PDA

View Full Version : Economics Mitt Romney Economic Adviser Calls For Raising Taxes On The Rich, Contradicting Entir


jiveturkey
11-14-2012, 09:19 AM
Instead of a copy and paste those interested can follow the link.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/66564c38-2cbd-11e2-9211-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2C7hKzdke

Donger
11-14-2012, 09:41 AM
Instead of a copy and paste those interested can follow the link.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/66564c38-2cbd-11e2-9211-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2C7hKzdke

Errr, I thought that Romney was against raising marginal rates. So is this guy.

If so, where's the gotcha?

patteeu
11-14-2012, 09:42 AM
I think you misunderstood that article. He was calling for the same kind of thing that Mitt Romney campaigned on. WRT taxes, he's arguing that increased tax revenue should come from limiting deductions (on higher income taxpayers) not from raising marginal rates.

Brainiac
11-14-2012, 09:51 AM
That was reading comprehension fail on an epic scale.

Cool thread, bro.

jiveturkey
11-14-2012, 09:51 AM
I guess that I don't see a significant difference. Either way you're pulling the revenue from the top earners.

Ace Gunner
11-14-2012, 09:53 AM
I guess that I don't see a significant difference. Either way you're pulling the revenue from the top earners.

that is not possible. in here.

Brainiac
11-14-2012, 09:54 AM
I guess that I don't see a significant difference. Either way you're pulling the revenue from the top earners.
Your lack of understanding of the difference is both appalling and unsurprising.

jiveturkey
11-14-2012, 09:58 AM
Your lack of understanding of the difference is both appalling and unsurprising.
That's a bit over the top.

Do I have a track record of dumbassery?

Based on discussions with my FIL I've been told that raising the rates on top earners is socialism but taking additional revenue from top earners via limiting deductions isn't. I'm not arguing that one should be done over the other. It just seems like everyone is fucking the same chicken but calling it something different.

Help me to understand the difference.

patteeu
11-14-2012, 10:08 AM
I guess that I don't see a significant difference. Either way you're pulling the revenue from the top earners.

The guy who wrote the article explained why he (and Mitt Romney and the Bowles-Simpson commission) believe there is a difference. It's not a comprehensive explanation, but it covers the basic concept.

First, raising revenue is about raising average tax rates, not marginal tax rates, as Barack Obama’s campaign suggested. Higher marginal tax rates distort behaviour and reduce activity. There are ways to raise revenue without increasing marginal rates. Tax deductions should be scaled back, especially in the areas of mortgage interest, charitable giving and employer-provided health insurance.

The truth is that reducing deductions can distort behavior (is this guy British?) too, but higher marginal rates are like multipliers that make all distortions bigger.

jiveturkey
11-14-2012, 10:12 AM
The guy who wrote the article explained why he (and Mitt Romney and the Bowles-Simpson commission) believe there is a difference. It's not a comprehensive explanation, but it covers the basic concept.

The truth is that reducing deductions can distort behavior (is this guy British?) too, but higher marginal rates are like multipliers that make all distortions bigger.

I saw that but it just didn't connect with me. Not that I need to understand it. Either approach makes sense IMO.

I just found it odd that one approach is socialism while the other isn't. In both scenarios the wealthy are playing by a different set of rules.

patteeu
11-14-2012, 10:20 AM
I saw that but it just didn't connect with me. Not that I need to understand it. Either approach makes sense IMO.

I just found it odd that one approach is socialism while the other isn't. In both scenarios the wealthy are playing by a different set of rules.

No, you're right to question that. Both are moves toward socialism, IMO, and are a testament to the success of the left's class warfare of the past few years. One is better for everyone economically, though. The other one gives a greater impression of sticking it to the man.

Here are two of my thoughts:

1. I don't like that we're only targeting higher income groups for increased revenue. I think the pain/sacrifice should be across the board, just like Bush's tax cuts were across the board. (There's far more revenue available through modest tax changes from the bottom 95% than there is from dramatic tax changes applied to the top 5%).

