Homer_Rice Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 [quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1350483018' post='1171515'] Why would you want to raise capital gains taxes? Merely to "level the playing field", or is there a real economic justification? True, capital gains taxes disproportionately favor wealthy business owners. But so what? Low capital gains taxes encourage growth in all areas of business. [/quote] Not merely to level the playing field, although that is important. Why should a working stiff be on the hook (proportionally of one's wages) more than someone who does nothing more than provide capital? Of course, it is a little more complicated than that, but not much. A very good reason to raise long-term capital gains tax rates is not ideological, but rather practical. The nation is going bust and that's where some of the money is. Consider this: what are the income levels which are taxed at 25%? Roughly $35,000-130,000 depending on one's tax status (i.e. single/married/household.) Right now LTCGs are taxed at 15%. (Short term capital gains are taxed at normal income levels--that's if one does not hold stock for more than a year.) Increasing the LTCG rate to, say, 18% would raise a significant amount of cash for the government, but still provide a 7% preference to those who invest. Not too terrible a hit in my opinion and certainly more just. Furthermore, low capital gains rates do not intrinsically "encourage growth in all areas of business." This is a misconception that many people do not comprehend. I do agree that is it possible (and even preferential) to give tax breaks for investments that genuinely encourage growth. But it is not an automatic thing as some folks would have us think, especially those who are good at gaming the system. For example, read the article I linked in my last post. If one believes in justice, and I think we all do, then it is a reasonable question to ask: Just what forms ought justice take? I would argue that it is possible to ask folks who make money through investment to pay a little more than they do now. Not only because it helps level the playing field contra the working stiff, but also because it is necessary right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1350483950' post='1171525'] How can anyone be sure? He isnt saying which deductions he wants to get rid of so that people can run the numbers to see. [/quote] He isn't getting rid of deductions. Only capping which ones the ultra rich can use. This should be a liberal idea if you want to be technical. But I think it is very smart. It isn't as eye appealing as "tax the rich more" but it will be much more effective imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1350483259' post='1171519'] I agree with this to an extent... you're not getting anything substantive from Romney regarding the tax system just more broad outlines. That is why I made point #6 above - in the end, voters are having to make a choice - continue 4 more years of proven failed policy and mounting debt, or "in the cloud promises" without any substantive "hows", and change. (sound familiar?) You know what you have in Obama which isn't much. Romney is selling you on "I've balanced budgets my whole life - in the business world, for the State of Massachusetts", "what actual shape a tax percentage cut will take I don't know until I get into office and reach across the aisle for bipartisan support and build the policy, etc." blah, blah, blah. The voter will have to decide if the known devil is better than the unknown or are we making change for changes sake. [/quote] Once again, the Stockman article I linked to ought to disabuse us of certain myths about Romney's business acumen. Add to this the Romney campaign's repeated attempts to create a new catch phrase--"trickle-down government"--and the cynicism of those folks is enough to me a fellow like me want to puke. That said, one aspect of the Obama campaign is also lacking: I've yet to hear (or read and I've read both party platforms) a precise plan from those folks. And while this admin does not get enough credit for the couple of "first downs" they have made in the past four years, I am left to wonder what the next four years will hold if they get a second term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 [quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1350486631' post='1171541'] He isn't getting rid of deductions. Only capping which ones the ultra rich can use. This should be a liberal idea if you want to be technical. But I think it is very smart. It isn't as eye appealing as "tax the rich more" but it will be much more effective imo. [/quote] Thats not what hes said at all, he said he wants to close loopholes and get rid of deductions, the problem is he isnt saying which ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1350486959' post='1171545'] Thats not what hes said at all, he said he wants to close loopholes and get rid of deductions, the problem is he isnt saying which ones. [/quote] umm, no he isn't: [i][color=#000000][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=4]Romney said that he would pay for all of his tax cuts, estimated to cost $5 trillion over a decade, by limiting "deductions and exemptions and credits, particularly for people at the high end." He went into more detail than he has in the past when he added "[b]I'll pick a number -- $25,000 of deductions and credits, and you can decide which ones to use. Your home mortgage interest deduction, charity, child tax credit, and so forth; you can use those as part of filling that bucket...of deductions."