No, Romney Won't Raise Your Taxes $2,000 ?

The author of this article has a rebuttal for all the hoopla about Romney wanting to raise taxes for the middle class.

Several "assumptive" and possibly fabricated stories emerged after Romney's website listed some very general tax "proposals" the other day.

Obama himself has fueled the fire with statements about this $2000 tax increase.


The American Spectator -- By Peter Ferrara, Aug 8, 2012

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.

No, Romney Won't Raise Your Taxes $2,000 (3-page article)


Romney's tax plan proposals

• 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.

• Cut income tax rates by one-fifth across the board. So the top rate would be reduced from 35 percent to the 28 percent originally established in the Reagan tax reform. The bottom tax rates, paid by working people and the middle class, would be reduced to 8 percent and 12 percent -- even lower than under Reagan.

• Completely eliminate federal income taxes on long-term capital gains, dividends, and interest income for workers earning less than $100,000 and married couples earning less than $200,000.

• Reduce the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to a more internationally competitive 25 percent, close to the global average, which would restore international competitiveness for American business. That rate would be reduced further in conjunction with broader corporate tax reform to close the numerous and extensive loopholes.

• Allow a tax holiday for the repatriation of the trillions in profits that corporations have parked overseas to avoid the double taxation they face in bringing the money back to America. Over the long run he would eliminate that double taxation by adopting a system of territoriality, so taxes apply to corporate profits only in the country where those profits are earned. Romney also proposes to make the federal research and development tax credit permanent.

is anything "Hiding" in here ?

Is This "Accurate" ?

why is it that liberals think that if you cut taxes for one group, some other group has to pay for it.
or that a tax cut is government spending.

or if we spent X amount this year we have to spend the same amount next year.
baseline budgeting.

i just don't understand liberal math.
i don't think liberals understand liberal math.
why?
because it makes no sense.

reply to post by xuenchen


You cannot say that as fact or the author. You can never know what would happen until it happens. Not that I think my taxes would raise $2000 if he was elected.

I am not worried about Romney getting elected though. I think Mormons are in a cult and most of America agrees with me. Anyone that thinks Native Americans were once white cannot cut it as a president in my book.

reply to post by xuenchen


Sounds like Romney is handing out candy.


But...how does he plan on handling the huge deficit this is going to cause???

Oh right...he doesn't say.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Sounds like Romney is handing out candy.


But...how does he plan on handling the huge deficit this is going to cause???

Oh right...he doesn't say.

If he can get companies and businesses to create jobs, then the deficit goes down.

Increase the GDP perhaps?

Contain the wild spending perhaps?

Taxes alone won't pay off the debt regardless of who pays what percentage.

Getting unemployment down to 5% will increase revenues and reduce welfare spending.

We need to avoid a value added sales tax that easily could be 20%.

All the politicians seem to be very quiet about a VAT......

Silence is Golden they say.......

I hope Obama doesn't "announce" that as the only way out if he gets re-elected

Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute

He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush.

Source

The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank

Source


So, a completely unbiased opinion then.

Tell me just one time in living memory when a politician has delivered on his pre election promises, they all will tell you anything that they think will get them elected, but they never deliver on their policies, and that goes for all political parties, left or right. Romney won't do anything to help the US economy but neither will Obama. it really doesn't make much difference who gets elected.

And that is the saddest part about all of these debates, you are all arguing over left and right, but the truth is you will be screwed straight down the middle by either side. Government has been bought and paid for, it doesn't belong to the people any more, in America it hasn't since 1913, although the rot had set in long before then.

Originally posted by bjax9er
why is it that liberals think that if you cut taxes for one group, some other group has to pay for it.
or that a tax cut is government spending.

or if we spent X amount this year we have to spend the same amount next year.
baseline budgeting.

How to explain this...

Let's say you and your wife are in debt and just scraping by.

Your boss announces he is giving himself a raise and is cutting your pay by 20% so he can give he and his fellow executives a raise.

He doesn't understand why you have an issue with it. You can simply spend less and he promises if he is making more money he will eventually consider hiring more folks...

Except in this case, YOU are the entire country...and YOU are your companies only customer...and you are already financially suffering and certainly won't be buying more of your companies products...otherwise, your boss got richer, you got poorer to cover his raise and he has no reason to expand.

reply to post by xuenchen


Why is that people think tax cuts are beneficial? A tax cut is tax spending, not saving. The government has to come up with the difference in order to break even, and well know how that works out.

How about this, how about you abolish the income tax altogether, as it's criminal to steal from the fruits of your labor and apply a 50% tax to corporations. Considering they, have had RECORD profits for the last decade, considering an economic collapse and everything else, they can afford it.

That's just a suggestion, I'm sure there are plenty of problems with that. Either way, why are we arguing over which Globalist Scum Bag is better than the other?

They both work for the same people.

~Tenth

Originally posted by xuenchen


If he can get companies and businesses to create jobs, then the deficit goes down.

Increase the GDP perhaps?

Otherwise...the middle class won't get screwed because trickle-down economics will work this time?

THAT there is some crazy assumptions..."Fairy Dust"...maybe mittens could put that in writing for the OMB or the Tax Policy Center to review?

I wonder how many times the populace has been fleeced with the failed concept of trickle-down??

I suspect once every 30 or 40 years...long enough for one generation to forget how they were robbed.

"trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory." ...—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: 'If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.'"

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by bjax9er


i just don't understand liberal math.
i don't think liberals understand liberal math.
why?
because it makes no sense.

I know what you mean.

I thank God every day for neocon math that saved us from economic ruin.....

The Romney Tax Hike
"How the GOP candidate stumbled into proposing higher taxes on the middle class and how he can get out of it."

