Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » So what is the actual stimulative effect of a "tax cut" if it isn't really a tax cut?

So what is the actual stimulative effect of a "tax cut" if it isn't really a tax cut?

+3
ZVUGKTUBM
Margin Call
boards of FL
7 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

boards of FL

boards of FL

If Romney's tax cu...er...tax plan is completely neutral and simply cuts taxes here by eliminating tax deductions there, and if the upper and middle class will see no effective reduction in taxes...what is the point of such a plan? I am speaking hypothetically here and assuming that such a plan is even mathematically possible, which it isn't, but nevertheless, what is the stimulative effect off such a plan that would merit its implementation?


_________________
I approve this message.

Margin Call

Margin Call

Romney counts phantom job creation even though we know that simply lowering tax rates does not inherently create jobs and definitely not at the level he is hoping for. It's Voodoo.



Last edited by Margin Call on 10/4/2012, 4:11 pm; edited 1 time in total

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

If we could get past Romney's smoke and mirrors game at last night's debate, we might find the answers!

So what is the actual stimulative effect of a "tax cut" if it isn't really a tax cut? Smoke_n_Mirrors_Logo

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Margin Call

Margin Call

boards of FL wrote:If Romney's tax cu...er...tax plan is completely neutral and simply cuts taxes here by eliminating tax deductions there, and if the upper and middle class will see no effective reduction in taxes...what is the point of such a plan? I am speaking hypothetically here and assuming that such a plan is even mathematically possible, which it isn't, but nevertheless, what is the stimulative effect off such a plan that would merit its implementation?

Yes, last night Romney changed his plan to say that everyone was going to pay the same amount but still tried to call it a tax cut. I didn't get it either.

Guest


Guest

Which one of the jokers has proposed doing away with the mortgage tax credit?

Guest


Guest

reaper1948 wrote:Which one of the jokers has proposed doing away with the mortgage tax credit?


Romney.

Nekochan

Nekochan

boards of FL wrote:If Romney's tax cu...er...tax plan is completely neutral and simply cuts taxes here by eliminating tax deductions there, and if the upper and middle class will see no effective reduction in taxes...what is the point of such a plan? I am speaking hypothetically here and assuming that such a plan is even mathematically possible, which it isn't, but nevertheless, what is the stimulative effect off such a plan that would merit its implementation?

I don't think he said it would be completely neutral. He said he'd lower the rates across the board and do away with some deductions for higher incomes. He said that the wealthy would continue to pay higher taxes than the middle class through a reduction in their deductions.

That is what I heard, anyway. I keep reading stuff that Romney supposedly said that I didn't hear him say.

Guest


Guest

Dreamsglore wrote:
reaper1948 wrote:Which one of the jokers has proposed doing away with the mortgage tax credit?


Romney.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/mitt-romney-suggests-cutting-mortgage-interest-deduction-on-eve-of-presidential-debate-1.4066809

Yep, but he will help the middle class who hold most of the mortgages.

You know 3 or 4 months ago, well before he picked Ryan I was leaning towards him but I just can't see it and there is absolutely no one that can convince me he will help the middle class.

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:If Romney's tax cu...er...tax plan is completely neutral and simply cuts taxes here by eliminating tax deductions there, and if the upper and middle class will see no effective reduction in taxes...what is the point of such a plan? I am speaking hypothetically here and assuming that such a plan is even mathematically possible, which it isn't, but nevertheless, what is the stimulative effect off such a plan that would merit its implementation?

I don't think he said it would be completely neutral. He said he'd lower the rates across the board and do away with some deductions for higher incomes. He said that the wealthy would continue to pay higher taxes than the middle class through a reduction in their deductions.

That is what I heard, anyway. I keep reading stuff that Romney supposedly said that I didn't hear him say.

Then he is increasing taxes for the wealthy if he reduces deductions.He implicitly said he wouldn't do that and that's why he doesn't make sense.

Guest


Guest

"That is what I heard, anyway. I keep reading stuff that Romney supposedly said that I didn't hear him say."