[/b][/size][/font][/color][/i] [color=#000000][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I have about 11,000 in deductions myself and I am far from rich so I'm guessing 25,000 might be too low... But your not hearing what he is saying or choosing to to not listen. [/font][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 [quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1350483324' post='1171520'] He said the SHARE paid by the top 2% would not be reduced. [/quote] So why change anything at all? </snark> I think there are a number of people who would like to see the top 2% pay more. I know I would and I'm not a bomb-throwing anarchist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1350484612' post='1171533'] My answer is this: I have a 5 part plan to make a better tax code. Trust me. Economics can be hard but that is mostly because there is so much crap that gets in the way of understanding. Lots of competing theories, etc... But in reality, the fundamentals of economics are pretty simple, if dull. I've mentioned some of those basics a number of times in the past, but here is the essence: How does one reproduce the material needs of a society in such a way that profit/surplus/value added increases at the same time that living standards increase, too? That idea, or a more fleshed out version of this snippet, should be at the core any any layman's understanding of economic practices. Once one is rock-solid on that notion, then it becomes easier to review and assess the multiplicity of ways in which various components of the economy either enhance or detract from that basic truth. [url="http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/14/david-stockman-mitt-romney-and-the-bain-drain.html"]I think that this article will be helpful a tangential way[/url] as it touches upon some of this. Mostly it is a critical view of Romney which reads like Beelzebub damning the Devil, because David Stockman is the fellow who helped bring all this trickle-down nonsense into popularity. He has apparently seen the light--or at least the blinders are off-- and his commentary is well-worth thinking about. In many ways he hits the nail on the head. And again, this is commentary from a fellow who is an insider and more importantly, a fellow traveler in the financial crowd. [/quote] Not ignoring this post but trying to make complete sense of it. I see the humor in the first line but I am failing to see an answer here. I have a hard time reading long articles at work so I'll check this out later. In the mean time though, I guess your answer (to another poster) was to raise the rate from 15% to 17% on capital gains? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 [quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1350487084' post='1171546'] umm, no he isn't: [i][color=#000000][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Romney said that he would pay for all of his tax cuts, estimated to cost $5 trillion over a decade, by limiting "deductions and exemptions and credits, particularly for people at the high end." He went into more detail than he has in the past when he added "[b]I'll pick a number -- $25,000 of deductions and credits, and you can decide which ones to use. Your home mortgage interest deduction, charity, child tax credit, and so forth; you can use those as part of filling that bucket...of deductions."[/b][/font][/color][/i] [color=#000000][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I have about 11,000 in deductions myself and I am far from rich so I'm guessing 25,000 might be too low... But your not hearing what he is saying or choosing to to not listen. [/font][/color] [/quote] [quote]When Stephanopoulos asked him why he has refused to be more specific about which loopholes he would plug, Ryan suggested that it's because he and Romney don't yet know. "George, because we want to have this debate in the public," he said. "We want to have this debate with Congress. And we want to do this with the consent of the elected representatives of the people and figure out what loopholes should stay or go and who should or should not get them."[/quote] [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/09/mitt-romney-paul-ryan-tax-loopholes_n_1868444.html"]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/09/mitt-romney-paul-ryan-tax-loopholes_n_1868444.html[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/16/the-truth-about-romneys-six-studies/"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/16/the-truth-about-romneys-six-studies/[/url] [quote] [b] The truth about Romney’s ‘six studies’[/b] [color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] Mitt Romney says that “six studies” prove that his tax plan adds up. They don’t.[/size][/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] Mitt Romney says that “six studies” prove that his tax plan adds up. They don’t.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial][size=3] [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/Romney-rumpled.jpeg"][img]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/Romney-rumpled-300x203.jpeg[/img][/url][size=2] (Jim Young/Reuters)[/size][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] Some of them reveal how Romney’s tax plan could conceivably achieve what he’s promised, under certain conditions — or at least come closer to it. [/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] But others contradict the stated objectives of Romney’s tax plan and make questionable assertions about how he’d pay for his rate cuts, leaving some central questions about Romney’s tax plan unanswered and fueling the ongoing calls for more specifics.