A bombshell report released last week by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center shows that Mitt Romney has given Democrats the greatest gift they could hope for—a Republican plan for a broad increase in middle-class taxes.

On the Distributional Effects of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform

Our major conclusion is that a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed – including reducing marginal tax rates substantially, eliminating the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) and maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment – would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers.

What he's done is propose specific tax cuts, say he wants to keep tax breaks for investment income, and say he wants to make the whole thing deficit-neutral by closing loopholes. It turns out that the only way to do that is with a big increase in middle class taxes.

I never agree with anything you post .
But I respect your tenacity and vigilance .
And I sincerely hope you are getting overtime.

You are going to be insanely busy until Nov.

How can we honestly say what he is going to do? He has not released any details on any plans he may have. This is just a generic "what I may do if I were president". So this is just garbage, really.

This placates to a certain group of people so that they have something to link to when the Left claims Romney is going to raise taxes on the middle class.

And let's be honest...he will lower taxes on the rich, but he will not cut spending. So it will have to be paid for somehow. If he cuts taxes on the "job creators", the middle class will have to pay for it.

So in the end this is just more propaganda for the dumb masses and they eat it up like a fat kid on cake.

Do you like cake?

Wake me when Romney actually proposes a tax cut for the real middle class. As a reminder, the average family income in this country is around 60k a year.

I find it increasingly ridiculous that the very people a consumption based economy depends upon for demand for goods and services are ignored. It doesn't matter if the wealthy pay no taxes if their customers can't afford to buy anything. No new jobs will be created without a growing demand from the middle class.

Yes, but if you actually sit down and do the math, a reduction "across the board" means that the resulting numbers (especially given the tax credits that would expire in all areas) mean that the richest 1% will actually pay less in taxes, while the middle classes WILL pay more.

I shake my head at anyone who defends Romney, who makes less than $1 million a year.

Over 40% of Americans will end up voting for Romney using "because he's not Obama" as their primary reason, not because they like him (which most don't) or because people have actually paid attention to his policies (most can't come up with a single Romney policy that will benefit them).

I think Obama should run a positive campaign ad. They should feature a list of people saying "my life was spared because of Romneycare, I couldn't get healthcare before Romneycare because of my pre existing condition". This will be a very positive ad, with very negative results for Romney amongst the GOP faithful who think scrapping Obamacare is a good idea.

Originally posted by Kaploink
Wake me when Romney actually proposes a tax cut for the real middle class. As a reminder, the average family income in this country is around 60k a year.

I find it increasingly ridiculous that the very people a consumption based economy depends upon for demand for goods and services are ignored. It doesn't matter if the wealthy pay no taxes if their customers can't afford to buy anything. No new jobs will be created without a growing demand from the middle class.

Correct...but here is the distinction...

In economic terms there are two forms of income...

Earned Income...derived from creating, manufacturing and selling products and services...

and there is

Unearned income...derived from ownership of land "rent" and "resources"...Mineral rights, Oil etc. and speculation aka Wall Street.

One is more dependant on the 99%...Middle Class...Consumption and Demand

The other makes money not through creation of a product, not dependant on consumption, not dependant on the middle class...they make money through ownership...land...energy as well as speculation/wall-street,

This is why Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and others lean idealogically toward the left which favors a robust consumer class..

And the Koch Brothers and Wall Street execs lean toward the right which favors more profitable "unearned income" via speculation...which isn't dependant on a robust middle class. People will always need a place to live and electricity, gas etc. And as we discovered, with a little "look the other way" from the gov. Wall Street can always gamble with our mortgages, 401ks etc and make money...even if we don't. And if those gambles don't work out...well, they are too big to fail Unlike the middle class/consumer class.

To some extent we are defining our economy over the next few years...does it belong to speculators and land holders? Or does it belong to people that create and make things.

One needs the middle class healthy...the other? not so much, they make money regardless and more so when the Gov. gives them a safety net and lets them gamble as they please.

How is the recovery going to happen with Mitt Romney as President. You know, the guy who says Iran will not under any circumstances be allowed to obtain nuclear energy (yes energy, not weapons).

If he decided the US needs to take a role in stopping them, where is all the money gonna come from to finance this endeavor?

Any chances of recovery will be slowed down significantly if we have to continue keeping the military ready to "make the world a better place".

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Why is that people think tax cuts are beneficial? A tax cut is tax spending, not saving. The government has to come up with the difference in order to break even, and well know how that works out.

How about this, how about you abolish the income tax altogether, as it's criminal to steal from the fruits of your labor and apply a 50% tax to corporations. Considering they, have had RECORD profits for the last decade, considering an economic collapse and everything else, they can afford it.

That's just a suggestion, I'm sure there are plenty of problems with that. Either way, why are we arguing over which Globalist Scum Bag is better than the other?

They both work for the same people.

~Tenth

Not a bad concept.

I wonder if 50% would cover the current tax revenues.

It might be close especially if profits from foreign sales are included.

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Why is that people think tax cuts are beneficial? A tax cut is tax spending, not saving. The government has to come up with the difference in order to break even, and well know how that works out.

How about this, how about you abolish the income tax altogether, as it's criminal to steal from the fruits of your labor and apply a 50% tax to corporations. Considering they, have had RECORD profits for the last decade, considering an economic collapse and everything else, they can afford it.

That's just a suggestion, I'm sure there are plenty of problems with that. Either way, why are we arguing over which Globalist Scum Bag is better than the other?

They both work for the same people.

~Tenth

Not a bad concept.

I wonder if 50% would cover the current tax revenues.

It might be close especially if profits from foreign sales are included.

Speaking of taxes....

NOTHING shows more contempt for the United States of America and the TAXPAYERS than shipping jobs to India or China or voting to give tax cuts to corporations that do that.

www.motherjones.com...

And you can still support Mitt?....