On this we would agree. Sadly, though he has mentioned it several times, the President seems to have no desire whatsoever to do so, and I imagine would infuriate a significant section of his base if he tried to.i would also argue that one tax that is ripe for lowering is the corporate tax. we're much better off taxing individuals while having a very competitive corporate rate. we're kind of doing the opposite right now, and i think that we should make some changes.
We tried to spend our way into prosperity and, once that didn't get us there, tried to borrow and spend our way into prosperity. We are in for some pain. Let's get it over with.stupid would be going over the cliff and enacting these cuts and rate hikes all at once.
Looking at.... static losses?we could probably tier it, but i doubt that the cap for no tax could be set at $200k. someone who has done the math on such a proposed system would have to weigh in, though.
Oh. So in fact they do not do this, but you are imagining that they might.the compromise put forward by them includes no rate hikes and depends on unspecified loopholes to fill the gap. which loopholes?
To answer your follow on question - the proposals that the Republicans have put forward include limiting the total size of deductions, getting rid of the state tax deduction, limiting the mortgage interest deduction to a primary residence below a lower worth cap, and a few others. Their plan is explicitly modeled after the Presidents OWN Simpson Bowles Commissions' model, which got rid of the vast majority of deductions and loopholes.
That is not true, as the GOP plan starts from the Simpson-Bowles position, but (and this is important) without the significant nominal rate reductions.Likewise, Obama's plan puts it all on the wealthy to solve the problem. both plans are nonstarters, and are designed to be goalposts.
Improperly phased in?improperly phased in. that should be a lesson to us.
Well, that was the Ryan Argument as well - to means test and then simply reduce payouts to higher net worth individuals in order to protect lower net worth individuals. Frankly I think that reality is a bit starker than that. The alternative to drastic reductions in our entitlement expenditure is to at some point not too far in the future (think, within the next 15 years) that we cease having an entitlement structure. Then we really are going to face the choice of kicking grandma out in the cold. If cuts in spending have to be made, let them be made first on those who do not require these services.i'm ok with means testing and perhaps raising the contribution ceiling, but cutting the wealthy completely out of the system isn't something i support. if they paid in, they should be able to collect.
there is no such thing as an unbiased economist for the simple enough reason that there is no such thing as an unbiased human being. That being said, you will note that the economist I cited was Christina Romer, who is not exactly a noted Grover Norquist type.i doubt that we're at the far right of the Laffer curve, and i haven't read too many unbiased economists arguing that we were.
I see no historical evidence to suppose that raising rates will increase revenue; especially given that revenue is tied to growth, and that over the past 4-5 decades rate hikes have been recessionary. Growth is screwed if we hike rates. It is not screwed if we slash spending, unless we do it in such a way as to destroy the security guarantee that the US Navy provides to global trade.raising rates will increase revenue, but it has to be done carefully, as do the spending cuts. we definitely need growth, but going over the cliff risks killing both supply and demand sides for years to come. growth is screwed if we go over the cliff.