unregulated gun sale website'
One of the most active and unregulated gun sale websites in America is owned by the Mormon Church, an investigation by New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg has revealed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....bsite.html
Toinfinityandbeyond| 8.9.12 @ 7:26AM
Brigham Young’s Great-Great Granddaughter On Why Romney Would Make A Frightening President
"a Mormon president who promises to defund Planned Parenthood and make abortion illegal, will not be a positive choice for women this November. This is not an indictment of all Mormons, rather it is an important consideration when looking at the character of Mitt Romney"
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2.....president/
Toinfinityandbeyond| 8.9.12 @ 7:26AM
Romney Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....._embedded#!
Toinfinityandbeyond| 8.9.12 @ 7:27AM
These are good sources to understand who Mitt Romney really is.
This is a confession from Former Mormon explains very well about Mitt Romney
Former Mormon Tricia Erickson says Mormonism is a Racist Cult
http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....O9_3Cu8cEA
This is a Great Book that you can understand about Mitt Romney
Can Mitt Romney Serve Two Masters?
Former Mormon Tricia Erickson
Toinfinityandbeyond| 8.9.12 @ 7:27AM
Rafalca is riding Mitt the Twitt until the election.
Toinfinityandbeyond| 8.9.12 @ 7:27AM
Repubs want to be like Mitt Romney, a white racist cult dou$che rich guy with Magic Diaper.
How far have you gotten so far?
Toinfinityandbeyond| 8.9.12 @ 7:28AM
2010 "incomplete" tax return ("incomplete" means Mitt got rid of pages that will get him in trouble.)
2011 estimate of tax return
Mitt Romney never even released a complete one year.
This seems so fishy.
Toinfinityandbeyond| 8.9.12 @ 7:28AM
That is a great article that explains very well about Mitt Romney and Mormon.
"A direct descendant of Brigham Young, Sue Emmett left the church because of the very values she says would make Romney a frightening president."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/a.....omney.html
Toinfinityandbeyond| 8.9.12 @ 7:28AM
Repubs are like Commies.
They always live in fear. What did they do so wrong to people around the world?
The reason why Commies live in fear is because they know they are bad people.
It is only logical Repub know they are bad people.
Toinfinityandbeyond| 8.9.12 @ 7:28AM
This is very interesting.
Pay close attention to how little John McCain actually says. Does McCain know something?
Why Won’t John McCain Call Harry Reid A Liar?
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2.....id-a-liar/
Toinfinityandbeyond| 8.9.12 @ 7:29AM
Repubs have been talking Americans economic hostage for years to make President Obama look bad.
Toinfinityandbeyond| 8.9.12 @ 7:29AM
I have never seen Mitt Romney admitting he is Mormon in public.
Mitt Romney always lies that he is "Christian" in front of people.
And he always says this, "I am proud of my faith."
But, he can't say "I am Mormon" in front of people.
Toinfinityandbeyond| 8.9.12 @ 7:29AM
Romney wants to deport all people who don't pay Federal Income Tax.
Oops!
Romney should be the first in the line.
Toinfinityandbeyond| 8.9.12 @ 7:30AM
Ronald Reagan once said......."Trust, but Verify."
We trust you Mitt the Twitt, just show us your many years of Tax Returns.
Toinfinityandbeyond| 8.9.12 @ 7:30AM
Mormons say they believe the Bible.
Mormons also believe "Book of Mormon", "Doctrine and Covenants," and "Pearl of Great Price" that Joseph Smith created.
But the Bible says no one should believe any other books but the Bible.
What's Wrong with Mormons? They don't think what they are saying is contradicting by itself?
Toinfinityandbeyond| 8.9.12 @ 7:30AM
"Hey Americans, I will make sure to make you poorer while I will make the Riches richer."
is not going to fly at all.
Toinfinityandbeyond| 8.9.12 @ 7:31AM
Romney struggles to sharpen foreign policy message.
You know Mitt~
You can't persuade Americans with this.
"Your Olympics suck"
"I am going to baptize you Jews to Mormon."
"The country next to you sucks because of their bad culture."
"Let's have Cayman and Swiss accounts like me."
Toinfinityandbeyond| 8.9.12 @ 7:31AM
Smith 33rd Degree Mason
gray man| 8.10.12 @ 1:29AM
and if he said any of those things you would have a point. since he didn't you might be a moron.
Sickofthalies| 11.9.12 @ 7:43PM
Now you know that the Koch brothers and the other Park Avenue billionaires, don't want their taxes raised. You don't care nothing about anyone other than yourselves, and most like made deals with the devil. Guess what God wins in the end and you all will share that pit, with the devil. I don't know why your even comlaining about taxes because your not paying any, the middle class and poor are. Shame on you!
Sickofthalies| 11.9.12 @ 7:48PM
The rigged system is the very system in whch my President has to work in. You sick people keep messing around with people's lives and think is ok. I rebuke your name, and bnd you all for playing your sick game of lies, manipulation, and greed. Yes your little buddies your worked for Bush, Reagan, and others. Who have kissed the ring of the people with the money that have had their hands in the pot stirring things up. Keep poking the bear .