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

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Literature

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]

Originally Posted by patteeu

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]

Originally Posted by patteeu

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]

Originally Posted by jiveturkey

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]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

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]

Originally Posted by Literature

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]

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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by bsp4444

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]

Originally Posted by bsp4444

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]

[quote=chuxtrux;9119661]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.[/quote]

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

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by bsp4444

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]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

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.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by ROYC75

Kotter quoting a progressive socialist, go figure.

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

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by bsp4444

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.