Did you hear about his Cash for Cadillacs plan..
It's a trade deal in for luxury car owners.. Very Happy

Nekochan

Nekochan

What Romney said about taxes in the debate. These are snippets of Romney's comments, directly from the debate.

http://www.mercurynews.com/presidentelect/ci_21695181/full-transcript-barack-obama-mitt-romney-presidential-debate


ROMNEY: Well, sure. I'd like to clear up the record and go through it piece by piece.
First of all, I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don't have a tax cut of a scale that you're talking about. My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I'm not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people. High-income people are doing just fine in this economy. They'll do fine whether you're president or I am.

The second area, taxation, we agree, we ought to bring the tax rates down. And I do, both for corporations and for individuals. But in order for us not to lose revenue, have the government run out of money, I also lower deductions and credits and exemptions, so that we keep taking in the same money when you also account for growth.

And finally, with regards to that tax cut, look, I'm not looking to cut massive taxes and to reduce the -- the revenues going to the government. My -- 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 adds to the deficit.
But I do want to reduce the burden being paid by middle-income Americans. And I -- and to do that, that also means I cannot reduce the burden paid by high-income Americans. So any -- any language to the contrary is simply not accurate.

ROMNEY: So if the tax plan he described were a tax plan I was asked to support, I'd say absolutely not. I'm not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut. What I've said is I won't put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That's part one. So there's no economist that can say Mitt Romney's tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.
Number two, I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals. I know that you and your running mate keep saying that and I know it's a popular thing to say with a lot of people, but it's just not the case. Look, I've got five boys. I'm used to people saying something that's not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I'll believe it. But that -- that is not the case. All right? I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans.
And number three, I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it's completely wrong. I saw a study that came out today that said you're going to raise taxes by $3,000 to $4,000 on middle-income families.
There are all these studies out there. But let's get at the bottom line. That is, I want to bring down rates. I want to bring the rates down, at the same time lower deductions and exemptions and credits and so forth, so we keep getting the revenue we need. And you'd think, well, then why lower the rates?

ROMNEY: And the reason is because small business pays that individual rate; 54 percent of America's workers work in businesses that are taxed not at the corporate tax rate, but at the individual tax rate. And if we lower that rate, they will be able to hire more people. For me, this is about jobs. This is about getting jobs for the American people.

ROMNEY: Look, the revenue I get is by more people working, getting higher pay, paying more taxes. That's how we get growth and how we balance the budget. But the idea of taxing people more, putting more people out of work, you'll never get there. You'll never balance the budget by raising taxes.
Spain -- Spain spends 42 percent of their total economy on government. We're now spending 42 percent of our economy on government. I don't want to go down the path to Spain. I want to go down the path of growth that puts Americans to work with more money coming in because they're working.

ROMNEY: Which is -- which is my experience as a governor is if I come in and -- and lay down a piece of legislation and say, "It's my way or the highway," I don't get a lot done. What I do is the same way that Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan worked together some years ago. When Ronald Reagan ran for office, he laid out the principles that he was going to foster. He said he was going to lower tax rates. He said he was going to broaden the base. You've said the same thing, you're going to simplify the tax code, broaden the base.
Those are my principles. I want to bring down the tax burden on middle-income families. And I'm going to work together with Congress to say, OK, what -- what are the various ways we could bring down deductions, for instance? One way, for instance, would be to have a single number. Make up a number, $25,000, $50,000. Anybody can have deductions up to that amount. And then that number disappears for high-income people. That's one way one could do it. One could follow Bowles-Simpson as a model and take deduction by deduction and make differences that way. There are alternatives to accomplish the objective I have, which is to bring down rates, broaden the base, simplify the code, and create incentives for growth. And with regards to health care, you had remarkable details with regards to my pre-existing condition plan. You obviously studied up on -- on my plan. In fact, I do have a plan that deals with people with pre-existing conditions. That's part of my health care plan. And what we did in Massachusetts is a model for the nation state by state. And I said that at that time.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Dreamsglore wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:If Romney's tax cu...er...tax plan is completely neutral and simply cuts taxes here by eliminating tax deductions there, and if the upper and middle class will see no effective reduction in taxes...what is the point of such a plan? I am speaking hypothetically here and assuming that such a plan is even mathematically possible, which it isn't, but nevertheless, what is the stimulative effect off such a plan that would merit its implementation?

