It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
• 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.
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.
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.
The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank
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.
Originally posted by xuenchen
If he can get companies and businesses to create jobs, then the deficit goes down.
Increase the GDP perhaps?
"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.'"
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.
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.
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.
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
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.