2. I fear that if the approach recommended in this article is adopted, democrats will just come along in a few years trying to increase marginal rates on the higher income groups on top of this revenue increase just because they'll still be able to demagogue the highly-visible marginal rate issue.

jiveturkey
11-14-2012, 10:22 AM
I also believe that a shared sacrifice is necessary to solve the problem.

Amnorix
11-14-2012, 10:24 AM
No, you're right to question that. Both are moves toward socialism, IMO, and are a testament to the success of the left's class warfare of the past few years. One is better for everyone economically, though. The other one gives a greater impression of sticking it to the man.



JFC, not you too...

patteeu
11-14-2012, 10:29 AM
JFC, not you too...

I feel like you don't even know me after all these years! Perhaps I've been too reserved. :)

La literatura
11-14-2012, 10:33 AM
I also believe that a shared sacrifice is necessary to solve the problem.

I agree, too. That was the concept of "broadening the tax base" touted by Paul Ryan. The key, at least for me, though, is when should the tax base be broadened. I think there must be a time when it should be broadened, but I'm not sure when it should take place. Right now? In two years?

There are two key reasons for it must be. One is fiscal responsibility and generating revenue. The other is civic responsibility and a sense of togetherness.

Brainiac
11-14-2012, 10:35 AM
That's a bit over the top.

Do I have a track record of dumbassery?

Based on discussions with my FIL I've been told that raising the rates on top earners is socialism but taking additional revenue from top earners via limiting deductions isn't. I'm not arguing that one should be done over the other. It just seems like everyone is ****ing the same chicken but calling it something different.

Help me to understand the difference.
I apologize for the personal attack.

I guess I just get a little frustrated at the arguments I hear every day from the Left that state a desire to raise taxes on the rich bastards because it's the "fair" thing to do. Many of the people who make that argument don't know and don't care about the impact the tax increase will have on the economy, and they don't know and don't care how much the tax increase will raise revenue, or whether or not it will even raise revenue at all. All they care about is raising taxes on the "rich". A small business that makes over $250K can hardly be considered rich.

I'm not saying you made that argument for the specious reasons listed above. I'm just explaining why I seem to fly off the handle a little too easily when that subject is brought up.

If the Bush tax cuts must be repealed in order to get our economic house in order, then I think they should be repealed for everyone. If everyone shares the pain, they might not be so eager to see tax rates increase.

La literatura
11-14-2012, 10:41 AM
I apologize for the personal attack.

I guess I just get a little frustrated at the arguments I hear every day from the Left that state a desire to raise taxes on the rich bastards because it's the "fair" thing to do. . . . If the Bush tax cuts must be repealed in order to get our economic house in order, then I think they should be repealed for everyone. If everyone shares the pain, they might not be so eager to see tax rates increase.

Let's be real, here. Your argument is also steeped in notions of fairness, as well.

A small business that makes over $250K can hardly be considered rich.

A small business (a partnership?) where the partner brings in profit of $250K is generally a rich partner. The small partnership isn't taxed itself.

Mr. Kotter
11-14-2012, 11:54 AM
It is better for the Government to help a poor man to make a living for his family than to help a rich man make more profit for his company.

--Theodore Roosevelt

"It is no secret we had a number of Republicans damage our brand this year with offensive, bizarre comments - enough of that," he said, according to Politico. "It's not going to be the last time anyone says something stupid within our party, but it can't be tolerated within our party. We've also had enough of this dumbed-down conservatism. We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters."

--Bobby Jindal

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/13/jindal-declines-to-rule-out-2016-white-house-bid/?hpt=hp_t2

patteeu
11-14-2012, 12:00 PM
We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters."

--Bobby Jindal

I'm pretty sure Jindal wasn't talking about you when he said that.

Mr. Kotter
11-14-2012, 12:02 PM
I'm pretty sure Jindal wasn't talking about you when he said that.

I'm absolutely sure he wasn't talking about you. :)

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 12:31 PM
I also believe that a shared sacrifice is necessary to solve the problem.