I don't think he said it would be completely neutral. He said he'd lower the rates across the board and do away with some deductions for higher incomes. He said that the wealthy would continue to pay higher taxes than the middle class through a reduction in their deductions.

That is what I heard, anyway. I keep reading stuff that Romney supposedly said that I didn't hear him say.

Then he is increasing taxes for the wealthy if he reduces deductions.He implicitly said he wouldn't do that and that's why he doesn't make sense.

Then I think you don't understand what he said. He said that he would
1. lower RATES
2. do away with deductions over a certain income
3. give the middle class tax relief while not lowering the overall amount of taxes for the wealthy
4. implement a plan whereby a combination of reducing deductions for higher incomes PLUS getting more people back to work who will be paying taxes will increase the tax revenues the government collects.

Now, I don't know how solid Romney's plan is or how well it will work but Obama's plans have NOT worked and I am willing to give Romney a try. I just keep reading people claim that Romney said things last night that he didn't say. So let's set the record straight about what Romney actually said, regarding taxes.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Lurch wrote:"That is what I heard, anyway. I keep reading stuff that Romney supposedly said that I didn't hear him say."

Did you hear about his Cash for Cadillacs plan..
It's a trade deal in for luxury car owners.. Very Happy

Did you watch or LISTEN to the debate?

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:
Lurch wrote:"That is what I heard, anyway. I keep reading stuff that Romney supposedly said that I didn't hear him say."

Did you hear about his Cash for Cadillacs plan..
It's a trade deal in for luxury car owners.. Very Happy

Did you watch or LISTEN to the debate?

NO.. I figured I would hear enough about all of their lies later.. I did..
I can see why they didn't want Johnson on the stage with them..
The Cash for Caddy's was just a joke I made up.. Very Happy

Nekochan

Nekochan

Lurch wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
Lurch wrote:"That is what I heard, anyway. I keep reading stuff that Romney supposedly said that I didn't hear him say."

Did you hear about his Cash for Cadillacs plan..
It's a trade deal in for luxury car owners.. Very Happy

Did you watch or LISTEN to the debate?

NO.. I figured I would hear enough about all of their lies later.. I did..
I can see why they didn't want Johnson on the stage with them..
The Cash for Caddy's was just a joke I made up.. Very Happy

Well, then you should read the transcript or watch a rerun of the debate if you're really interested in what Romney and Obama actually said. Because much of the stuff on this forum--like the title of this thread--is false.

Guest


Guest

I've been watching him say enough to know he's FoS..
They're playin it on all channels..



Last edited by Lurch on 10/4/2012, 8:22 pm; edited 1 time in total

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Nekochan wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:If Romney's tax cu...er...tax plan is completely neutral and simply cuts taxes here by eliminating tax deductions there, and if the upper and middle class will see no effective reduction in taxes...what is the point of such a plan? I am speaking hypothetically here and assuming that such a plan is even mathematically possible, which it isn't, but nevertheless, what is the stimulative effect off such a plan that would merit its implementation?

I don't think he said it would be completely neutral. He said he'd lower the rates across the board and do away with some deductions for higher incomes. He said that the wealthy would continue to pay higher taxes than the middle class through a reduction in their deductions.

That is what I heard, anyway. I keep reading stuff that Romney supposedly said that I didn't hear him say.

Then he is increasing taxes for the wealthy if he reduces deductions.He implicitly said he wouldn't do that and that's why he doesn't make sense.

Then I think you don't understand what he said. He said that he would
1. lower RATES
2. do away with deductions over a certain income
3. give the middle class tax relief while not lowering the overall amount of taxes for the wealthy
4. implement a plan whereby a combination of reducing deductions for higher incomes PLUS getting more people back to work who will be paying taxes will increase the tax revenues the government collects.