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] Not all of the “six studies” are formal quantitative research: Three are online articles and one is an op-ed. But all try to answer the essential conundrum that the Tax Policy Center described in its original analysis: Romney wants to pay for $5 trillion in tax cuts by getting rid of tax deductions and exclusions that benefit Americans earning more than $200,000.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] But getting rid of those upper-income tax breaks doesn’t fully pay for the rate cuts, the Tax Policy Center [url="http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/08/01-tax-reform-brown-gale-looney"]says[/url]: The only way to do this without increasing the deficit would be to raise taxes on lower-income Americans by an average of $2,000 to make up for a $86 billion annual shortfall — a finding that the Obama campaign now routinely cites in its attack ads.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] Two of the “studies” the Romney campaign has cited are an [url="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444327204577617421727000592.html?mod=googlenews_wsj"]op-ed[/url] and a [url="http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2012/09/a-reply-from-martin-feldstein.html"]blog post[/url] by Harvard economist Martin Feldstein. He says it’s [url="http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2012/09/a-reply-from-martin-feldstein.html"]possible[/url] to finance Romney’s tax cuts fully by closing loopholes and deductions, but only if you raise taxes on those households with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] But by Romney’s own definition these households would [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/24/even-mitt-romney-admits-hell-need-to-raise-taxes-on-the-middle-class/"]count[/url] as middle-class. “Middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less,” he told ABC in September. So Feldstein essentially comes to the same conclusion as the Tax Policy Center: To make his tax plan add up, closing loopholes on those Romney defines as wealthy won’t be enough.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] [b]Finding savings elsewhere[/b][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] Two researchers at the American Enterprise Institute argue there’s another way to make the Romney plan work without additionally burdening middle-income households. [url="http://www.american.com/archive/2012/october/the-romney-tax-plan-not-a-tax-hike-on-the-middle-class/article_print"]Alex Brill[/url] and [url="http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/08/how-the-tax-policy-center-could-improve-their-romney-tax-study/"]Matt Jensen[/url] point out that the Tax Policy Center took two major sources of revenue off the table that would be key targets in a Romney tax overhaul, as they predominantly benefit high-income taxpayers.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] According to Jensen, [url="http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/08/how-the-tax-policy-center-could-improve-their-romney-tax-study/"]repealing[/url] tax exclusions for life-insurance savings and state and local municipal bonds would “net upwards of $90 billion” — more than enough to fill the shortfall to avoid hitting the middle-class or raising the deficit.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] But independent tax experts and economists say the savings are only likely to be a fraction of that amount, and that mining these sources for more revenue could also have adverse consequences for ordinary Americans.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] Most of the subsidy for municipal bonds goes to state and local governments that finance them, with only 20 percent going to wealthy investors, [url="http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/04-25-TaxCodeTestimony.pdf"]according[/url] to analysts cited by the Congressional Budget Office. In 2011, for instance, bond issuers got $24.4 billion, but wealthy bondholders received just a $6 billion subsidy — a drop in the bucket in terms of paying for Romney’s tax cuts.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] Taking away the tax exemption for state and local governments would go significantly farther in financing Romney’s tax cuts. But that would also [url="http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20121014/REG/310149978"]risk punishing[/url] ordinary, middle-income Americans due to the hit to state and local governments. “It would put taxpayers more on the hook,” says Matt Fabian, managing director of Municipal Market Advisors, who speculates that “state and local taxes would need to rise to pay for higher financing costs.”[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] Romney’s defenders have a more straightforward case when it comes to the tax-exemption for investing life-insurance savings, which the Tax Policy Center [url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001631-FAQ-Romney-plan.pdf"]says[/url] would raise between $13 and $20 billion a year. “Most policy analysts would say this exclusion doesn’t make sense,” says Daniel Shaviro, a tax law professor at New York University. “There is no particular reason to exclude the investment component of life insurance savings.”