So are you saying everyone should pay something more and also support some real cuts?
Or are you just for targetting revenue and taxes?

jiveturkey
11-14-2012, 12:41 PM
So are you saying everyone should pay something more and also support some real cuts?
Or are you just for targetting revenue and taxes?
Cuts have to be a part of the solution.

La literatura
11-14-2012, 02:17 PM
Your lack of understanding of the difference is both appalling and unsurprising.

By the way, Grover Norquist held a similar view as Jiveturkey mentioned.

patteeu
11-14-2012, 02:27 PM
By the way, Grover Norquist held a similar view as Jiveturkey mentioned.

Norquist opposed both, but I don't know that he thought both were economically equivalent.

La literatura
11-14-2012, 02:29 PM
Norquist opposed both, but I don't know that he thought both were economically equivalent.

No, he viewed closing deductions as equivalent to a tax increase.

Brainiac
11-14-2012, 02:31 PM
By the way, Grover Norquist held a similar view as Jiveturkey mentioned.

No, he viewed closing deductions as equivalent to a tax increase.
Is Grover Norquist now your "go to" source regarding tax policy?

He's not mine.

patteeu
11-14-2012, 02:33 PM
No, he viewed closing deductions as equivalent to a tax increase.

It is a tax increase. It's not a tax rate increase though.

La literatura
11-14-2012, 02:43 PM
Is Grover Norquist now your "go to" source regarding tax policy?

He's not mine.

You must not be a Republican congressman.

La literatura
11-14-2012, 02:45 PM
It is a tax increase. It's not a tax rate increase though.

Yes, or as the title of this thread puts it, raising taxes. I'm sure Jiveturkey does not confuse closing deductions as a tax rate increase.

Chocolate Hog
11-14-2012, 02:49 PM
No surprise Mitt Romney is a loser moving on

patteeu
11-14-2012, 03:30 PM
Yes, or as the title of this thread puts it, raising taxes. I'm sure Jiveturkey does not confuse closing deductions as a tax rate increase.

Are you having trouble following the thread?

Does it surprise you that one of Mitt Romney's economic advisers is advocating an approach to tax reform that's very similar to that which was advocated by the Romney campaign (including the tax increase on upper income taxpayers)? What do you think the word "contradicting" was about in the thread title?

J Diddy
11-14-2012, 03:32 PM
Are you having trouble following the thread?

Does it surprise you that one of Mitt Romney's economic advisers is advocating an approach to tax reform that's very similar to that which was advocated by the Romney campaign (including the tax increase on upper income taxpayers)? What do you think the word "contradicting" was about in the thread title?

When did Mitt Romney advocate a tax increase on upper income?

La literatura
11-14-2012, 03:37 PM
Are you having trouble following the thread?

Does it surprise you that one of Mitt Romney's economic advisers is advocating an approach to tax reform that's very similar to that which was advocated by the Romney campaign (including the tax increase on upper income taxpayers)? What do you think the word "contradicting" was about in the thread title?

No trouble at all. Jiveturkey says he didn't see a significant difference between raising tax rates and closing deductions (presumably, because both generate tax revenue). [This view is also held by Grover Norquist.] Jiveturkey is attacked for his "appalling" and "unsurprising" lack of understanding.

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 03:41 PM
Cuts have to be a part of the solution.

Good. Thank you. I don't think there will be anything significant cut though. That would have to be ACA, particularly since there aren't funds provided for it in the ACA,or so I understand. Just don't fund those.

patteeu
11-14-2012, 04:37 PM
When did Mitt Romney advocate a tax increase on upper income?

Romney advocated a tax rate cut across the board and a limitation on deductions (i.e. a tax increase) on upper income taxpayers. (He describes it in the first Presidential debate).

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.

...

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.

patteeu
11-14-2012, 04:39 PM
No trouble at all. Jiveturkey says he didn't see a significant difference between raising tax rates and closing deductions (presumably, because both generate tax revenue). [This view is also held by Grover Norquist.] Jiveturkey is attacked for his "appalling" and "unsurprising" lack of understanding.

Obviously, the author thinks there's a significant difference. I pointed out where he explained it.