Now, I don't know how solid Romney's plan is or how well it will work but Obama's plans have NOT worked and I am willing to give Romney a try. I just keep reading people claim that Romney said things last night that he didn't say. So let's set the record straight about what Romney actually said, regarding taxes.

I think the reason folks can't put a finger on what Romney means is because everything he said was nothing but doubletalk.

He is an Establishment candidate. He will not change anything that the bankers who rule us don't want changed. Obama is also an Establishment candidate. Wall street wins if either of these guys is elected.

Romney won't significantly reduce Obama's deficit, either. He can't if he is going to make war on Iran and greatly increase military spending on his watch, while doing all of the tax gimmickry he double-talked us about.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Nekochan

Nekochan

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:If Romney's tax cu...er...tax plan is completely neutral and simply cuts taxes here by eliminating tax deductions there, and if the upper and middle class will see no effective reduction in taxes...what is the point of such a plan? I am speaking hypothetically here and assuming that such a plan is even mathematically possible, which it isn't, but nevertheless, what is the stimulative effect off such a plan that would merit its implementation?

I don't think he said it would be completely neutral. He said he'd lower the rates across the board and do away with some deductions for higher incomes. He said that the wealthy would continue to pay higher taxes than the middle class through a reduction in their deductions.

That is what I heard, anyway. I keep reading stuff that Romney supposedly said that I didn't hear him say.

Then he is increasing taxes for the wealthy if he reduces deductions.He implicitly said he wouldn't do that and that's why he doesn't make sense.

Then I think you don't understand what he said. He said that he would
1. lower RATES
2. do away with deductions over a certain income
3. give the middle class tax relief while not lowering the overall amount of taxes for the wealthy
4. implement a plan whereby a combination of reducing deductions for higher incomes PLUS getting more people back to work who will be paying taxes will increase the tax revenues the government collects.

Now, I don't know how solid Romney's plan is or how well it will work but Obama's plans have NOT worked and I am willing to give Romney a try. I just keep reading people claim that Romney said things last night that he didn't say. So let's set the record straight about what Romney actually said, regarding taxes.

I think the reason folks can't put a finger on what Romney means is because everything he said was nothing but doubletalk.

He is an Establishment candidate. He will not change anything that the bankers who rule us don't want changed. Obama is also an Establishment candidate. Wall street wins if either of these guys is elected.

Romney won't significantly reduce Obama's deficit, either. He can't if he is going to make war on Iran and greatly increase military spending on his watch, while doing all of the tax gimmickry he double-talked us about.

I didn't hear double talk. There are people on here simply saying that Romney said things that he didn't say. And the transcript is here to show what he said.



Last edited by Nekochan on 10/4/2012, 8:25 pm; edited 1 time in total

Guest


Guest

But what he says changes all the time and it never will work to start with..

Nekochan

Nekochan

Lurch wrote:But what he says changes all the time and it never will work to start with..

How would you know if all you listen to are what other people say? You didn't listen to Romney last night so you don't know what he said, yet you're on here commenting about it.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Lurch wrote:I've been watching him say enough to know he's FoS..
They're playin it on all channels..

What little snippet did you happen to see replayed today that you think Romney is FOS about?

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:
Lurch wrote:I've been watching him say enough to know he's FoS..
They're playin it on all channels..

What little snippet did you happen to see replayed today that you think Romney is FOS about?

I've been listening to Both of them tell lies but romney is the Biggest flip flopper out there.. I don't have time to name all of them right now because I'm going for a ride..

I'll side with Seaoat.. M/C and Boards on this one.. They called it just like I see it.. They're putting up links with Facts and the ABO crowd just can't see it.. 3 out of four of us are for Johnson by the way..

Nekochan

Nekochan

Lurch wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
Lurch wrote:I've been watching him say enough to know he's FoS..
They're playin it on all channels..

What little snippet did you happen to see replayed today that you think Romney is FOS about?

I've been listening to Both of them tell lies but romney is the Biggest flip flopper out there.. I don't have time to name all of them right now because I'm going for a ride..