[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] Shaviro points out, however, that including this would be contrary to Romney’s stated goal of “promoting savings and investment,” which is another major plank of his tax reform plan and why the Tax Policy Center originally excluded that provision, along with the municipal bond exclusion, from its original analysis.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] Finally, the Tax Policy Center assumed that Romney’s tax plan would pay for the repeal of $29 billion in Obamacare [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/10/everything-obama-has-done-and-wants-to-do-on-taxes-in-one-post/"]tax hikes[/url], given his vow to junk the entire health reform law. AEI points out that Romney has never promised to include health reform as part of his tax overhaul, so it shouldn’t be factored in. Together with the life insurance exclusion, the change would shrink the shortfall in Romney’s plan to $37 billion.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] In a similar vein, Curtis Dubay, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation, [url="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/tax-policy-centers-skewed-analysis-of-governor-romneys-tax-plan"]argues[/url] that there’s yet another pot of money available: Romney’s repeal of the estate tax would produce an additional $19 billion in revenue, because it would change the way that capital gains on inherited assets are taxed.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] In reality, Shaviro says, that pool of money is also smaller than it may seem: $19 billion is the accumulated value of these assets — the difference between the price at purchase and the inheritance — if they were all taxed immediately after the owner’s death. That’s something that neither Dubay nor recent proponents of estate-tax repeal want to do, he explains.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] [b]Is growth the answer?[/b][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] Finally, Romney and his defenders revive a familiar pillar of Republican tax policy: They argue that his across-the-board tax cuts will generate far more economic growth than his critics are accounting for, helping the cuts pay for themselves. The primary source is Princeton economist Harvey Rosen, who [url="http://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/228rosen.pdf"]calculates[/url] that Romney’s across-the-board tax cuts would increase economic growth by at least 3 percentage points each year, producing enough revenue to offset the cost of the rate cuts.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] But other economists believe Rosen’s growth projections are too rosy: They point out that the Bush tax cuts [url="http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/economic-growth-and-the-bush-tax-cuts/"]weren’t great[/url] at fueling short- or medium-term growth, for example, and that Romney would need rapid short-term growth to keep his cuts from running up a huge deficit.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] “It’s certainly right to talk about growth as a factor that might affect tax revenues. But this model isn’t that useful for estimating the effects in five to 10 years,” says Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California-Berkeley, who points out that one of the models that Rosen uses to guide his work assumes growth under full unemployment, with Romney’s tax cuts already fully paid for.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] Under mounting pressure to explain how his plan holds up, Romney has recently floated another tax reform idea, which would cap individual deductions anywhere between $17,000 and $50,000 rather than close specific loopholes.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] But the deduction cap runs into some of the same problems. A deduction cap at the lower level could raise taxes for middle-class homeowners who use the mortgage interest deduction in areas where real-estate values are high. And a cap at the higher level wouldn’t be likely to raise enough revenue to pay for the rate cuts.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] Why, then, did this approach work for Reagan and Congressional Democrats in 1986, if it’s so challenging to pull off now? While the overarching principle of base-broadening, rate-lowering reform is similar, there are some key differences: The reformers behind the 1986 plan were willing and able to find more ways to pay for their rate cuts: They raised the capital gains tax rather than lowering it, as Romney proposes, and they were able to close major tax shelters than no longer exist.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] William Gale, who co-authored the Tax Policy Center study, says that the new details that Romney has offered are a step in the right direction. But he maintains that they still fall short of paying for all $5 trillion in tax cuts and that his original conclusion still stands. “The message was that he’s overpromised,” says Gale. “He’s overpromised even further now.”[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=4] The Romney campaign did not respond to requests for comment.[/size][/font][/color] [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 [quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1350484190' post='1171529'] His plan depends entirely on expanding the middle class. If that base doesn't grow, then the Romney plan is mathematically infeasible. If he does go through with capping deductions, it would likely increase the share paid by the top 2%. One of the ways Romney and many others can drive down their tax rates is by making large charitable donations, so if that deduction is capped, the money moves from charity to the government. No net change to the 2% as far as giving money. [/quote] Okay. This. Except I think things like charitable deductions (in the way that common folks think of charitable deductions) don't really move the ball much at all. Unless he does something that is highly unlikely given his class--change the tax laws with respect to tucking money into trusts, etc... And I don't think his plans, nebulous as they are, have a remote chance of improving things for the poor and working classes. To accomplish that would require some significant changes away from the Ryan/Romney philosophy as we currently know it. And we all know that is not likely to happen. I will say this: Romney is not an ideologue, so he is capable of being persuaded to not do Tea Party/Norquist/Randian economic thing-a-doos; I just think it won't happen unless there is another meltdown which is more severe than the 2007-8 one. And his responses to that were not encouraging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1350487639' post='1171552'] Okay. This. Except I think things like charitable deductions (in the way that common folks think of charitable deductions) don't really move the ball much at all. Unless he does something that is highly unlikely given his class--change the tax laws with respect to tucking money into trusts, etc... And I don't think his plans, nebulous as they are, have a remote chance of improving things for the poor and working classes. To accomplish that would require some significant changes away from the Ryan/Romney philosophy as we currently know it. And we all know that is not likely to happen.[color=#ff0000] I will say this: Romney is not an ideologue, so he is capable of being persuaded to not do Tea Party/Norquist/Randian economic thing-a-doos; I just think it won't happen unless there is another meltdown which is more severe than the 2007-8 one. And his responses to that were not encouraging.[/color] [/quote] I can agree with that. There is a part of me that thinks some of the Rs are playing politics in order to get power again and then do the same things that they are critical of the president of, with regard to running a deficit, in order to grow the economy again. Then there is the tea party crowd....and his VP choice is entirely an ideologue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1350487406' post='1171550'] [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/09/mitt-romney-paul-ryan-tax-loopholes_n_1868444.html"]http://www.huffingto..._n_1868444.html[/url] [/quote] He even said in that article that he wanted to stop rich people from sheltering their income. This is what brought up the quote you used: [i][color=#333333][font=Georgia, Century, Times, serif][size=4]"We think the secret to economic growth is lower tax rates for families and successful small businesses by plugging loopholes," Ryan told George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week." [b]"Now the question is not necessarily what loopholes go, but who gets them. High income earners use most of the loopholes. That means they can shelter their income from taxation."[/b][/size][/font][/color][/i] He was clear last night at least to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 That's my point Rick he isnt answering which loopholes and deductions go and for whom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 [quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1350487324' post='1171549'] Not ignoring this post but trying to make complete sense of it. I see the humor in the first line but I am failing to see an answer here. I have a hard time reading long articles at work so I'll check this out later. In the mean time though, I guess your answer (to another poster) was to raise the rate from 15% to 17% on capital gains? [/quote] Better said, br, my answer is to look for ways to find compromises that work and are just. Real ones. People tend to forget that the Repubs have been explicitly obstructionist these past four years, so their mere campaign rhetoric about bi-partisanship will not do. They have to mean it and thus far, all we are hearing is ploys to win votes. As for specifics, I'm not close enough to the numbers to say with precision what sorts of compromises will work--both as genuine compromise and as partial solutions to the mess we are in. I do know from experience that calculating cash-flow/profitability/setting prices for products and services can be a delicate thing. So I'm not offering any silver bullets--just a general outline from a philosophical/good business sense perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1350488179' post='1171555'] That's my point Rick he isnt answering which loopholes and deductions go and for whom. [/quote] Because his goal is to CAP deductions, not cut them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1350487871' post='1171553'] I can agree with that.[/quote] It was my scalpel-like use of the precise economic term "thing-a-doo" that persuaded you, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1350488409' post='1171556'] Better said, br, my answer is to look for ways to find compromises that work and are just. Real ones. People tend to forget that the Repubs have been explicitly obstructionist these past four years, so their mere campaign rhetoric about bi-partisanship will not do. They have to mean it and thus far, all we are hearing is ploys to win votes. As for specifics, I'm not close enough to the numbers to say with precision what sorts of compromises will work--both as genuine compromise and as partial solutions to the mess we are in. I do know from experience that calculating cash-flow/profitability/setting prices for products and services can be a delicate thing. So I'm not offering any silver bullets--just a general outline from a philosophical/good business sense perspective. [/quote] I'll read the article you posted and see what I can come up with. I like your style with your posts because I am someone that likes to come up with my own ideas and conclusions. But sometimes I like smart people to tell me what they think. It helps move me in the right direction... And I like to decide who I think is smart for myself... Another control issue I have apparently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 [quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1350488529' post='1171557'] Because his goal is to CAP deductions, not cut them. [/quote] how do you define the word "what loopholes go"? I take that as they are getting rid of them.[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1350488593' post='1171558'] It was my scalpel-like use of the precise economic term "thing-a-doo" that persuaded you, eh? [/quote] It was no malarkey thats for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1350488888' post='1171560'] how do you define the word "what loopholes go"? I take that as they are getting rid of them. It was no malarkey thats for sure. [/quote] From the article you posted, he said [i]"Now the question is not necessarily what loophoes go, but who gets them". [/i]I guess you can debate the word necessarily, but that is really looking for something that isn't there. He was MUCH more clear (finally) last night, although he got cut off before he was able to make his full point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 I dont think he was clear at all about it, I think its more of the flip floping hes been doing. First were cutting taxes 20% across the board, then were not cutting them on the top 2%, we're getting rid of loopholes and deductions, no were capping them. The guy will say anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 i guess I give up explaining... he was clear to me, not to you. We have our minds made up going into the debates though so I guess it depends on the undecided voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrlnutz Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1350475425' post='1171487'] 4) I thought Romney killed Obama on energy... "when you came into office gas was $1.50 a gallon, it is now $4.00 a gallon. How can our energy policy be improving?" And, Obama's answer is that we were hitting a recession so gas prices were down? Huh? That was the biggest joke of an answer I've ever seen. Gas prices have gone up ~265%... I'm quite certain our economy hasn't grown at that rate... in fact median household income has declined several thousand dollars in that time. So, again, why has gas shot up so much? [/quote] Based on [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-belkin/gop-gas-prices_b_1286787.html"]these[/url] [url="http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2004-04-25/the-trouble-with-gushing-oil-demand"]articles[/url] I'm going to go out on a limb and say the problem with rising gas prices started long before Big O took office and has much more to do with global speculative markets than anything the president has done the past four years. If you want to argue that he just hopped on the train and kept steering in the wrong direction I won't disagree, but wonder why I should instead vote for the engineers who built it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 No I wouldnt have issue with the idea he is putting forward regarding lowering taxes while closing loopholes and deductions if I knew who was going to be losing the deductions and if I saw independent analysis showing how it would work. We've seen none of that. What I am saying is I want to know the working stiff isnt the one that ends up paying for it, that those who have the money to do so are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|kennethmw| Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 [quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1350483324' post='1171520'] He said the SHARE paid by the top 2% would not be reduced. [/quote] Let's look at the math on this. Right now we're taking in approx 25 trill over the next 10 years. At a 60 % share, that means the wealthy will pay about 15 trill of that. If you cut the rates by 20%, then we're going to take in 20 trill, and at a 60% share, that means the 2% will pay about 12trill of that. The share stays the same, but the amount of revenues is now lowered by 3 trill on the wealthy. Who makes that up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 It's back to keep 4 more years of a failing philosophy or go with the unknown that is all promises and no specifics... I've not heard / seen anything that Obama / this administration has done positively to warrant 4 more years. That is about the crux of it from where I stand. Median income is down, jobs are either down or stagnant from 4 years ago (depending on what jobs figure you use), deficit has far-outstripped either growth or our ROI on that spending, what positives do we take away? I go back to is this the best we have to offer??? And, I don't get the love that Obama gets... I mean, truly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.