And what do you think "contradicting" was about? What was being contradicted?

chuxtrux
11-14-2012, 08:20 PM
No, you're right to question that. Both are moves toward socialism, IMO, and are a testament to the success of the left's class warfare of the past few years. One is better for everyone economically, though. The other one gives a greater impression of sticking it to the man.

Here are two of my thoughts:

1. I don't like that we're only targeting higher income groups for increased revenue. I think the pain/sacrifice should be across the board, just like Bush's tax cuts were across the board. (There's far more revenue available through modest tax changes from the bottom 95% than there is from dramatic tax changes applied to the top 5%).

2. I fear that if the approach recommended in this article is adopted, democrats will just come along in a few years trying to increase marginal rates on the higher income groups on top of this revenue increase just because they'll still be able to demagogue the highly-visible marginal rate issue.

Taxing the rich to pre Bush tax cut levels won't take hardly anything out of the GDP. If you let all the tax cuts expire on everybody (plus with some of the spending cuts they are talking about) the country would likely go into another recession. Getting back to a surplus is unfortunately going to take a long time. There was a reason Romney and to a lesser extent Obama were smart enough to not go into details about their deficit reduction plan while campaigning.

bsp4444
11-16-2012, 07:10 AM
Here's the deal...the wealthy have expanded their wealth in this time of economic turbulence. They've not reinvested it in America or created jobs. Put the money into the hands of the people who will spend it to grow the economy. It's a very simple concept.

Brainiac
11-16-2012, 07:19 AM
Here's the deal...the wealthy have expanded their wealth in this time of economic turbulence. They've not reinvested it in America or created jobs. Put the money into the hands of the people who will spend it to grow the economy. It's a very simple concept.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Sounds like a plan.

King_Chief_Fan
11-16-2012, 07:28 AM
Here's the deal...the wealthy have expanded their wealth in this time of economic turbulence. They've not reinvested it in America or created jobs. Put the money into the hands of the people who will spend it to grow the economy. It's a very simple concept.

I am not giving anyone anything...I created my wealth for me, no one else. It isn't that hard to do. People should try it.

King_Chief_Fan
11-16-2012, 07:30 AM
Taxing the rich to pre Bush tax cut levels won't take hardly anything out of the GDP. If you let all the tax cuts expire on everybody (plus with some of the spending cuts they are talking about) the country would likely go into another recession. Getting back to a surplus is unfortunately going to take a long time. There was a reason Romney and to a lesser extent Obama were smart enough to not go into details about their deficit reduction plan while campaigning.

It appears that no one is willing to shrink the government and reduce spending.

patteeu
11-16-2012, 07:30 AM
Here's the deal...the wealthy have expanded their wealth in this time of economic turbulence. They've not reinvested it in America or created jobs. Put the money into the hands of the people who will spend it to grow the economy. It's a very simple concept.

You mean the people who will buy Sony Playstations, Honda Civics, clothes made in China, and computers built from parts made in Taiwan?

And when the fraction of what they spend somehow does manage to end up in the hands of an American producer, why will that producer turn around and reinvest it in America and create jobs then if he won't do it now?

Your plan seems flawed to me.

ROYC75
11-16-2012, 08:46 AM
It is better for the Government to help a poor man to make a living for his family than to help a rich man make more profit for his company.

--Theodore Roosevelt

Kotter quoting a progressive socialist, go figure.:rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
11-16-2012, 09:13 AM
Kotter quoting a progressive socialist, go figure.:rolleyes:

Plus Teddy was owned by corporate plutocrats that have gotten rich of this system. Go figure. :rolleyes:

vailpass
11-16-2012, 11:00 AM
Here's the deal...the wealthy have expanded their wealth in this time of economic turbulence. They've not reinvested it in America or created jobs. Put the money into the hands of the people who will spend it to grow the economy. It's a very simple concept.

Thanks comrade.

ROYC75
11-16-2012, 11:00 AM
Plus Teddy was owned by corporate plutocrats that have gotten rich of this system. Go figure. :rolleyes:

Didn't call him a (Rump) Rough Rider for nothing, always in somebody's ass.