Mitt Romney Economic Adviser Calls For Raising Taxes On The Rich, Contradicting Entir

[jiveturkey]

Instead of a copy and paste those interested can follow the link.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/66564...#axzz2C7hKzdke

[Donger]

Originally Posted by jiveturkey

Instead of a copy and paste those interested can follow the link.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/66564...#axzz2C7hKzdke

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

If so, where's the gotcha?

[patteeu]

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]

That was reading comprehension fail on an epic scale.

Cool thread, bro.

[jiveturkey]

I guess that I don't see a significant difference. Either way you're pulling the revenue from the top earners.

[Ace Gunner]

Originally Posted by jiveturkey

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]

Originally Posted by jiveturkey

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]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

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 ****ing the same chicken but calling it something different.

Help me to understand the difference.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by jiveturkey

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]

Originally Posted by patteeu

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]

Originally Posted by jiveturkey

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]

I also believe that a shared sacrifice is necessary to solve the problem.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by patteeu

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]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

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]

Originally Posted by jiveturkey

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.