Originally Posted by Shaid
It's basically what he said in the debates when he was throwing out random numbers - "Throw a number out there, $25,000, $50,000." He basically said you could get a credit for going to school or for kids, etc. but not both. Families out there who are working, with kids, and going to school at the same time are pretty strapped. If you are working hard for your future and being responsible with raising your kids at the same time, you deserve a break. By the way, those credits go to rich people too and that's totally fine. If the rich can use ridiculous amounts of loopholes, etc. to keep their massive incomes at a ridiculously low rate and that's ok, why is it not ok to let working class families keep a little more of their money in their pockets so they can afford to fix their car or hopefully buy a new one. Doesn't the increase in production and sales we have as a result benefit the rich as well? That's the difference in the economic philosophies.
You also have to understand that the bigger your business is, etc., the more you benefit from the government. Roads and infrastructure allow you to move your products and get inventory. They allow people an easy way to get to your store. The benefits are a lot more the larger you get and that's why you should pay a little more.
The other philosophy behind it is that if you allow people to pay almost nothing on investments like stocks, it'll encourage investment in large corporations, etc. There is really very little reason to invest in small businesses starting up because you can make so much more with large corporations through stocks than partnerships. It generates more Wal-marts and makes it tougher for smaller businesses to start up.
I don't think you understand what Romney was talking about. When Romney said to throw a number out there, he was saying that instead of eliminating specific deductions, you could reduce the ability of high income folks to take a lot of tax deductions while not impacting the middle class if you allowed any of the existing tax deductions to be taken up to a modest cap.
Successful businesses may benefit more from infrastructure, but they already pay more taxes so that's not necessarily a good argument for raising their taxes further.