I'll side with Seaoat.. M/C and Boards on this one.. They called it just like I see it.. They're putting up links with Facts and the ABO crowd just can't see it.. 3 out of four of us are for Johnson by the way..

That's about what I thought. A lot of bashing, but no example.
Thanks, anyway. Rolling Eyes

2seaoat



I know what he said. I understand this and could discuss this with Romney or Obama in real time.....and call bs on either of them in a NY second....so let us start with reality.

A President is nominated by a Party. That candidate shapes something called the party platform. This is a pledge by a party and their candidate on what they hope to achieve.

The 2012 platform is less than four weeks old and I would suggest you read this:

Extend the 2001 and 2003 tax relief packages-commonly known as the Bush tax cuts-pending reform of the tax code, to keep tax rates from rising on income, interest, dividends, and capital gains;

Reform the tax code by reducing marginal tax rates by 20 percent across-the-board in a revenue-neutral manner;
Eliminate the taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains altogether for lower and middle-income taxpayers;
End the Death Tax; and
Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The problem is that a sociopath can lie seamlessly......and in Prewar Germany the big lie was always the easiest lie. This is Romney's position. There is no ambivalence or uncertainty. This is simple a formula for wealth transfer from the middle class to the highest income individuals. This is a formula for economic collapse of the United States, and if an Foreign Army invaded this country, it could do no more damage than this platform. If People think plowing through the usual professorial Obama who as I have said for the last four years is a weak basketball player who does not know how to elbow anybody.....but he is dead cinch correct on what this platform represents. Romney cannot lie if people are intelligent, and I have no doubt people can see the etch a sketch last night, but you got to hand it to him....he won the debate, but he lost the election....look at the platform.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:I know what he said. I understand this and could discuss this with Romney or Obama in real time.....and call bs on either of them in a NY second....so let us start with reality.

A President is nominated by a Party. That candidate shapes something called the party platform. This is a pledge by a party and their candidate on what they hope to achieve.

The 2012 platform is less than four weeks old and I would suggest you read this:

Extend the 2001 and 2003 tax relief packages-commonly known as the Bush tax cuts-pending reform of the tax code, to keep tax rates from rising on income, interest, dividends, and capital gains;

Reform the tax code by reducing marginal tax rates by 20 percent across-the-board in a revenue-neutral manner;
Eliminate the taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains altogether for lower and middle-income taxpayers;
End the Death Tax; and
Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The problem is that a sociopath can lie seamlessly......and in Prewar Germany the big lie was always the easiest lie. This is Romney's position. There is no ambivalence or uncertainty. This is simple a formula for wealth transfer from the middle class to the highest income individuals. This is a formula for economic collapse of the United States, and if an Foreign Army invaded this country, it could do no more damage than this platform. If People think plowing through the usual professorial Obama who as I have said for the last four years is a weak basketball player who does not know how to elbow anybody.....but he is dead cinch correct on what this platform represents. Romney cannot lie if people are intelligent, and I have no doubt people can see the etch a sketch last night, but you got to hand it to him....he won the debate, but he lost the election....look at the platform.

-----



and isnt this all we really know about his plan? you guys want a fully developed plan form romney when he's way more far ahead with plans than obama ever was when he was elected.

Mitt Romney this week offered some more insight into his tax reform plan, but not enough to fully understand how his agenda may impact voters' payments to the IRS or the federal deficit.


In an interview with Denver TV station KDVR on Monday, Romney suggested capping federal income tax deductions at $17,000. "And you could use your charitable deduction, your home mortgage deduction, or others -- your health care deduction, and you can fill that bucket, if you will, that $17,000 bucket that way," he said. "And higher income people might have a lower number."


The idea was merely a suggestion and doesn't represent a formal policy proposal from the Republican candidate. It does, however, give some insight into how Romney might pay for the revenue losses that would come from his proposed tax cuts -- which could reach as high as $456 billion in 2015 if current policies are kept in place.


"It is at least a down payment on the revenue lost to the rate cuts," Robertson Williams, an analyst at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, told CBSNews.com


Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » So what is the actual stimulative effect of a "tax cut" if it isn't really a tax cut?

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum