Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by billwald, Oct 31, 2012.
"Romney's economic plan has the edge"- CNN
Too bad the analysis doesn't take into account the increase in taxable economic activity that results from tax cuts.
We have seen the boom in the economy before when taxes were cut under Kennedy and Reagan...
But libs like to pretend that we live in a static economy.
When Reagan was President, the top rate was 70%, Obama's tax plan does not go remotely near restoring that amount. In contrast, the Bush tax cuts caused massive deficits.
I respectfully disagree.
Whether an individual or a nation, deficits result from spending.
Over the years, we've had to deal with income cuts, whether from work layoffs or retiring from the workforce. Adjusting spending to correspond to income has allowed us to be debt free today.
For example, xyz doesn't get put on a credit card if the resulting balance can't be paid in full, when the bill arrives.
Who controls the purse strings of the nation? It isn't the president.
You are ignoring the fact that when rates were cut under Reagan loopholes and tax shelters were also eliminated...
Thus increasing taxable economic activity and resulting tax revenues.
Libs don't get economics.
Funny how one also cannot manipulate the budget, only the tax side of the issue. The two issues go hand-in-hand, but the Post seems to have overlooked that fact. To be honest, this little game seems like it is designed to discredit the plan and sway voter opinion against Romney, rather than provide helpful insight. Ah, journalistic integrity.
Ah, but the Romney plan includes sending more jobs to China and India. Boeing is encouraging their US suppliers to send jobs to Mexico.
Please cite the verbiage in Romney's tax plan that states that the plan includes sending more jobs to China and India.
As Bugs Bunny used to say, "What a maroon."
The situation under Bush was more comparable to say a person resigning from one of his jobs and thus coming under debt due to making needed payments on the house, car, and so forth.
I support eliminating loopholes personally-I'd go further than Romney and eliminate things like the Mortgage Interest Deduction personally- along with reducing corporate tax rates and think that rescinding the Bush tax cuts just now isn't a good idea. That said, supply-side economics caused large deficits in both the Reagan and Bush administrations.
Tax revenues increased when tax rates were cut under Reagan.
The deficits were the result of even greater spending increases.
Pretty common knowledge.
Whether laid off or resigning, income vs debt is the same. If income is reduced for whatever reason, spending has to be reduced by the same percentage to maintain a balance ratio.
I agree with Targus.
As far as the tax structure is concerned, my "tax plan" would fit on one sheet of paper.
Personal income would be taxed at 10% (for example) of gross for earnings in excess of $10,000 (for example) without any exceptions or exclusions.
Corporate income would be taxed at 10% of Gross Profit (sales less cost of goods sold and freight) for sales in excess of $50,000 (for example) without any exceptions or exclusions.
Congress will approve a balanced budget each year. The federal government will shut down if a balanced budget isn't approved for the upcoming fiscal year. (Where's the incentive now to even have a budget in place?)
Congress cannot approve one red cent of expenditure that exceeds the budget without a 75% approval (for example) by both the House and the Senate. It takes a declaration of war to increase spending, over budget, for military combat operations in foreign countries.
Congress cannot approve one red cent to be given to states and local governments to bolster spending that is the responsibility of those entities. (Each state funds entirely their public education system, for example.)
Executive orders from the Whitehouse cannot override the budget.
Congress cannot change the tax rates, tax basis, without 75% approval from both houses.
Put the tax code on one piece of paper. Think about how much can be cut from the federal expenditures for trying to enforce the current sea of tax regulations. Think about how much more money can be kept in the pockets of individuals and small business that is now being spent on trying to comply with tracking and reporting taxes due.
While it is generally true that tax revenues increase when tax rates are cut, the situation nowadays is different than when Reagan was president. Reagan cut the top rate from 70% to 50% in 1981 and then from 50% to 28% in 1986. That's a huge cut in tax rates. Romney is talking about cutting them from 35% to 28%, significant but not enormous.
How much growth will you get going from 35% to 28% compared to going from 70% to 28%?
My point is that we will get growth but not on the scale that we saw under Reagan.
I agree with your analysis.
The point still remains that the correct action is to reduce taxes - not increase them.
And to cut spending - not increase it.
Stark differences between the approaches of Obama and Romney.
You nailed it here:
>Personal income would be taxed at 10% (for example) of gross for earnings in excess of $10,000 (for example) without any exceptions or exclusions.
And the rich will get richer. What happens when the 10% owns everything worth owning?